Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-23, 26-29, 32-33 without traverse in the reply filed on 24 Apr. 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-25 and 30-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 Apr. 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, after “obtained from” and before “co-monomer”, delete “a” and insert “the”
Claim 5, line 7, after “comprises” and before “co-monomer unit”, delete “a” and insert “the”
Claim 5, line 7, after “unit of” and before “vinyl”, delete “a” and insert “the”
Claim 12, line 2, after “from” and before “mineral”, insert “the”
Claim 12, line 2, after “and” and before “organic”, insert “the”
Claim 12, lines 3-4, after “of” and before “organic”, insert “the”
Claim 13, line 3, after “wood” and before “represent”, insert “origin”
Claim 14, line 2, after “of” and before “glass”, insert “the”
Claim 14, line 2, after “and” and before “cellulosic”, insert “the”
Claim 15, lines 1-2, after “comprises” and before “mineral”, insert “the”
Claim 28, line 13, replace “d90” with “d10”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 28, the word or phrase "preferably” and “more preferably”, in lines 3, 4, and 15, renders this claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In the claim rejections below, the examiner will not specifically consider the limitations following the word or phrase “preferably” or “more preferably” in claim 28.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "The gypsum board" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is suggested this claim depend on claim 26, rather than claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-23, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faynot et al. (WO 2013/113459 A1, published 8 Aug. 2013, hereinafter Faynot) in view of Boisvert and Hedman (US Patent Application 2008/0245012 A1, published 09 Oct. 2008, hereinafter Boisvert) and evidence provided by Etmimi (“Hydrophobic core/shell particles via miniemulsion polymerization,” Master of Science thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, published Dec. 2006, hereinafter Etmimi) and Swarup et al. (WO 1999/42500, published 26 Aug. 1999, hereinafter Swarup).
Regarding claims 1-4, Faynot teaches a gypsum board with a core having at least one side covered with a non-woven fabric (Abstract). Faynot teaches that non-woven mat contains a binder (page 7, lines 30-33) and the binder is a mixture of copolymers, including acrylics (page 7, line 35 – page 8, line 3). Faynot teaches impregnating the web of nonwoven with a binder (page 10, lines 26-34). Faynot teaches that the dry weights of the inner and outer plies are 30-150 g/m2 and 10-70 g/m2, respectively (page 32, claim 21) and the impregnation mixture (binder) is 38 g/m2 (page 18, lines 27-29). Thus, the binder composition is 15 [38/(38+150+70)] to 49 wt.% [38/(38+30+10)] of the total weight of the mat. Faynot teaches that the binder is a hydrophobic, self-cross-linkable binder (page 8, lines 2-3).
Faynot does not disclose the composition of the binder.
Boisvert teaches a binder for a gypsum board (Abstract) in which a sheet material comprises glass fibers, natural fibers, synthetic fibers, or woven or non-woven textile (paragraph 0028), the coating wholly penetrates the sheet material (paragraph 0030), and the coating comprises a surfactant, filler particles, a polymeric binder and water (paragraph 0047). Boisvert teaches that the polymeric binder is an acrylic ester synthetic latex (paragraphs 0092-0093) comprising 10 to 95 pphm of a first monomer, 40 to 90 pphm of a second monomer, and 0 to 5 pphm of a functional monomer (paragraph 0095). Boisvert teaches that the first monomer is an alkyl acrylate (paragraph 0096), and the second monomer is mixtures of branched vinyl esters, such as VeoVA 11 and EXXAR Neo-12 (paragraph 0097).
As evidenced by Etmimi, VeoVa 11 is a vinyl ester of versatic acid, a synthetic saturated monocarboxylic acid of highly branched structure, and VeoVA-11 has an 8-carbon alkyl group (page 19, last paragraph and Figure 2.4).
As evidenced by Swarup, EXXAR Neo 12 is a mixture of vinyl neo carboxylic acid esters with an acid having a α, α, α-trisubstituted carbon atom with C9-C13 (page 4, line 9 – page 5, line 2).
The amount of the alkyl acrylate monomer in the copolymer is 9.5 (10/(10+90+5)) to 70 wt.% (95/(95+40+0)), and the amount of the alpha branched acid ester is 20 wt.% (40/(40+95+5)) to 90 wt.% (90/(90+10+0)).
Boisvert teaches that the binder composition contains 0.2 to 20 parts surfactant and 10 to 60 parts polymeric binder to 100 parts of filler (paragraphs 0016-019). Therefore, the amount of copolymer in the binder is 7.7 (10/(10+100+20)) to 37 wt.% (60/(60+100+0.2)), based on solids content.
It is the examiner’s position that the acrylic monomers taught by Boisvert are self-crosslinkable, as his formulations contain free radical polymerization initiators (paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emulsion binder as taught by Boisvert as the acrylic binder for the gypsum board of Faynot. Faynot and Boisvert are analogous art as they are both drawn to gypsum boards, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the emulsion binder of Boisvert as the acrylic binder for the gypsum board of Faynot. Further, Boisvert teaches that the polymer latex is beneficial for the mechanical strength and hydrophobicity properties of the coated substrate (paragraph 0112). Also, Boisvert teaches that his coating composition wholly penetrates the glass fibers, natural fibers, synthetic fibers, or woven or non-woven textile of the sheet material (paragraphs 0028 and 0030).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected relative amounts of binder, copolymer, and alpha branched monomer from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Faynot and Boisvert because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and, as presented above, the binder composition is 15 to 49 wt.% of the total weight of the mat, the amount of copolymer in the binder is 7.7 to 37 wt.%, based on solids content, and the amount of the alpha branched acid ester is 20 to 90 wt.% of the copolymer.
Boisvert disclose the use of copolymer in the binder in the amount of 37 wt.%, while present claim 5 requires 40 wt.%.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of copolymer in the binder and that taught by Boisvert are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of copolymer in the binder disclosed by Boisvert and the amount of copolymer in the binder disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to amount of copolymer in the binder, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of copolymer in the binder disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amount of copolymer in the binder disclosed in Boisvert, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Faynot teaches that urea formaldehyde is one of many binders that may be used in his gypsum board (page 7, line 35 – page 8, line 3), and fluorocarbons or silicone derivatives can be used to provide hydrophobicity to a gypsum board (page 1, lines 21-22). Therefore, neither fluorocarbons nor formaldehyde is required in the fibrous mat of Faynot, and neither are required components in Boisvert’s binder formulations. In light of these disclosures, it is the examiner’s position that the fibrous mat of Faynot in view of Boisvert would inherently obtain the same Class A+ certification for formaldehyde as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Faynot teaches the inclusion of water-resistant additives (agents) (page 9, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 9, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Faynot teaches the inclusion of water-resistant additives (page 9, lines 6-9) and teaches that the inclusion of a filler is optional (page 18, line 25).
Regarding claim 10, 12, 14, 20, and 21, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Faynot teaches that the inner side of the non-woven fabric is in contact with the core and the outer side is in contact with the air (hence, away from the gypsum core) (page 12, lines 9-14 and line 22). Faynot teaches the inner ply comprises of cellulose fibers, mineral, and optionally organic fibers (page 18, lines 5-11) and the outer ply comprises 100% cellulose fibers (page 18, lines 15-16). Faynot teaches that the dry weights of the inner and outer plies are 30-150 g/m2 and 10-70 g/m2, respectively (page 32, claim 21) and 25 to 60% of the inner ply are cellulose fibers and 25 to 60% of the inner ply are glass fibers (page 7, lines 22-26). Thus, cellulose fibers are 55 [(100*10+40*30)/(100*10+40*30+60*30)] to 73 wt.% [(100*70+60*150)/(100*70+60*150+40*150)] of the total fiber composition. Faynot teaches the diameter of the glass fibers is about 23 [Symbol font/0x6D]m (page 18, lines 10-11).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected relative cellulose and glass fibers from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Faynot because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 10, and Faynot teaches that 0% of organic (synthetic, e.g. polyester) may be in the inner and outer plies (page 7, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 15, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 10, and Faynot teaches that the diameter of the glass fibers is about 23 [Symbol font/0x6D]m (page 18, lines 10-11).
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 19, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Faynot teaches the inner side of his non-woven fabric is in contact with the core; this side is embossed; and the surface roughness, Sa, of this inner side is 25 to 60 [Symbol font/0x6D]m (page 12, lines 9-14). Further, Faynot teaches that the roughness of the roughness, Ra, on the outer side (in contact with air, hence away from gypsum core) of the non-woven fabric is less than 25 [Symbol font/0x6D]m (page 12, lines 22-26).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected inner and outer roughness values from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Faynot because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Faynot teaches the overall weight of his mat is between 100 and 200 g/m2 (page 8, lines 24-25); the weights of the inner and outer plies are 30 to 150 g/m2 and 10 to 70 g/m2, respectively (page 32, claim 21); and the weight of the impregnation mixture (binder) is 38 to 56 g/m2, depending on the presence of filler (page 18, lines 27-29).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected inner and outer mat weights and binder amount from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Faynot because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claims 26-27 and 29, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Faynot teaches that gypsum boards consist of a fibrous mat of a nonwoven wrapped around a thicker layer of gypsum, which is a hydratable calcium sulfate (page 1, lines 9-12). Faynot teaches the gypsum composition includes water-resistant additives and fire-resistant glass fibers or mineral fillers (page 1, lines 14-19), and Faynot teaches Cobb 2 hours values of 62-73 g/m2 (page 28, lines 13-20).
Faynot in view of Boisvert does not disclose the ratio of flexural strength to basis weight of the mat. However, given that the gypsum board as taught by Faynot in view of Boisvert has the same gypsum core and the same fibrous mat as the claimed invention, within the overlapping ranges, the gypsum board of Faynot in view of Boisvert would inherently have the same ratio of flexural strength to basis weight of the mat as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for the ratio of flexural strength to basis weight of the mat.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faynot et al. (WO 2013/113459 A1, published 8 Aug. 2013, hereinafter Faynot) in view of Boisvert and Hedman (US Patent Application 2008/0245012 A1, published 09 Oct. 2008, hereinafter Boisvert) and further in view of Bledzki and Faruk (“Microcellar injection molded wood fiber-PP composites: Part II – Effect of wood fiber length and content on cell morphology and physico-mechanical properties,” J.Cellular Plastics, Vol. 42, published January 2006, hereinafter Bledzki) and evidence provided by Etmimi (“Hydrophobic core/shell particles via miniemulsion polymerization,” Master of Science thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, published Dec. 2006, hereinafter Etmimi) and Swarup et al. (WO 1999/42500, published 26 Aug. 1999, hereinafter Swarup).
Regarding claim 13, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 10, and Faynot teaches that the cellulose fibers are obtained from paper, paperboard, or wood (page 7, line 28).
Faynot in view of Boisvert does not disclose the amounts of soft and hard wood fibers.
Bledzki teaches that the type of wood used, i.e. soft or hard, affects the mechanical properties (pages 83-85). Bledzki further teaches that fine soft wood fibers showed the highest specific tensile strength due to their finest microcellular structure (page 85, 1st paragraph).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use hard wood fibers and soft wood fibers in Faynot in view of Boisvert, including in amounts as presently claimed, in order to produce non-woven fabric with desired mechanical properties including tensile strength as taught by Bledzki.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faynot et al. (WO 2013/113459 A1, published 8 Aug. 2013, hereinafter Faynot) in view of Boisvert and Hedman (US Patent Application 2008/0245012 A1, published 09 Oct. 2008, hereinafter Boisvert) and further in view of Ye at al. (“Effect of particle size distribution on the hydration and compressive strength development of α-calcium sulfate hemihydrate paste,” Powder Tech., Vol. 207, pp 208-214, published 2011 (Available online 11 Nov. 2010), hereinafter Ye) and evidence provided by Etmimi (“Hydrophobic core/shell particles via miniemulsion polymerization,” Master of Science thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, published Dec. 2006, hereinafter Etmimi) and Swarup et al. (WO 1999/42500, published 26 Aug. 1999, hereinafter Swarup).
Regarding claim 28, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 27, and Faynot teaches a gypsum board with sufficient water-resistant and fire-resistant additives to absorb less than 10% water according to ASTM method C-473 and achieve an ASTM-E119 fire rating of at least one hour (page 33, claims 28 and 29).
Faynot teaches that gypsum boards consist of a fibrous mat of a nonwoven wrapped around a thicker layer of gypsum, which is a hydratable calcium sulfate (page 1, lines 9-12), and Faynot teaches that the properties of his gypsum board can be tuned according to its intended final use (page 1, lines 18-19).
Faynot in view of Boisvert does not disclose the particle size distribution of his hydratable calcium sulfate.
Ye teaches that the particle size distribution of calcium sulfate is correlated with the hydration and compressive strength of the calcium sulfate paste (Abstract and Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the particle size distribution of the calcium sulfate to optimize properties as taught by Ye in the gypsum board as taught by Faynot in view of Boisvert. Faynot and Ye are analogous art as they are both drawn to calcium sulfate gypsum plasters, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the particle size distribution of the calcium sulfate as taught by Ye in the gypsum board taught by Faynot in view of Boisvert. Further, Ye teaches that the particle size distribution of calcium sulfate is correlated with the hydration and compressive strength of the calcium sulfate paste (Abstract), and the particle fineness and distribution width play a great role in the water–hemihydrate weight ratio (W/H) for standard consistency of the paste, hydration rate, compressive strength, and microstructure of paste (Abstract, page 213, 2nd column, 4. Conclusions section, 1st paragraph, and Figure 2).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faynot et al. (WO 2013/113459 A1, published 8 Aug. 2013, hereinafter Faynot) in view of Boisvert and Hedman (US Patent Application 2008/0245012 A1, published 09 Oct. 2008, hereinafter Boisvert) and further in view of McDonald (US Patent Application 2008/0245007 A1, published 09 Oct. 2008, hereinafter McDonald) and evidence provided by Etmimi (“Hydrophobic core/shell particles via miniemulsion polymerization,” Master of Science thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, published Dec. 2006, hereinafter Etmimi) and Swarup et al. (WO 1999/42500, published 26 Aug. 1999, hereinafter Swarup).
Regarding claims 32-33, Faynot in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 26, and Faynot teaches his gypsum board is suitable for being used as building material, including in outdoor exposure (page 1, lines 3-7).
Faynot in view of Boisvert does not disclose explicitly the configurations with which gypsum boards are used in the building industry.
McDonald teaches a structural insulated panel for building construction comprising a pair of gypsum cellulose fiber boards disposed on opposed surfaces of a plastic foam core. (Abstract). McDonald teaches that this structural panel is then attached to an exterior wood or steel framing (paragraph 0032). McDonald teaches that an adhesive is used to attach the outer facing to the insulating foam core (paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the building construction system taught by McDonald as the means to utilized the gypsum board taught by Faynot in view of Boisvert. Faynot and McDonald are analogous art as they are both drawn to gypsum board as a building material, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in employing the building construction system taught by McDonald as the means to utilize the gypsum board taught by Faynot in view of Boisvert. Further, McDonald teaches his building construction system represents an improvement over the prior art by providing a low cost structural insulated panel having a plastic foam inner core and opposed outer facings comprised of gypsum wood fiberboard without the need for structural wood sheathing which has previously been used on the exterior surface panels for structural strength when gypsum were used on the interior facing (paragraph 0012).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-16, 22-23, 26-27, 29, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclercq and Butler (US Patent Application 2006/0068186 A1, published 30 Mar. 2006, hereinafter Leclercq) in view of Boisvert and Hedman (US Patent Application 2008/0245012 A1, published 09 Oct. 2008, hereinafter Boisvert) and evidence provided by Etmimi (“Hydrophobic core/shell particles via miniemulsion polymerization,” Master of Science thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, published Dec. 2006, hereinafter Etmimi) and Swarup et al. (WO 1999/42500, published 26 Aug. 1999, hereinafter Swarup).
Regarding claims 1-3, and 5, Leclercq teaches a gypsum board with a core having at least one side covered with a non-woven and a binder (paragraphs 0010 and 0015). Leclercq teaches the binder contain acrylics (paragraph 0041). Leclercq teaches impregnating the web with a binder (paragraph 0046). Leclercq teaches that the dry weights of the inner and outer plies are 30-150 g/m2 and 10-70 g/m2, respectively (paragraph 0043) and the binder represent from about 10 to 100 g/m2 (paragraph 0043). Thus, the binder composition is 20 [10/(10+30+10)] to 31 wt.% [100/(100+150+70)] of the total weight of the mat. Leclercq teaches the use of a self-cross-linkable binder (claim 8).
Leclercq does not disclose the composition of the binder.
Boisvert teaches a binder for a gypsum board (Abstract) in which a sheet material comprises glass fibers, natural fibers, synthetic fibers, or woven or non-woven textile (paragraph 0028), the coating wholly penetrates the sheet material (paragraph 0030), and the coating comprises a surfactant, filler particles, a polymeric binder and water (paragraph 0047). Boisvert teaches that the polymeric binder is an acrylic ester synthetic latex (paragraph 0092-0093) comprising 10 to 95 pphm of a first monomer, 40 to 90 pphm of a second monomer, and 0 to 5 pphm of a functional monomer (paragraph 0095). Boisvert teaches that the first monomer is an alkyl acrylate (paragraph 0096), and the second monomer is mixtures of branched vinyl esters, such as VeoVA 11 and EXXAR Neo-12 (paragraph 0097).
As evidenced by Etmimi, VeoVa 11 is a vinyl ester of versatic acid, a synthetic saturated monocarboxylic acid of highly branched structure, and VeoVA-11 has an 8-carbon alkyl group (page 19, last paragraph and Figure 2.4).
As evidenced by Swarup, EXXAR Neo 12 is a mixture of vinyl neo carboxylic acid esters with an acid having a α, α, α-trisubstituted carbon atom with C9-C13 (page 4, line 9 – page 5, line 2).
The amount of the alkyl acrylate monomer in the copolymer is 9.5 (10/(10+90+5)) to 70 wt.% (95/(95+40+0)), and the amount of the alpha branched acid ester is 20 wt.% (40/(40+95+5)) to 90 wt.% (90/(90+10+0)).
Boisvert teaches that the binder composition contains 0.2 to 20 parts surfactant and 10 to 60 parts polymeric binder to 100 parts of filler (paragraphs 0016-019). Therefore, the amount of copolymer in the binder is 7.7 (10/(10+100+20)) to 37 wt.% (60/(60+100+0.2)), based on solids content.
Boisvert disclose the use of copolymer in the binder in the amount of 37 wt.%, while present claim 5 requires 40 wt.%.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of copolymer in the binder and that taught by Boisvert are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of copolymer in the binder disclosed by Boisvert and the amount of copolymer in the binder disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to amount of copolymer in the binder, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of copolymer in the binder disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amount of copolymer in the binder disclosed in Boisvert, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
It is the examiner’s position that the acrylic monomers taught by Boisvert are self-crosslinkable, as his formulations contain free radical polymerization initiators (paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emulsion binder as taught by Boisvert as the acrylic binder for the gypsum board of Leclercq. Leclercq and Boisvert are analogous art as they are both drawn to gypsum boards, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the emulsion binder of Boisvert as the acrylic binder for the gypsum board of Leclercq. Further, Boisvert teaches that the polymer latex is beneficial for the mechanical strength and hydrophobicity properties of the coated substrate (paragraph 0112). Also, Boisvert teaches that his coating composition wholly penetrates the glass fibers, natural fibers, synthetic fibers, or woven or non-woven textile of the sheet material (paragraphs 0028 and 0030).
Regarding claim 6, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Leclercq teaches that fluorocarbon repellant is a water-resistant or repellant agent, but any type of water resistant additives can be used (paragraph 0042). Leclercq teaches that binders incorporating formaldehyde can be used, but any binder typically used in the mat industry can be used (paragraph 041). Therefore, neither fluorocarbons nor formaldehyde are required in the fibrous mat taught by Leclercq, and neither are required components in Boisvert’s binder formulations. In light of this, it is the examiner’s position that the fibrous mat of Leclercq in view of Boisvert would inherently obtain the same Class A+ certification for formaldehyde as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Leclercq teaches the inclusion of mineral filler particles in the non-woven mat-facer (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Leclercq teaches the inclusion of a mineral filler is optional, that is, in one embodiment a mineral filler is present (paragraph 0031) and the mat-facer may contain a fungicide/biocide (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Leclercq teaches the inner ply contains 25-60 wt.% of cellulose fibers, 25-60 wt.% of mineral fibers, and 0 to 30% organic (synthetic) fibers (paragraph 0034) and the outer ply comprises essentially cellulose fibers, 100% (paragraph 0031). Leclercq teaches the use of glass (mineral) fibers with diameters of 15 [Symbol font/0x6D]m or lower or 23 [Symbol font/0x6D]m or higher (paragraph 0036). For the embodiment with 0% organic (synthetic) fibers, and given that Leclercq teaches that the dry weights of the inner and outer plies are 30-150 g/m2 and 10-70 g/m2, respectively (paragraph 0043), the mat contains only glass (mineral) and cellulose (organic) fibers; and the amount of cellulose (organic) fibers is about 55 [(100*10+40*30)/(100*10+40*30+60*30)] to 73% [(100*70+60*150)/(100*70+60*150+40*150)].
Regarding claim 11, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 10, and Leclercq teaches the outer ply comprises essentially cellulose fibers, 100% (paragraph 0031) and the inner ply may contain 0% organic (synthetic, e.g. polyester) fibers (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Leclercq teaches the inner ply may represent from about 30 to about 150 g/m2, the outerply may represents from about 10 to about 70 g/m2, the binder may represent from about 10 to about 100 g/m2 or the binder and filler together may represent from about 20 to about 150 g/m2, and the entire mat-facer represents for example from about 100 to about 200 g/m2 (paragraph 0043).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected inner and outer mat weights and binder amount from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Leclerq because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claims 26-27 and 29, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 1, and Leclercq teaches his fibrous mat is used to make a gypsum board (paragraph 0001), and his gypsum core the core comprises water-resistant additive in an amount Sufficient Such that the core absorbs less than about 10% water when tested in accordance with ASTM method C-473 and wherein the core comprises fire-resistant additive in an amount sufficient such that the board achieves an ASTM E-119 fire rating of at least about one hour (paragraph 0011).
Leclercq in view of Boisvert does not disclose the Cobb 2 hours value nor the ratio of flexural strength to basis weight of the mat. However, given that the gypsum board as taught by Faynot in view of Boisvert has the same gypsum core and the same fibrous mat as the claimed invention, within the overlapping ranges, the gypsum board of Faynot in view of Boisvert would inherently have the same Cobb 2 hours value and the same ratio of flexural strength to basis weight of the mat as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for the Cobb 2 hours value and the ratio of flexural strength to basis weight of the mat.
Regarding claims 32-33, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 26, and Leclercq teaches an exterior insulation system for a building comprising a mat-facer gypsum board, insulating mate rial having an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of which is adhered to the surface of the mat-facer of said gypsum board by an adhesive material, and an exterior finishing material overlying the outer surface of said insulating material, wherein said mat-facer of the gypsum board comprises at least two plies, an inner ply and an outer ply, where the inner ply is in contact with the core of said gypsum board and where said mat-facer comprises a fibrous nonwoven inner ply and an outer ply (paragraph 0012), said inner ply and said outer ply comprising fibers and/or particles, the fibers in the inner ply and the fibers and/or particles in the outer ply being bonded together with a same resinous binder (paragraph , and an internal wet or humid area partition assembly system comprising metal or wood framework or studs for support of a board (paragraph 0016).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclercq and Butler (US 2006/0068186, published 30 Mar. 2006, hereinafter Leclercq) in view of Boisvert and Hedman (US Patent Application 2008/0245012 A1, published 09 Oct. 2008, hereinafter Boisvert) and further in view of Bledzki and Faruk (“Microcellar injection molded wood fiber-PP composites: Part II – Effect of wood fiber length and content on cell morphology and physico-mechanical properties,” J.Cellular Plastics, Vol. 42, published January 2006, hereinafter Bledzki) and evidence provided by Etmimi (“Hydrophobic core/shell particles via miniemulsion polymerization,” Master of Science thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, published Dec. 2006, hereinafter Etmimi) and Swarup et al. (WO 1999/42500, published 26 Aug. 1999, hereinafter Swarup).
Regarding claim 13, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 10, and Leclercq teaches that the cellulose fibers are obtained from recycled kraft papers or from wood.
Leclercq in view of Boisvert does not disclose the amounts of soft and hard wood fibers.
Bledzki teaches that the type of wood used, i.e. soft or hard, affects the mechanical properties (pages 83-85). Bledzki further teaches that fine soft wood fibers showed the highest specific tensile strength due to their finest microcellular structure (page 85, 1st paragraph).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use hard wood fibers and soft wood fibers in Leclercq in view of Boisvert, including in amounts as presently claimed, in order to produce non-woven fabric with desired mechanical properties including tensile strength.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclercq and Butler (US 2006/0068186, published 30 Mar. 2006, hereinafter Leclercq) in view of Boisvert and Hedman (US Patent Application 2008/0245012 A1, published 09 Oct. 2008, hereinafter Boisvert) and further in view of Ye at al. (“Effect of particle size distribution on the hydration and compressive strength development of α-calcium sulfate hemihydrate paste,” Powder Tech., Vol. 207, pp 208-214, published 2011 (Available online 11 Nov. 2010), hereinafter Ye) and evidence provided by Etmimi (“Hydrophobic core/shell particles via miniemulsion polymerization,” Master of Science thesis, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, published Dec. 2006, hereinafter Etmimi) and Swarup et al. (WO 1999/42500, published 26 Aug. 1999, hereinafter Swarup).
Regarding claim 28, Leclercq in view of Boisvert teaches the elements of claim 27, and Leclercq teaches his fibrous mat is used to make a gypsum board (paragraph 0001), and his gypsum core the core comprises water-resistant additive in an amount Sufficient Such that the core absorbs less than about 10% water when tested in accordance with ASTM method C-473 and wherein the core comprises fire-resistant additive in an amount sufficient such that the board achieves an ASTM E-119 fire rating of at least about one hour (paragraph 0011).
Faynot teaches that gypsum boards consist of a fibrous mat of a nonwoven wrapped around a gypsum core, which is a hydratable calcium sulfate (paragraphs 0010 and 0020).
Faynot in view of Boisvert does not disclose the particle size distribution of his hydratable calcium sulfate.
Ye teaches that the particle size distribution of calcium sulfate is correlated with the hydration and compressive strength of the calcium sulfate paste (Abstract and Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the particle size distribution of the calcium sulfate to optimize properties as taught by Ye in the gypsum board as taught by Leclercq in view of Boisvert. Leclercq and Ye are analogous art as they are both drawn to calcium sulfate gypsum plasters, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the particle size distribution of the calcium sulfate as taught by Ye in the gypsum board taught by Leclercq in view of Boisvert. Further, Ye teaches that the particle size distribution of calcium sulfate is correlated with the hydration and compressive strength of the calcium sulfate paste (Abstract), and the particle fineness and distribution width play a great role in the water–hemihydrate weight ratio (W/H) for standard consistency of the paste, hydration rate, compressive strength, and microstructure of paste (Abstract, page 213, 2nd column, 4. Conclusions section, 1st paragraph, and Figure 2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-23, 26-29, and 32-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22, 25-27, and 29-30 of issued US Patent 12,012,352 B2, issued 18 Jun. 2024 (Application No. 15/517,205). Although some of the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of overlapping ranges. As shown in Table 1, the claims and their interdependencies are identical or not patently distinct to corresponding claims in US Patent 12,012,352 B2.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1: Listing of corresponding claims for double patenting rejections
Application 18/659,302
US Patent 12,012,352
Application 15/517,205
Claim 1. A fibrous mat for a gypsum board comprising at least one ply of a non-woven fabric and a binder composition, wherein: said binder composition represents from 10 to 40 wt% of the total weight of the mat; and said binder composition comprises a copolymer comprising a co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid, said copolymer being present in an amount from 25 to 100 wt% of the binder composition weight.
Claim 2: The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said copolymer of the binder composition is a copolymer obtained from a co-monomer which is a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid and a co-monomer which is an acrylate monomer.
Claim 4. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid is present in said copolymer in an amount of 20 to 70 wt%.
Claim 1. A fibrous mat for a gypsum board comprising at least one ply of a non-woven fabric and a binder composition impregnated therein, wherein: said binder composition represents from 10 to 40 wt% of the total weight of the mat; said binder composition comprises a copolymer comprising a co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid and an acrylic co-monomer, wherein the co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid is present in an amount of 40 to 70 wt % of the copolymer and the acrylic co-monomer is present in an amount of 34 to 60 wt % of the copolymer; and said copolymer being present in an amount from 50 to 100 wt % of the binder composition weight; wherein the fibrous mat is a facer of the gypsum board.
Claim 2: The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said copolymer of the binder composition is a copolymer obtained from the co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid and the acrylic co-monomer which is an acrylate monomer
Claim 3. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said copolymer comprises a co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having a chain length from 5 to 20 carbon atoms.
Claim 3. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said copolymer comprises a co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having a chain length from 5 to 20 carbon atoms.
Claim 5. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein: said binder composition represents from 20 to 30 wt% of the total weight of the mat; said copolymer of the binder composition is present in the binder composition in an amount from 40 to 60 wt% of the binder weight; and said copolymer comprises a co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having a chain length from 7 to 15 carbon atoms in an amount ranging from 40 to 50 wt% of said copolymer weight.
Claim 4: The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein: said binder composition represents from 20 to 30 wt % of the total weight of the fibrous mat; and said copolymer of the binder composition is present in the binder composition in an amount from 50 to 60 wt % of the binder composition weight; and said copolymer comprises the co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having a chain length from 7 to 15 carbon atoms in an amount ranging from 40 to 50 wt % of said copolymer weight.
Claim 6. The fibrous mat according claim 1, wherein the binder composition is free or substantially free of fluorocarbons and/or formaldehydes.
Claim 5. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein the binder composition is free or substantially free of fluorocarbons and/or formaldehydes.
Claim 7. The fibrous mat according claim 1, wherein: said binder composition represents from 20 to 30 wt% of the total weight of the mat; and wherein the binder composition comprises a mixture of a copolymer comprising a co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid in an amount from 40 to 60 wt% of the binder composition weight, and of an acrylic self-cross-linkable copolymer in an amount from 60 to 40 wt% of the binder composition weight.
Claim 6. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein: said binder composition represents from 20 to 30 wt % of the total weight of the fibrous mat; and wherein the binder composition comprises a mixture of a copolymer comprising said co-monomer unit of a vinyl ester of an alpha branched aliphatic monocarboxylic acid in an amount from 40 to 60 wt % of the binder composition weight, and of an acrylic self-cross-linkable copolymer in an amount from 60 to 40 wt% of the binder composition weight.
Claim 8. The fibrous mat according claim 1, wherein the binder composition further comprises one or more additives selected from the list consisting of mineral filler particles, water resistant agents, water repellent agents, biocides, fire resistant agents, and pigments.
Claim 7. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein the binder composition further comprises one or more additives selected from the group consisting of mineral filler particles, water resistant agents, water repellent agents, biocides, fire resistant agents, and pigments.
Claim 9. The fibrous mat according claim 1, wherein the binder composition further comprises additives and is free or substantially free of a mineral filler.
Claim 8. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein the binder composition further comprises additives and is free or substantially free of a mineral filler.
Claim 10. The fibrous mat according claim 1, wherein said non-woven fabric comprises fibres selected from the list consisting of:
- mineral fibres selected from the list consisting of glass fibres and basalt fibres;
- synthetic polymeric fibres selected from the list consisting of polyamide fibres, polyaramide fibres, polyethylene fibres, polypropylene fibres, polyester fibres; and
- organic fibres which are cellulose based fibres such as flax, wood pulp, cotton fibres, sisal, abaca, viscose, rayon, and/or lyocell;
wherein said cellulose based fibres represent more than 25 wt% of the weight of the non-woven fabric.
Claim 9: The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said non-woven fabric comprises fibres selected from the group consisting of:
- mineral fibres selected from the group consisting of glass fibres and basalt fibres;
- synthetic polymeric fibres selected from the group consisting of polyamide fibres, polyaramide fibres, polyethylene fibres, polypropylene fibres, polyester fibres; and
-organic fibres which are cellulose based fibres selected from the group consisting of flax, wood pulp, cotton fibres, sisal, abaca, viscose, rayon, and lyocell;
wherein said cellulose based fibres represent more than 25 wt % of the weight of the non-woven fabric.
Claim 11. The fibrous mat according to claim 10, wherein said non-woven fabric is free or substantially free of polyester fibres.
Claim 10. The fibrous mat according to claim 9, wherein said non-woven fabric is free or substantially free of polyester fibres.
Claim 12. The fibrous mat according claim 10, wherein said non-woven fabric comprises fibres selected from mineral fibres and organic fibres; wherein the amount of organic fibres varies from 40 to 100 wt% of the total weight of the fibre composition.
Claim 11. The fibrous mat according to claim 9, wherein said non-woven fabric comprises fibres selected from the mineral fibres and the organic fibres, and wherein the amount of organic fibres varies from 40 to 100 wt% of the total weight of the fibres.
Claim 13. The fibrous mat according to claim 10, wherein said cellulose based fibres comprise fibres of soft wood origin and fibres of hard wood origin, wherein said fibres of soft wood represent from 25 to 85 wt% of the total weight of the cellulose based fibres.
Claim 12. The fibrous mat according to claim 9, wherein said cellulose based fibres comprise fibres of soft wood origin and fibres of hard wood origin, and wherein said fibres of soft wood origin represent from 25 to 85 wt % of the total weight of the cellulose based fibres.
Claim 14. The fibrous mat according to claim 10, wherein the fibres of said non-woven fabric consist of glass fibres and cellulosic based fibres.
Claim 13. The fibrous mat according to claim 9, the fibres of said non-woven fabric consisting of the glass fibres and the cellulosic based fibres.
Claim 15. The fibrous mat according to claim 10, wherein said non-woven fabric comprises mineral fibres with an average diameter below 40 µm.
Claim 14. The fibrous mat according to claim 9, wherein said mineral fibres have an average diameter of from 2 to 11 μm.
Claim 16. The fibrous mat according to claim 10, wherein said non-woven fabric comprises a mixture of cellulose based fibres and glass fibres:
- said glass fibres comprise glass fibers having an average diameter from 6 to 20 µm; and
- said cellulose based fibres being present in the mixture in an amount from 40 to 85 wt% of the total weight of the fibres.
Claim 15. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said non-woven fabric comprises a mixture of cellulose based fibres and glass fibres:
- said glass fibres comprise glass fibers having an average diameter from 10 to 15 μm; and
- said cellulose based fibres being present in the mixture in an amount from 40 to 85 wt% of the total weight of the fibres.
Claim 17. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said mat has two sides, an inner side that is intended to contact the gypsum core, and an outer side that is intended to face away of the gypsum core, wherein an embossing pattern is formed at least on one side of the mat.
Claim 16. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said fibrous mat has two sides, an inner side that is intended to contact a gypsum core, and an outer side that is intended to face away from the gypsum core, wherein an embossing pattern is formed at least on one side of the fibrous mat.
Claim 18. The fibrous mat according to claim 17, said fibrous mat comprising a specific surface roughness Sa in at least one of said two sides, said surface roughness Sa being less than 60 µm.
Claim 17. The fibrous mat according to claim 16, said fibrous mat comprising a surface roughness Sa in at least one of said two sides, said surface roughness Sa being less than 60 μm.
Claim 19: The fibrous mat according to claim 17, wherein the surface roughness of the inner side is in the range of 10 to 40 µm and the surface roughness of the outer side is less than 12 µm.
Claim 18. The fibrous mat according to claim 16, wherein the inner side and the outer side each comprise a surface roughness, and wherein the inner side comprises a surface roughness in a range of 10 to 40 μm and the outer side comprises surface roughness is less than 12 μm.
Claim 20. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said mat comprises two plies of a non-woven fabric, one of said two plies being an inner ply intended to contact a gypsum core, and an outer ply intended to face away from said gypsum core; wherein the composition of the inner ply is different from the composition of the outer ply.
Claim 19. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein said mat comprises two plies of a non-woven fabric, one of said two plies being an inner ply intended to contact a gypsum core, and an outer ply intended to face away from said gypsum core; wherein the composition of the inner ply is different from the composition of the outer ply
Claim 21. The fibrous mat according to claim 20, wherein the inner ply comprises a mixture of organic fibres and mineral fibres and said fibres are present in the mixture in a ratio from 50 to 60% of organic fibres to 40 to 50% of mineral fibres; and/or the outer ply comprises more than 90% of organic fibres.
Claim 20. The fibrous mat according to claim 19, wherein the inner ply comprises a mixture of organic fibres and mineral fibres and said fibres are present in the mixture in a ratio from 50 to 60% of organic fibres to 40 to 50% of mineral fibres; and/or the outer ply comprises more than 90% of organic fibres.
Claim 22. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein the total basis weight of the fibrous mat is from 80 to 160 g/m2.
Claim 21. The fibrous mat according to claim 1, wherein the total basis weight of the fibrous mat is from 80 to 160 g/m2.
Claim 23. The fibrous mat according to claim 22, wherein based on the final weight of the fibrous mat, the inner ply represents from about 30 to about 120 g/m2, the outer ply represents from about 10 to about 70 g/m2, and the binder composition represents from about 20 to about 60 g/m2.
Claim 22. The fibrous mat according to claim 19, wherein based on the final weight of the fibrous mat, the inner ply represents from about 30 to about 120 g/m2, the outer ply represents from about 10 to about 70 g/m2, and the binder composition represents from about 20 to about 60 g/m2.
Claim 26. A gypsum board comprising a gypsum core with at least one side covered by a fibrous mat according to claim 1.
Claim 27. The gypsum board according to claim 26, wherein the gypsum board further contains a water resistant agent, fire resistant agent, a mineral filler, a biocide and/or a pigment in its core and/or in its non-woven fabric.
Claim 25. A gypsum board comprising a gypsum core with at least one side covered by the fibrous mat according to claim 1; wherein the gypsum board further comprises a water resistant agent, fire resistant agent, a mineral filler, a biocide and/or a pigment in said gypsum core and/or in said nonwoven fabric of said fibrous mat.
Claim 28. The gypsum board according to claim 27, wherein the gypsum core comprises:
- at least a water-resistant additive, in an amount sufficient such that the core absorbs less than about 10%, preferably less than about 5%, more preferably less than about 3%, water when tested in accordance with ASTM method C-473 and/or in accordance with EN 520 method section 5.9.2.,
- at least a fire--resistant additive in an amount sufficient such that the board achieves an ASTM E-119 and/or C36-95 fire rating of at least about one hour, and/or
- set hydratable calcium sulphate, obtained from a hydratable calcium sulphate having a particle size dist1ibution such that, after splitting in water:
- d90 is from l to 2µm; and
- d50 is from 5 to 5µm; and/or
- d90 is from 35 to 85µm, preferably d90 is from 35 to 50 µm, or d90 is from 50 to 85 µm.
Claim 26. The gypsum board according to claim 25, wherein the
gypsum core comprises: at least a water-resistant additive, in an amount sufficient such that the core absorbs less than about 10% water
when tested in accordance with ASTM method C-473
and/or in accordance with EN 520 method section 5.9.2, at least a fire-resistant additive in an amount sufficient such that the board achieves an ASTM E-119 and/or C36-95 fire rating of at least about one hour, and/or set hydratable calcium sulphate, obtained from a hydratable calcium sulphate having a particle size distribution such that, after splitting in water:
dl 0 is from 1 to 2 μm; and
d50 is from 5 to 35 μm; and/or
d90 is from 35 to 85 μm.
Claim 29. The gypsum board to claim 1, said gypsum board having a Cobb 2 hours value less than 100g/m2 and a ratio Flexural strength / basis weight of the mat of at least 5.5 in ambient conditions (23°C; 50%RH) when calculated in MD with breaking load of 660N for a 12.5mm board and a mat weight of 120 g/m2, and of at least 5 in humid conditions (30°C 90%RH).
Claim 27. The gypsum board according to claim 25, said gypsum board having a Cobb 2 hours value less than 100 g/m2 and a ratio Flexural strength/basis weight of the mat of at least 5.5 in ambient conditions (23°C.; 50% RH) when calculated in MD with breaking load of 660N for a 12.5 mm board and a mat weight of 120 g/m2, and of at least 5 in humid conditions (30°C. 90% RH).
Claim 32. A system for being used in the interior or exterior of a building comprising a gypsum board according to claim 26.
Claim 29. A system for an interior or exterior of a building comprising the gypsum board according to claim 26.
Claim 33. The system according to claim 32, further comprising:
- an insulating material having an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of which is adhered to the surface of the non-woven fabric of said gypsum board by an adhesive material and an exterior finishing material overlying the outer surface of said insulating material, optionally including a reinforcing member sandwiched between said insulating material and said finishing material; or
- an underlying structural support element which is covered with an overlying finishing material; or
- a metal or wood framework, or studs for supporting said gypsum board.
Claim 30. The system according to claim 29, further comprising: an insulating material having an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of which is adhered to the surface of the non-woven fabric of said gypsum board by an adhesive material and an exterior finishing material overlying the outer surface of said insulating material, optionally including a reinforcing member sandwiched between said insulating material and said finishing material; or
- an underlying structural support element which is covered with an overlying finishing material; or
- a metal or wood framework, or studs for supporting said gypsum board.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Faynot, Boisvert, Bledzki, Ye, McDonald, Leclercq, and the references listed below do not teach a binder for a fibrous mat comprising an acrylic/vinyl ester of an alpha-branched aliphatic carboxylic acid and an acrylic self-cross-linkable copolymer in the claimed amounts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Randall and Smith (US Patent Application 2004/0209074 A1, published 21 Oct. 2004) teach a mat faced gypsum board comprising a binder containing a hydrophobic copolymer latex of a branched vinyl ester and an acrylate. Dubey and Peng (US Patent 2014/0272402 A1, published 18 Sep. 2014) teach a cementitious article with a hydrophobic finish comprising a copolymer of a VeoVa monomer and vinyl acetate or ethylene and an acrylic copolymer. Reck et al. (US Patent Application 2002/0007005 A1, published 17 Jan. 2002) teaches an aqueous composition for coating mineral molding comprising a VeoVa monomer and an acrylate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights