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 Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 7/7/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The term “uncoated” is interpreted to mean an additional coating on the surface of the glass and would not include just the binders used to hold the fiberglass together. This interpretation appears to be consistent with the instant specification (para 46-49).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sang et al (US 2017/0362124 A1).
Sang teaches plasterboard (e.g., gypsum wallboard) having a first surface and an opposed second surface, the plasterboard comprising a body of hardened plaster material (e.g., calcined gypsum in the form of calcium sulfate hemihydrate and/or calcium sulfate anhydrite) extending from the first surface of the plasterboard to the second surface of the plasterboard (abstract, para 2, 7-9).
Regarding the limitations “a paper liner disposed at the first surface of the plasterboard; and a glass mat liner disposed at the second surface of the plasterboard” and “wherein the glass mat liner is an uncoated glass mat liner;” Sang teaches the face cover sheet and back cover sheet of the gypsum wallboard can be paper or fibrous mats of glass (para 31) with optional skim coats (i.e., uncoated) and gives examples uncoated glass mats (para 131, 204).
Therefore, Sang would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention any combination of the face and back cover sheet being that of paper or and uncoated glass mat (i.e., a paper liner disposed at the first surface of the plasterboard; and a glass mat liner disposed at the second surface of the plasterboard; wherein the glass mat liner is an uncoated glass mat liner).
Claim 1-11, 15-18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al (US 8,974,925 B1) in view of Nandi et al (US 2007/0141931 A1).
Regarding claims 1-11 and 15, Cao teaches a plasterboard (e.g., composite board) having a first surface and an opposed second surface, the plasterboard comprising a body of hardened plaster material (e.g., core of gypsum) extending from the first surface of the plasterboard to the second surface of the plasterboard; a first liner (e.g., face sheet/liner or grey paper) (106) disposed at the first surface of the plasterboard; and a second liner (e.g., back sheet/liner of glass fibers) (106) disposed at the second surface of the plasterboard (col 1, lines 12-21; fig 1).
Cao fails to teach a first liner having a surface roughness (Rz) of no more than 40 microns disposed at the first surface of the plasterboard; wherein the first liner has a surface roughness (Rz) of no more than 35 microns; wherein the second liner has a surface roughness (Rz) of at least 80 microns.
Nandi teaches in faced boards (e.g., gypsum wall boards) that roughness causes paintability problems); but coarseness promotes penetration and advanced adhesion (abstract, para 13, 38).
Therefore, per the teachings of Nandi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust or minimize the surface roughness (Rz) of the first liner of Cao to optimize its ability to be painted. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the surface roughness (Rz) of the glass fiber sheet (i.e., second liner) of Cao to optimize its ability to offer penetration and advanced adhesion when bonded to the studs through the use of traditional construction adhesives (e.g., Liquid Nails®).
Regarding the limitations “the second liner having a mass loss of no more than 60 g/m2 at 600 °C and/or a heat release of no more than 400 kJ/m2,” “wherein the first liner has a mass loss of at least 70 g/m2 at 600 °C, and the second liner has a mass loss of no more than 60 g/m2 at 600 °C,” “wherein the first liner has a mass loss of at least 100 g/m2 at 600 °C,” wherein the first liner has a heat release of at least 500 kJ/m2; and the second liner has a heat release of no more than 400 kJ/m2,” the first liner has a mass loss of at least 115 g/m2 at 600 °C,” “wherein the second liner has a mass loss of no more than 50 g/m2 at 600 °C,” “wherein the first liner has a heat release per area of at least 1150 kJ/m2,” and “wherein the first liner has a heat release per area of no more than 5000 kJ/m2;” it is noted that in order to achieve these properties, certain embodiment(s) of the instant claims and specification.
The plasterboard should have a total thickness of between 0.25 in and 2.0 in and a density of 1700 to 2500 lbs/MSF; wherein the first liner should comprise paper having a minimum thickness of 0.189 mm (i.e., ~ 0.075 in); and the second liner should comprise an uncoated glass liner having a minimum thickness of 0.63 mm (i.e., ~ 0.025 in) (see instant spec para 54, 56, tables 2-4).
Cao teaches the face sheet is paper (e.g., grey paper) and the back sheet is uncoated fiberglass (e.g., glass fibers); wherein at least one sheet has a minimum thickness of 0.014 in (~0.36 mm) (col 2, lines 54-65; col 7, lines 43-46); and the core is gypsum that has a dry weight (i.e., density) of less than about 2000 lbs/1000 ft2 (i.e., lbs/MSF) and a thickness of ¼ in to 1 in (col 2, lines 54-65; col 5, line 50 – col 6, line 14; col 7, lines 43-46).
Furthermore, Nandi teaches using urea bound non-coated fiberglass mats having a thickness of 20 to 40 mils (i.e., ~0.51 mm to ~1.02 mm) (para 27-31) which matches the structure and composition of the uncoated fiberglass mat required of the instant embodiments (instant spec, para 66, table 1), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the urea bound non-coated fiberglass mats of Nandi for the back sheet of Cao; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
The composite board of Cao as modified by Nandi would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the composition and structure of the plasterboard required to achieve these properties.
Therefore, the composite board of Cao as modified by Nandi is deemed to possess these properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claims 16-18, Cao as modified by Nandi would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a building comprising an interior space that is bounded by a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein the first liner faces toward the interior space and the second liner faces away from the interior space; wherein the building comprises one or more framing members (e.g., studs, joists, sills, headers, rafters), and wherein the plasterboard is attached to the one or more framing members with the second liner facing toward the framing members and the first liner facing away from the one or more framing members; and, a wall cavity comprising a space and one or more framing members, wherein the space is bounded by a plasterboard according claim 1, wherein the first liner faces away from the space and the second liner faces towards the space, and wherein the plasterboard is attached to the one or more framing members with the second liner facing towards the framing members and the first liner facing away from one or more framing members (see Cao col 1, lines 12-22; fig 2 and Nandi para 2-3).
Regarding claim 23 and 24, Cao teaches a plasterboard (e.g., composite board) having a first surface and an opposed second surface, the plasterboard comprising a body of hardened plaster material (e.g., core of gypsum) extending from the first surface of the plasterboard to the second surface of the plasterboard; a first liner (e.g., face sheet/liner or grey paper) (106) disposed at the first surface of the plasterboard; and a second liner (e.g., back sheet/liner of glass fibers) (106) disposed at the second surface of the plasterboard (col 1, lines 12-21; fig 1).
Cao fails to teach a first liner having a surface roughness (Rz) of no more than 40 microns disposed at the first surface of the plasterboard; wherein the first liner has a surface roughness (Rz) of no more than 35 microns; wherein the second liner has a surface roughness (Rz) of at least 80 microns.
Nandi teaches in faced boards (e.g., gypsum wall boards) that roughness causes paintability problems); but coarseness promotes penetration and advanced adhesion (abstract, para 13, 38).
Therefore, per the teachings of Nandi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust or minimize the surface roughness (Rz) of the first liner of Cao to optimize its ability to be painted. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the surface roughness (Rz) of the glass fiber sheet (i.e., second liner) of Cao to optimize its ability to offer penetration and advanced adhesion when bonded to the studs through the use of traditional construction adhesives (e.g., Liquid Nails®).
Regarding the limitations “the second liner having a mass loss of no more than 60 g/m2 at 600 °C and/or a heat release of no more than 400 kJ/m2,” in order to achieve these properties, certain embodiment(s) of the instant claims and specification are noted.
The plasterboard should have a total thickness of between 0.25 in and 2.0 in and a density of 1700 to 2500 lbs/MSF; wherein the first liner should comprise paper having a minimum thickness of 0.189 mm (i.e., ~ 0.075 in); and the second liner should comprise an uncoated glass liner having a minimum thickness of 0.63 mm (i.e., ~ 0.025 in) (see instant spec para 54, 56, tables 2-4).
Cao teaches the face sheet is paper (e.g., grey paper) and the back sheet is uncoated fiberglass (e.g., glass fibers); wherein at least one sheet has a minimum thickness of 0.014 in (~0.36 mm) (col 2, lines 54-65; col 7, lines 43-46); and the core is gypsum that has a dry weight (i.e., density) of less than about 2000 lbs/1000 ft2 (i.e., lbs/MSF) and a thickness of ¼ in to 1 in (col 2, lines 54-65; col 5, line 50 – col 6, line 14; col 7, lines 43-46).
Furthermore, Nandi teaches using urea bound non-coated fiberglass mats having a thickness of 20 to 40 mils (i.e., ~0.51 mm to ~1.02 mm) (para 27-31) which matches the structure and composition of the uncoated fiberglass mat required of the instant embodiments (instant spec, para 66, table 1), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the urea bound non-coated fiberglass mats of Nandi for the back sheet of Cao; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
The composite board of Cao as modified by Nandi would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the composition and structure of the plasterboard required to achieve these properties.
Therefore, the composite board of Cao as modified by Nandi is deemed to possess these properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/7/26, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that disposing a board with different liners on front and back faces can improve fire performance; Cao teaches the use of relatively thick, non-heat-transmissive back liner sheets such as those derived from thick paper; thick paper back sheets do not have the claimed mass loss and heat release properties; Cao's suggestion of "glass fibers" does not suggest the use of a glass mat having a low mass loss and/or heat release as claimed; and the presently claimed invention provides improved fire performance while providing a desirable room-facing surface. These are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitations “the second liner having a mass loss of no more than 60 g/m2 at 600 °C and/or a heat release of no more than 400 kJ/m2,” “wherein the first liner has a mass loss of at least 70 g/m2 at 600 °C, and the second liner has a mass loss of no more than 60 g/m2 at 600 °C,” “wherein the first liner has a mass loss of at least 100 g/m2 at 600 °C,” wherein the first liner has a heat release of at least 500 kJ/m2; and the second liner has a heat release of no more than 400 kJ/m2,” the first liner has a mass loss of at least 115 g/m2 at 600 °C,” “wherein the second liner has a mass loss of no more than 50 g/m2 at 600 °C,” “wherein the first liner has a heat release per area of at least 1150 kJ/m2,” and “wherein the first liner has a heat release per area of no more than 5000 kJ/m2;” it is noted that in order to achieve these properties, certain embodiment(s) of the instant claims and specification.
The plasterboard should have a total thickness of between 0.25 in and 2.0 in and a density of 1700 to 2500 lbs/MSF; wherein the first liner should comprise paper having a minimum thickness of 0.189 mm (i.e., ~ 0.075 in); and the second liner should comprise an uncoated glass liner having a minimum thickness of 0.63 mm (i.e., ~ 0.025 in) (see instant spec para 54, 56, tables 2-4).
Cao teaches the face sheet is paper (e.g., grey paper) and the back sheet is uncoated fiberglass (e.g., glass fibers); wherein at least one sheet has a minimum thickness of 0.014 in (~0.36 mm) (col 2, lines 54-65; col 7, lines 43-46); and the core is gypsum that has a dry weight (i.e., density) of less than about 2000 lbs/1000 ft2 (i.e., lbs/MSF) and a thickness of ¼ in to 1 in (col 2, lines 54-65; col 5, line 50 – col 6, line 14; col 7, lines 43-46).
Furthermore, Nandi teaches using urea bound non-coated fiberglass mats having a thickness of 20 to 40 mils (i.e., ~0.51 mm to ~1.02 mm) (para 27-31) which matches the structure and composition of the uncoated fiberglass mat required of the instant embodiments (instant spec, para 66, table 1), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the urea bound non-coated fiberglass mats of Nandi for the back sheet of Cao; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
The composite board of Cao as modified by Nandi would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the composition and structure of the plasterboard required to achieve these properties.
Therefore, the composite board of Cao as modified by Nandi is deemed to possess these properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding the teachings of Cao, “[I]t is well established that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein.” In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982).
In response to applicant's argument that the presently claimed invention provides improved fire performance while providing a desirable room-facing surface, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights