DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed July 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended.
The Section 112, 2nd paragraph rejections made in the Office action mailed April 22nd, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made.
The Section 102/103 rejections made in the Office action mailed April 22nd, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Groza teaches away from the currently claimed invention by teaching that the nonwoven faces are “not embedded”. This is unpersuasive for at least two reasons.
Groza explicitly teaches that the nonwoven mats can be “not completely embedded” and “not fully embedded” and they are only stated to be “not embedded” is in reference to the woven/scrim reinforcement mats that are fully embedded. The Examiner takes this to mean the nonwoven mats are only “not embedded” relative to the woven/scrim reinforcement mats and that “do not embed” is an equivalent phrase to “not fully/completely/substantially embedded”. Furthermore, the nonwoven mats are taught to beneficially remain attached/bonded to the cementitious material such that they form a part of the finished product [0104, 0330, 0380, 0414], which indicates at least some embedding is required (as there are no adhesive or lamination processes taught). Lastly, only the meltblown layer, which is an intermediate layer sandwiched between spunbond layers, is taught to be the slurry impermeable layer in the preferred multilayer embodiment, which indicates the other spunbond layers are slurry permeable.
Applicant further cites the preferred ranges of embedment and cites it as a deescalating series of values, narrowing the desired range. This is not how the ranges are set forth, the ranges are “preferably, less than about 50%...more preferably less than about 30%...furthermore preferably less than about 15%, less than about 5%”, wherein the final range does not have “preferably” describing it, and notably the series does not include “0% embedded”, which if the nonwoven mats were to be truly “not embedded” should have been an obvious inclusion.
Furthermore, the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the prior art, relevant for all they contain. A known or obvious product does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. Also, even if the Examiner did not believe that Applicant was mischaracterizing the reference, “nonpreferred disclosures can be used. A nonpreferred portion of a reference disclosure is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims.” In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960) & MPEP 2123.
Lastly, Applicant’s claim is not directed to an embedded nonwoven, but is merely described as “covering and attached to” which would make it equivalent to the attached facer of Groza, even if it were not embedded.
Applicant argues that none of the references teach the meltblown lamina as comprising fibers of 10 microns or less. The Examiner disagrees.
Dubey teaches that details of the SMS laminate comprising an impermeable nonwoven are disclosed in Brock, which is fully incorporated by reference [0021], wherein Brock teaches the meltblown layer(s) has/have an average fiber diameter up to about 10 microns, usually about 2 to 6 microns, and the spunbond layer(s) comprise an average fiber diameter of greater than 12 microns up to about 55, preferably 15 to 25 microns (abstract, col. 2, lines 27-45; col. 3, lines 3-11), with a polypropylene-based embodiment comprising meltblown fibers of 6 microns and spunbond fibers of 18 microns (Example 1), the nonwoven webs being bonded to each other to provide a unitary structure with load-bearing capacity and stress without adverse effects to flexibility via thermal point bonding formed by the application of heat and pressure (adhesive-free) (col. 2, lines 5-12 & col. 4, lines 14-54)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 & 4-5 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 claims 2 and 4, the second lamina is already disclosed to be “a meltblown lamina” and “comprising meltblown fibers”.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if one of the “at least two meltblown laminas” comprises the “meltblown lamina” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 & 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groza et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0189737 A1) (hereinafter “Groza”) in view of Dubey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0134371 A1) (hereinafter “Dubey”) and Knauf et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,993,822) (hereinafter “Knauf”) and/or Brown et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0193381 A1) (hereinafter “Brown”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 8-11, Groza teaches a fiber reinforced cement panel usable as a building applications [0104, 0195, 0303] comprising a core of a continuous phrase comprising set/cured hydraulic binder having first and second opposing major faces connected by opposing longitudinal edge faces, comprising a nonwoven fiber mat facer [0376-0414], such as a glass fiber mat or preferably a polypropylene fiber mat for alkali-resistance comprising a laminate structure of a slurry-impermeable meltblown layer (second lamina) disposed between two slurry-permeable spunbond layers (same or different implied) (first and third laminas) such that the nonwoven polymer fiber laminate facer is covering and attached, even partially embedded (up to 50% the thickness) in the covered core surfaces [0380, 0398, 0407-0408, 0410], wherein the nonwoven polymer fiber laminate is attached to and covering a lower (first) surface of the core (Figs. 10-10E [444A]) and folded over both longitudinal side faces (Figs. 10-10E [444B/444C]) and adjacent surfaces of the upper (second) major face (Fig. 10C), wherein a continuous embedded reinforcement (Figs. 10-10E [344]) for flexural strength, such as a fiberglass scrim (inorganic mesh), can be embedded in a lower (first) major face (and the upper major face) by placing the continuous embedded reinforcement before the headbox that disperses the cementitious reinforcement (or after/during for the upper major face) [0289-0290, 0381, 0406].
Further regarding claims 1-2 and 4 and regarding claims 6-7, Groza does not teach the particulars of the impermeable meltblown nonwoven layer or the spunbond/meltblown/spunbond nonwoven laminate.
Dubey teaches that a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond (SMS) layer for covering cementitious boards [0019, 0021], wherein the intermediate meltblown layer is impermeable to the cementitious slurry due to a high hydrostatic pressure [0020], wherein details of the SMS laminate are disclosed in Brock, which is fully incorporated by reference [0021], wherein Brock teaches the meltblown layer(s) has/have an average fiber diameter up to about 10 microns, usually about 2 to 6 microns, and the spunbond layer(s) comprise an average fiber diameter of greater than 12 microns up to about 55, preferably 15 to 25 microns (abstract, col. 2, lines 27-45; col. 3, lines 3-11), with a polypropylene-based embodiment comprising meltblown fibers of 6 microns and spunbond fibers of 18 microns (Example 1), the nonwoven webs being bonded to each other to provide a unitary structure with load-bearing capacity and stress without adverse effects to flexibility via thermal point bonding formed by the application of heat and pressure (adhesive-free) (col. 2, lines 5-12 & col. 4, lines 14-54), wherein the basis weight is not greater than about 4 osy (~136 gsm), with about 0.75 to 2.5 osy (25~85 gsm) generally being useful most applications (col. 3, lines 39-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an adhesive-free thermal point bonded SMS nonwoven laminate comprising an impermeable meltblown having a basis weight prima facie overlapping with the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known SMS nonwoven laminate facer for cementitious boards comprising an impermeable meltblown nonwoven [Dubey].
Due to some possible inconsistencies in the disclosure, in the event that it is not inherently taught or made obvious that the continuous embedded reinforcement is embedded in the same (lower/first) surface as the wrapped polymer laminate facer:
Knauf teaches a gypsum board comprising a covering a lower surface comprising a fiberglass mesh cloth/scrim layer (All Figs. [3/10]) and a (glass) fleece (nonwoven) layer, wherein the fleece layer alone does not comprise the required strength to properly reinforce the board against fracture and the fiberglass mesh layer alone will clog conveyance equipment. However, when applied to the same lower folded surface, the mesh layer will embed and strengthen the core and the fleece will prevent the penetration of the gypsum.
AND/OR
Brown teaches a hydraulic cementitious material board useful in the construction industry [0003], wherein a facing material comprises a non-porous layer, which does not allow for penetration of the cementitious slurry to its outer surface [0036] (equivalent to the meltblown layer), and an embedded reinforcing layer, such as an alkali-resistant glass fiber scrim [0022-0024, 0036, 0043], and a first porous nonwoven layer placed between the embedded alkali-resistant fabric and the non-porous layer providing anchoring of the reinforcing layer due to the porosity of the nonwoven and a second nonwoven layer placed on the outer surface of the non-porous layer providing anchoring of decorative tile and mortar, the non-porous layer and flanking nonwoven layers providing a laminate thereof [0033-0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a lower/first major surface of a cementitious material core with both a fully embedded reinforcing scrim layer and also a partially embedded nonwoven polymeric fiber laminate comprising two slurry-permeable (spunbond) layers flanking at least one slurry impermeable (meltblown) layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the flexural strength a nonwoven facer alone could not provide while also providing the ability to not clog the conveyance equipment [Knauf; claim 1] AND/OR provide the reinforcing mesh/scrim with proper positioning and anchoring while also providing a place for mortar/adhesive for tiles [Brown; 0033-0035].
Regarding claim 3, typically the polymer fibrous mat will have a basis weight of 39 g/m2, such as 73-98 g/m2 [0412], wherein although Groza’s range does not anticipate the claimed range, in the case where the claimed ranges "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). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 12, a slurry providing a panel with a density of 50 to 100 pounds per cubic foot can be used [0168] and a single layer process provides a thickness of 0.125 to 2 inches thick, typically 0.4 to 0.75 inches thick [0057], with an exemplary target thickness of 0.77 inch [0449-0451], wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding claims 13-18, hydraulic material slurries comprise water and reactive powder, such as gypsum (calcium sulfate hemihydrate) and/or Portland cement, and lightweight filler particles, such as hydrophobic silicone-coated perlite at 1 to 20 wt% (about 0.01:1 to 0.2:1) [0161-0168], wherein an example comprises a ratio of 0.09 [0428, 0432, 0450].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groza in view of Dubey and Knauf and/or Brown, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Geotex Taiwan (Spunmelt Composite Lines SMS, SMMS, SSMMS) (hereinafter “Geotex”).
Regarding claim 5, while a three-layer spunbond-meltblown-spunbond laminate is taught, it is well-known in the art that one or more meltblown layers may be provided between the spunbond layers, wherein it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Alternatively, Geotex teaches process lines for a three-layer SMS fabric and a four-layer SMMS fabric, each having a basis weight range of 10-100 gsm, wherein the four-layer SMMS fabric has more symmetry, water repellency, and durability than SMS.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide two meltbown layers between the spunbond layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a nonwoven fabric laminate having increased symmetry, water repellency, and durability.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groza et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0189737 A1) (hereinafter “Groza”) in view of Dubey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0134371 A1) (hereinafter “Dubey”), Porter (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0142618 A1) (hereinafter “Porter”), and Bruce et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,485,821 B1) (hereinafter “Bruce”), wherein claim 5 is optionally (even) further in view of Geotex Taiwan (Spunmelt Composite Lines SMS, SMMS, SSMMS) (hereinafter “Geotex”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 8-11, Groza teaches a fiber reinforced cement panel usable as a building applications [0104, 0195, 0303] comprising a core of a continuous phrase comprising set/cured hydraulic binder having first and second opposing major faces connected by opposing longitudinal edge faces, comprising a nonwoven fiber mat facer [0376-0414], such as a glass fiber mat or preferably a polypropylene fiber mat for alkali-resistance comprising a laminate structure of a slurry-impermeable meltblown layer (second lamina) disposed between two slurry-permeable spunbond layers (same or different implied) (first and third laminas) such that the nonwoven polymer fiber laminate facer is covering and attached, even partially embedded (up to 50% the thickness) in the covered core surfaces [0380, 0398, 0407-0408, 0410], wherein the nonwoven polymer fiber laminate is attached to and covering a lower (first) surface of the core (Figs. 10-10E [444A]) and folded over both longitudinal side faces (Figs. 10-10E [444B/444C]) and adjacent surfaces of the upper (second) major face (Fig. 10C), wherein a continuous embedded reinforcement (Figs. 10-10E [344]) for flexural strength, such as a fiberglass scrim (inorganic mesh), can be embedded in a lower (first) major face (and the upper major face) by placing the continuous embedded reinforcement before the headbox that disperses the cementitious reinforcement (or after/during for the upper major face) [0289-0290, 0381, 0406].
Further regarding claims 1-2 and 4 and regarding claims 6-7, Groza does not teach the particulars of the impermeable meltblown nonwoven layer or the spunbond/meltblown/spunbond nonwoven laminate.
Dubey teaches that a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond (SMS) layer for covering cementitious boards [0019, 0021], wherein the intermediate meltblown layer is impermeable to the cementitious slurry due to a high hydrostatic pressure [0020], wherein details of the SMS laminate are disclosed in Brock, which is fully incorporated by reference [0021], wherein Brock teaches the meltblown layer(s) has/have an average fiber diameter up to about 10 microns, usually about 2 to 6 microns, and the spunbond layer(s) comprise an average fiber diameter of greater than 12 microns up to about 55, preferably 15 to 25 microns (abstract, col. 2, lines 27-45; col. 3, lines 3-11), with a polypropylene-based embodiment comprising meltblown fibers of 6 microns and spunbond fibers of 18 microns (Example 1), the nonwoven webs being bonded to each other to provide a unitary structure with load-bearing capacity and stress without adverse effects to flexibility via thermal point bonding formed by the application of heat and pressure (adhesive-free) (col. 2, lines 5-12 & col. 4, lines 14-54), wherein the basis weight is not greater than about 4 osy (~136 gsm), with about 0.75 to 2.5 osy (25~85 gsm) generally being useful most applications (col. 3, lines 39-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an adhesive-free thermal point bonded SMS nonwoven laminate comprising an impermeable meltblown having a basis weight prima facie overlapping with the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known SMS nonwoven laminate facer for cementitious boards comprising an impermeable meltblown nonwoven [Dubey].
Due to some possible inconsistencies in the disclosure, in the event that it is not inherently taught or made obvious that the continuous embedded reinforcement is embedded in the same (lower/first) surface as the wrapped polymer laminate facer:
Porter teaches a facing layer for a cementitious board having a gypsum and/or Portland cement based core comprising a composite facing material with a stronger, more porous layer such as a glass scrim for slurry penetration and core reinforcement and a lightweight, denser nonwoven layer that does not allow the penetration of the cementitious slurry [0016, 0079] to prevent contamination of the rollers/conveyance equipment [0005, 0009-0011], which may be done via a porosity gradient [0063], wherein the bottom fabric is folded up and over the longitudinal edge faces as is common [0099], wherein an increase in porosity at both sides of the facer would increase adhesion to the cementitious core and also adhesion to adhesives, such as mortar, acrylic, or silicone for exterior insulation finishing systems or tile-backing applications [0011].
AND
Bruce teaches a board comprising a polymeric nonwoven facer applied to the lower major face and folded up and over the longitudinal edge faces (All Figs. [14]), the facer having a variety of pore sizes such that it provides adhesion to the cementitious core without delamination with preventing the penetration of the slurry therethrough (col. 2, lines 38-52; col. 7, lines 1-24), wherein a lightest example comprises a thermally point bonded propylene spunbond-meltblown-meltblown-spunbond layer having a basis weight of 1.8 oz/yd (~61 gsm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a lower/first major surface of a cementitious material core with both a fully embedded reinforcing scrim layer and also a partially embedded nonwoven polymeric fiber laminate comprising two slurry-permeable (spunbond) layers flanking at least one slurry impermeable (meltblown) layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the strength of an embedded strong reinforcement with the lower slurry penetration of a controlled porosity lightweight nonwoven [Porter; 0016 & 0079], wherein the nonwoven should be a polymeric spunbond-meltblown-spunbond-based laminate having a controlled porosity that also provides abrasion resistance [Bruce], which are evidenced/further motivated that SMS-based facings as having adhesion to cementitious cores while also providing a cementitious material-free surface for aesthetic and functional reasons [Dubey].
Regarding claim 3, typically the polymer fibrous mat will have a basis weight of 39 g/m2, such as 73-98 g/m2 [0412], wherein although Groza’s range does not anticipate the claimed range, in the case where the claimed ranges "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). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 5, while Bruce teaches the polymeric nonwoven laminate as comprising two meltblown layers, the inclusion of a second meltblown layer is not motivated.
However, it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Alternatively, Geotex teaches process lines for a three-layer SMS fabric and a four-layer SMMS fabric, each having a basis weight range of 10-100 gsm, wherein the four-layer SMMS fabric has more symmetry, water repellency, and durability than SMS.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide two meltbown layers between the spunbond layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a nonwoven fabric laminate having increased symmetry, water repellency, and durability.
Regarding claim 12, a slurry providing a panel with a density of 50 to 100 pounds per cubic foot can be used [0168] and a single layer process provides a thickness of 0.125 to 2 inches thick, typically 0.4 to 0.75 inches thick [0057], with an exemplary target thickness of 0.77 inch [0449-0451], wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding claims 13-18, hydraulic material slurries comprise water and reactive powder, such as gypsum (calcium sulfate hemihydrate) and/or Portland cement, and lightweight filler particles, such as hydrophobic silicone-coated perlite at 1 to 20 wt% (about 0.01:1 to 0.2:1) [0161-0168], wherein an example comprises a ratio of 0.09 [0428, 0432, 0450].
Claims 1-11 & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,485,821 B1) (hereinafter “Bruce”) in view of Porter (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0142618 A1) (hereinafter “Porter”) and Bodaghi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0045260 A1) (hereinafter “Bodaghi”) OR Dubey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0134371 A1) (hereinafter “Dubey”).
Regarding claims 1-9, 13, 15, Bruce teaches a gypsum wall board, gypsum comprising calcium sulphate hemihydrate with one or more additives as claimed (col. 5, lines 50-58) & col comprising a first polymeric nonwoven facer applied to the lower major face and folded up and over the longitudinal edge faces (All Figs. [14]), the facer having a variety of pore sizes such that it provides adhesion to the cementitious core without delamination with preventing the penetration of the slurry therethrough (col. 2, lines 38-52; col. 7, lines 1-24), wherein a lightest example comprises a thermally point bonded (adhesive-free) polypropylene spunbond-meltblown-meltblown-spunbond layer having a basis weight of 1.8 oz/yd (~61 gsm) and other examples teach single layer spunbond nonwovens comprising effective fiber diameters of about 9.4 microns and 8.6 microns (col. 9, lines 60-63 & col. 10, lines 30-40).
However, further regarding claim 1 and regarding claims 10-11, a slurry permeable reinforcing material attached to and embedded in at least the first face of the gypsum (cementitious) core and comprising an inorganic reinforcing mesh is not taught.
Porter teaches a first facing layer for a cementitious board having a gypsum and/or Portland cement based core comprising a composite facing material with a stronger, more porous layer such as a glass scrim for slurry penetration and core reinforcement and a lightweight, denser polymer or glass nonwoven that does not allow the penetration of the cementitious slurry [0016, 0079] to prevent contamination of the rollers/conveyance equipment [0005, 0009-0011], which may be done via a fiber diameter of less than 16 microns and having a controlled porosity gradient [abstract, 0010, 0063], wherein the bottom fabric is folded up and over the longitudinal edge faces as is common [0099], wherein an increase in porosity at both sides of the facer would increase adhesion to the cementitious core and also adhesion to adhesives, such as mortar, acrylic, or silicone for exterior insulation finishing systems or tile-backing applications [0011].
Furthermore, Bodaghi teaches a polypropylene-based nonwoven comprising a controlled porosity gradient, wherein spunbond fibers smaller than 10 microns in diameter are very difficult to produce economically, with an average conventional diameter being greater than 18 microns [0004], and economical meltblown fibers comprising an average conventional diameter of about 4 microns with a fiber size distribution ranging from 0.25 to 8 microns [0003], wherein a laminate comprises at least one spunbond and one meltblown to provide barrier properties with gas permeability economically [0010, 0033, 0046].
OR
Dubey teaches that a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond layer for covering cementitious boards [0019, 0021], wherein the innermost spunbond layer allows for the penetration of cementitious core material [0018], the intermediate meltblown layer is impermeable due to a high hydrostatic pressure [0020], and an outermost spunbond layer provides an aesthetically pleasing, printable layer that provides a more secure bond to ceramic tile or any other decorative covering applied to the panel [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the SMMS nonwoven laminate as the first polymer facer with the meltblown layer controlling the liquid slurry penetration/porosity of the first polymer facer attached to a slurry permeable reinforcing glass mesh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the strength of an embedded strong reinforcement with the lower slurry penetration of a controlled porosity lightweight nonwoven [Porter; 0016 & 0079], wherein the controlled porosity and fiber diameter below 16 microns would have been provided economically via the SMMS nonwoven [Bodaghi] OR SMS-based facings as having adhesion to cementitious cores, impermeable meltblown barrier layer, while also providing a cementitious material-free surface for aesthetic and functional (tile attachment) reasons [Dubey].
Regarding claim 14, Porter teaches the cementitious core can be gypsum or Portland cement [0011, 0027, 0030], wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a known equivalent cementitious slurry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Porter, and optionally Bodaghi, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of ArchToolBox (Gypsum Wall Board Basics) (hereinafter “ArchToolbox”).
Regarding claim 12, Bruce teaches a gypsum wall board slurry comprises a density in the range 0.95 to 1.5 g/cc (46.8-93.6 pcf), however, the board thickness is not taught.
ArchToolbox teaches wallboard/drywall is available in some common thicknesses of ¼“ (0.25 inch), 3/8” (0.375 inch), ½” (0.5 inch), 5/8” (0.625 inch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a board thickness within the claimed range. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a common thickness of wall board.
Claim 12, 14, & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Porter, and optionally Bodaghi, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Groza et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0189737 A1) (hereinafter “Groza 2”).
Regarding claims 12, 14, and 16-18, Bruce teaches a gypsum wallboard but does not teach a thickness or density of a cementitious wallboard comprising gypsum and Portland cement with the additives as claimed.
Groza 2 teaches a cementitious structural board for walls, floors, and roofs, having at least one facer thereon [0104] with examples comprising thicknesses of 0.75 to 0.85, [0195, 0331, 0449] and a panel density of 50 to 100 pcf [0168], wherein the board comprises gypsum/calcium sulfate hemihydrate and Portland cement as taught in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,620,487; 7,841,148; 8,038,790 are incorporated by reference [0162, 0166-0168] and a plurality of claimed additives [0164], wherein silicone-coated perlite can be included at a perlite filler to cementitious binder ratio in an example is 0.09 [0168, 0428, 0432, 0450], wherein U.S. Patent No. 7,841,148 teaches that both gypsum/calcium sulfate hemihydrate and Portland cement are required for water durability and 8,038,790 the coated perlite at least partially replaces microsphere filler to provide a lighter weight, reduced moisture absorption, improved wet durability, and enhanced thermal stability, while maintaining the same long term durability, freeze-thaw resistance, and dimensional stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a cementitious construction board comprising a thickness, density, and cementitious composition as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a beneficial board having known dimensions/density with improved water durability and a lighter weight, reduced moisture absorption, improved wet durability, and enhanced thermal stability, while maintaining the same long term durability, freeze-thaw resistance, and dimensional stability [Groza 2].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 2nd, 2026
Prosecution Insights