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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STAV (US-2012/021488) in view of KIM (Scientific Reports, (2023) 13:10938).
Claim 1: Stav teaches a gypsum board comprising two cover sheets or facers with a gypsum layer or gypsum core sandwiched in between (para. 0003 and 0022). The gypsum layer (i.e. gypsum core) comprises a gypsum slurry comprising an amide composition being present in 0.005 to 0.05 lbs/msf (Stav, para. 0022 and 0037), which is 0.005-0.05 lb/1000sf. The weight of the gypsum board is about 1500 lb/msf (para. 0052); thus 0.005/0.05 lb/1000sf is equivalent to 0.005-0.05 lb per 1500 lb of gypsum slurry which is equivalent to about 0.03 wt.% to 0.3 wt.% of the gypsum slurry, which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 wt.% to about 5 wt.%. This equivalency between lbs/msf and wt% is in fact described in the instant specification at paragraphs 041-042. However, Stav does not teach the use of enzyme in the slurry. Kim teaches enzyme helps contain sulfate in leachate as gypsum mineral formation by carbonate precipitation (Kim, page 1, first paragraph) because gypsum is a soft sulfate mineral composed of calcium sulfate (CaSO4.2H2O). In light of Kim teaching, the POSITA would be motivated to incorporate enzyme composition in the gypsum slurry of Stav in order to prevent sulfate contamination to the environment of gypsum (when the board is discarded), which adversely affect the natural sulfur cycle and human health (Kim, page 1, 2nd paragraph), by reacting with sulfate in gypsm (CaSO4.2H2O) to form metal carbonate and help facilitate removal of sulfate in the environment
Claims 2-4: Kim teaches the enzyme composition comprises soybean crude (first page, first paragraph) and watermelon seeds (page 5, last paragraph) which are biologically-derived, plant-derived seeds.
Claims 5-7: Kim explains how the enzyme composition and amide composition react in the gypsum slurry to form carbonate via “enzyme-induced carbonate precipitation”, in particular with the cations in gypsum (i.e. Ca+) and NH2 in the amide composition to form calcium carbonate. See Kim, Page 2.
Claims 8-9: Using the chart of calcium carbonate formation and sulfate removal efficiency shown by Kim at page 9, the POSITA would be able to arrive at the optimal concentration for the enzyme composition (soybean crude) in the gypsum slurry which is expected to be within the claimed range of 0.01 wt% to 5 wt%.
Claim 10: Soybean crude or watermelon seeds (Kim, page 1, first paragraph and page 5, last paragraph) inherently have an average particle size up to 5 mm in nature.
Claim 11: Kim shows soybean crude which is a biologically-derived enzyme comprising urease, which makes it more cost-efficient than using purified urease (Kim, pages 8 last paragraph to page 10, first paragraph).
Claims 12-13: Kim shows 15g/L of soybean crude in 4 g/L of gypsum powder would be most cost effective (Kim, page 9), Figure 8, Table 2. Thus, the POSITA should be able to arrive at the optimal concentration for the enzyme composition in the gypsum slurry.
Claim 17: See claim 1 above regarding the content of polyamide.
Claims 18-19: It appears that the polyamide (superfloc TM) of Stav does not contain biuret or formaldehyde, i.e. content of 0 wt.%/
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-13 above, and further in view of Randall (US-2024/035942)
Stav and Kim teaches a gypsym core of the claimed invention sandwiched between two sheets or facers as discussed above. Randall teaches the method for making the gypsum panel comprising: providing a first facing material; depositing a gypsum slurry comprising stucco, water, and additives onto the first facing material, providing a second facing material on the gypsum slurry; and allowing the stucco to convert to calcium sulfate dihydrate (Randall, claim 21). Thus, it would have been obvious to apply the method of Randall to make the gypsum panel according to the teaching of Stav and Kim by including the additives, i.e. polyamide as flocculant (Stav teaching) and enzyme composition (Kim’s teaching) in the gypsum slurry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Stav teaches amide composition in the gypsum core as a solution rather than in particulate form as required in the instant claims. In addition,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights