DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted on 15 April 2024 has been entered. After entry of the amendment claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-15, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Europe Patent Specification No. EP 3356307 B1.
The reference teaches, in Example 1, a mixture of Polystep 25 with octanol or decanol.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the Polystep B25 meets the alkyl sulfate component (A1) and the octanol or decanol meets component (B). As for the mass ratio as component (A2) is optional the ratio would be 1 which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 3, as the mass ratio as component (A2) is optional the ratio would be 1 which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 4, the amount of component (B) falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 5, the amount of component (B) falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 6, the (A2) component does not need to be present.
As for claim 7, as for the mass ratio as component (A2) is optional the ratio would be 1 which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 8, the amount of component (B) falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 9, the amount of component (A1) falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 10, the amount of component (B) falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 11, as no component (A22) is present this claim is met.
As for claim 12, the Example states that the composition is for wallboards and the abstract and paragraph [0009] mentions gypsum boards as examples of the wallboards.]
As for claim 13, the reference teaches the use of the composition for making gypsum wallboards and the gypsum meets the hydraulic powder.
As for claim 14, the reference teaches gypsum.
As for claim 16, this is taught in paragraph [0101] and Example 1.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches gypsum.
As for claim 19, as the reference teaches the same process using a foaming agent it would therefore teach the claimed process of making a bubble-containing slurry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe Patent Specification No. EP 3356307 B1.
The reference was discussed previously. Further the reference teaches in paragraph [0038] that the gypsum crystal matrix of the set gypsum core formed with the fatty alcohol and foaming agent regime of the disclosure can be tailored to have any desired pore size distribution. Soap usage differs from product to product depending on the desired void size and distribution, as will be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further the reference teaches that changes in the void size distribution are produced by varying the soap concentration from the initial or previous concentration.
As for claims 15, 18 and 20, as the reference teaches that soap usage affects the void size distribution and therefore this is a result effective variable and therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the amount of soap usage based on the desired average bubble size since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 1-13, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi et al (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0038827 A1).
The reference teaches, in claim 1, a foaming agent composition for civil engineering-construction materials comprising an anionic surfactant (A), a surfactant aid (B) and a water-insoluble or slightly water-soluble nonionic surfactant (C). Claim 3 teaches that an examples of the anionic surfactant includes alkyl or alkenyl sulfates having 8 or more and 22 or less carbon atoms. An example of component (B) includes monohydric alcohols with 8 or more and 22 or less carbons, and fatty acids with 8 or more and 22 or less carbons (claim 5).
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the anionic surfactant can be an alkyl or alkenyl sulfates having 8 or more and 22 or less carbon atoms and the carbon atoms overlaps the claimed range and 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), see MPEP 2144.05. The monohydric alcohol has a number of carbon atoms that overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious and this meets component (B). As for the mass ratio as component (A2) is optional the ratio would be 1 which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 2, based on the amounts of the components the amounts overlap the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 3, as the mass ratio as component (A2) is optional the ratio would be 1 which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 4, based on the amounts of the components the amounts overlap the clamed range of amounts and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 5, based on the amounts of the components the amounts overlap the clamed range of amounts and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 6, the (A2) component does not need to be present.
As for claim 7, as for the mass ratio as component (A2) is optional the ratio would be 1 which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 8, based on the amounts of the components the amounts overlap the clamed range of amounts and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 9, based on the amounts of the components the amounts overlap the clamed range of amounts and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 10, based on the amounts of the components the amounts overlap the clamed range of amounts and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 11, as no component (A22) is present this claim is met.
As for claim 12, the composition may be used for a gypsum slurry (see paragraph [0095] and example 3).
As for claim 13, the anionic surfactant can be an alkyl or alkenyl sulfates having 8 or more and 22 or less carbon atoms and the carbon atoms overlaps the claimed range and 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), see MPEP 2144.05. The monohydric alcohol has a number of carbon atoms that overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious and this meets component (B). As for the mass ratio as component (A2) is optional the ratio would be 1 which falls within the claimed range. The composition may be added to gypsum (see example 3 and claims 20-22).
As for claim 16, this is suggested by the reference in paragraph [0058], Example 3 and example 22.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches gypsum.
As for claim 19, this is suggested by the reference in paragraph [0058], Example 3 and example 22.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights