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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 11 September 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11 September 2026.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “high-efficiency” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-efficiency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Presumably, high-efficiency lignosulfonates are those lignosulfonates which exhibit:
a fluidity that is the same or greater than the fluidity produced by an otherwise identical slurry containing the polynaphthalene sulfonate instead of the high-efficiency lignosulfonate, wherein the high-efficiency lignosulfonate and the polynaphthalene sulfonate have an active content that is the same in the respective slurries, the fluidity measured according to the slump fluidity spread (SFS) test. [claim 1; emphasis added]
To one of ordinary skill in the art, a more fluid slurry is one with a lower viscosity. A lower viscosity would result in more spreading and a larger diameter of the slurry when measured according to the SFS test.
The SFS test measures fluidity as follows:
[A] 2″ (about 5 cm) diameter tube (e.g., with two open ends, one resting on a flat, substantially non-porous surface so as to block the opening) is filled with slurry to a height of 4″ (about 10 cm). Within 5 seconds from sampling and pouring the slurry, the slurry is released onto a flat, level surface by quickly lifting the cylinder, and the released slurry is allowed to spread into a patty. When the slurry has stopped spreading, the widest diameter of the slurry patty (i.e., referred to as the “slump”) is measured (in the case of non-circular (e.g., elliptical) slurry patty, the widest diameter of the slurry patty is averaged with the diameter of the slurry patty in the direction perpendicular to the widest diameter). In some embodiments, a more fluid slurry will typically result in a larger diameter slurry patty. [Paragraph [0144] of the published specification; emphasis added]
Thus, a fluidity which is the same or greater than polynaphthalene sulfonate will happen when the size of the circle in the SFS test is the same size as polynaphthalene sulfonate or greater.
However, the specification seems to contradict this interpretation. A preferred “high efficiency” lignosulfonate described by the specification is Ultrazine NA. See paragraphs [0037]-[0039] of the published specification. Table 2 of the instant specification shows that Ultrazine NA has a slump of 7.4 inches, which is less than the 7.6 inches of polynaphthalene sulfonate. Ultrazine has a fluidity that is less than polynaphthalene sulfonate. In contrast, comparative examples 1B and 1E, which employ standard (presumably “low-efficiency”) lignosulfonates, have a fluidity that is greater than polynaphthalene sulfonate. In other words, comparative examples 1B and 1E meet the test recited in claim 1, but do not appear to be “high efficiency” because they are described as “standard.” One of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the scope of the term “high-efficiency,” or which lignosulfonates are considered high-efficiency and which are not.
In claim 9, “the dense layers” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-8 and 11-15 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claims 1 and 10.
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 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 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 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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khater et al. (“Effects of some lignosulphonate additives on some properties of gypsum panels,” Pakistan J. Sci. Ind. Res., vol. 30, no. 4, April 1987)(Khater).
Khater discloses forming a slurry from gypsum, water and a lignosulphonate. See the entire document. Khater exemplifies Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA. See the abstract and Table 3.
Khater does not disclose the presence of polynaphthalene sulfonate or melamine sulfonate in the slurry. Id.
Khater does not describe the lignosulphonate as “high-efficiency” or the fluidity as compared to polynaphthalene sulfonate. However, Khater discloses employing Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA, which are the same lignosulphonates which are described in the instant specification as being high-efficiency as well as meeting the fluidity test as compared to polynaphthalene sulfonate. See paragraphs [0037]-[0039] of the published specification. For these reasons, Ultrazine NA and Ultrazine CA are presumed to be high-efficiency lignosulfonates, and the slurries formed from them are presumed to meet the claimed fluidity test as compared to polynaphthalene sulfonate.
As to claim 11, Khater discloses slurries having water to gypsum (i.e., stucco) ratios from 0.5 to 0.8 in Figure 5.
The molecular weight recited in claim 12 is presumed to be inherent to Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA because these are the same lignosulphonates as preferred by the instant specification.
As to claim 13, Khater exemplifies adding 0.4, 0.5 or 0.6 wt% Ultrazine NA to the slurry in Figure 5.
As to claim 14, Khater does not disclose the nature of the addition to Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA to the gypsum. However, claim 14 is a product claim describing a slurry. The form of the lignosulphonate as it is added to the slurry is describing a process step in a product claim making claim 14 a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step does not appear to add any structure to the resultant slurry composition. If the lignosulphonate is added as a solid, the resultant slurry as described by Khater will be the same as claimed because water which is added to the slurry in the formation step will dissolve or suspend the lignosulphonate in the same manner as if the lignosulphonate were added in a solution form.
As to claim 15, Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA are presumed to not be polymerized by an aldehyde because these are the same lignosulphonates as preferred by the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khater et al. (“Effects of some lignosulphonate additives on some properties of gypsum panels,” Pakistan J. Sci. Ind. Res., vol. 30, no. 4, April 1987)(Khater) in view of applicants’ admission.
Khater discloses forming a panel from gypsum, water and a lignosulphonate. See the title. Khater exemplifies Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA. See the abstract and Table 3.
Khater does not disclose the presence of polynaphthalene sulfonate or melamine sulfonate in the slurry. Id.
Khater does not describe the lignosulphonate as “high-efficiency” or the fluidity as compared to polynaphthalene sulfonate. However, Khater discloses employing Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA, which are the same lignosulphonates which are described in the instant specification as being high-efficiency as well as meeting the fluidity test as compared to polynaphthalene sulfonate. See paragraphs [0037]-[0039] of the published specification. For these reasons, Ultrazine NA and Ultrazine CA are presumed to be high-efficiency lignosulfonates, and the slurries formed from them are presumed to meet the claimed fluidity test as compared to polynaphthalene sulfonate.
Khater differs from claim 1 by failing to disclose slurry is formed into a core with two cover sheets.
Paragraph [0002] of the instant, published specification discloses that gypsum panels formed between cover sheets are a well-known material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formed the slurries of Khater into boards having a core and cover sheets. The rationale for doing so is that it has been held that it would have been obvious to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I.A.
The molecular weight recited in claim 2 is presumed to be inherent to Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA because these are the same lignosulphonates as preferred by the instant specification.
The water reduction property of claim 3 is presumed to be inherent to Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA as disclosed in Khater because these are the same lignosulphonates as preferred by the instant specification.
As to claim 4, Khater discloses slurries having water to gypsum (i.e., stucco) ratios from 0.5 to 0.8 in Figure 5.
As to claim 5, Khater exemplifies adding 0.4, 0.5 or 0.6 wt% Ultrazine NA to the slurry in Figure 5.
As to claim 6, Khater does not disclose the nature of the addition of Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA to the gypsum. However, claim 6 is a product claim describing a panel. The form of the lignosulphonate as it is added to the slurry which is later cured to form a panel is describing a process step in a product claim making claim 6 a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step does not appear to add any structure to the resultant panel. If the lignosulphonate is added as a solid, the resultant panel as described by Khater will be the same as claimed because water which is added to the slurry in the formation step will dissolve or suspend the lignosulphonate in the same manner as if the lignosulphonate were added in a solution form.
As to claim 7, Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA are presumed to not be polymerized by an aldehyde because these are the same lignosulphonates as preferred by the instant specification.
The water reduction property of claim 8 is presumed to be inherent to Ultrazine CA or Ultrazine NA as disclosed in Khater because these are the same lignosulphonates as preferred by the instant specification.
Khater and applicant’s admission fail to disclose dense layers on the gypsum board. However, forming dense surface layers on gypsum panels was well-known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed such dense layers on a panel as suggested by the combination of Khater and applicant’s admissions. The rationale for doing so is that has been held to have been obvious to have used of known technique to improve similar products in the same way. See MPEP 2143 I.C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Martin teaches gypsum panels which employ lignosulphonate and further teaches the polynaphthalene sulphonates contain formaldehyde, which should be avoided. See paragraph [0061].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
