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
Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 6/29/26. Claims 1, 11, 14, and 18 have been amended. Claims 18-22 are withdrawn. Claim 23 is newly added. Claim 12 is canceled. Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 23 are pending rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-11, 13-17, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey USPA_20210379880_A1 in view of Dupre USPA_20110318574_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 15, 23, Bailey discloses a method of forming a gypsum board (corresponds to claimed gypsum panel) comprising providing a first encasing layer (corresponds to claimed first facing material) and a first sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) on said first encasing layer (corresponds to claimed first facing material), followed by depositing a gypsum slurry comprising stucco and water onto said first sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) which fulfills the claimed limitation of also being deposited on said first encasing layer (corresponds to claimed first facing material); and finally providing a second encasing layer (corresponds to claimed second facing material that is adjacent to the gypsum slurry as being claimed in instant Claim 23) on said gypsum slurry, and also allowing said stucco to convert to calcium sulfate dihydrate (Claim 1).
2. However, Bailey does not disclose the claimed Cobb value of its second encasing layer (corresponds to claimed second facing material).
3. Dupre discloses a mold and moisture-resistant gypsum board (Title) in which the Cobb water absorption can range from about 60 to 90 g/m2 (Fig. 3).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the Cobb value of its second encasing layer (corresponds to claimed second facing material), of Bailey, with the Cobb value of Dupre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain a mold and moisture-resistant gypsum board.
5. Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Bailey in view of Dupre suggests that said sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) can comprise 50 wt% of gypsum (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent) (Bailey Claims 1 and 14).
6. Regarding Claim 6, Bailey in view of Dupre suggests using a carrier material in a concentration of above 50 wt% in said sound damping layer’s (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) composition that can contain a liquid (Bailey paragraphs 0035, 0040).
7. Regarding Claims 7-9, Bailey in view of Dupre suggests that its sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) can comprise starch (corresponds to claimed grinding agent) as well as surfactants (Bailey paragraph 0019).
8. Regarding Claim 10, Bailey in view of Dupre suggests using dispersants in said gypsum slurry (Bailey paragraph 0032).
9. Regarding Claim 11, Bailey in view of Dupre suggests that said first and second encasing layers (corresponds to claimed first and second facing materials) can comprise paper (corresponds to claimed ply) (Bailey paragraph 0050).
10. Regarding Claim 14, Bailey in view of Dupre suggests that said sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) can be present in an amount of 0.01 lbs/MSF to 5 lbs/MSF (Bailey paragraph 0018).
11. Regarding Claim 16, Bailey in view of Dupre suggests an embodiment wherein it allows for applying its sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) directly onto its second encasing layer (corresponds to claimed second facing material) prior to deposition on the slurry (Bailey paragraph 0011).
12. Regarding Claim 17, Bailey in view of Dupre suggests using foaming agents in its sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) (Bailey paragraphs 0035, 0036).
13. Regarding Claims 11 and 13, although not explicitly stated, given that Bailey in view of Dupre suggests discloses the same structure and materials, as explained above, it would be expected for its sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) to penetrate into the paper plies of said encasing layers (corresponds to claimed facing materials).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey USPA_20210379880_A1 A1 in view of Dupre USPA_20110318574_A1, as applied to Claim 1, and in view of Fewox USPA_20180009713_A1.
14. Regarding Claim 3, Bailey in view of Dupre does not disclose its sound damping layer (corresponds to claimed nucleating agent composition) being milled.
15. Fewox discloses in the field of gypsum seed materials (abstract; Para. [0008]) teaches wherein a nucleating agent is milled (Para. [0008], The raw gypsum is ground in a high energy mill to produce a fine gypsum powder that is used as a catalyst and crystal seed source for gypsum hydration and crystal nucleation during gypsum board manufacture; Para. [0033], planetary ball mill).
16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Bailey in view of Dupre to include milling as taught by Fewox for the benefit of producing small gypsum particles suitable to be used to impart consistent hydration rates when manufacturing gypsum boards to impart desirable physical properties (Fewox: Paras. [0001]-[0002], [0009]).
17. Regarding Claim 4, Bailey in view of Dupre does not disclose the claimed particle size.
18. Fewox discloses in the field of gypsum seed materials (abstract; Para. [0008]) teaches wherein a nucleating agent has an average particle size from about 0.1 microns to about 200 microns (Para. [0008], The raw gypsum is ground ... is used as a catalyst and crystal seed source for gypsum hydration and crystal nucleation during gypsum board manufacture; Para. [0025], the gypsum set accelerator has a particle size distribution with a mass median diameter (D50) of less than 15 μm, and preferably about 5.5 μm or less).
19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Bailey to include particle sizes as taught by Fewox for the benefit of producing small particles to modify solubility, prevent lumping and impart consistent hydration reaction rates (Fewox: Paras. [0009], [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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 Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights