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 the invention III, claims 19 – 20, in the reply filed on February 06, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 06, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on February 06, 2026, has been entered. Claims 19 – 20 are currently amended. Claims 1 – 10 are withdrawn. Claims 11 – 18 are canceled. Claims 21 – 28 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings (FIG. 3) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a clear distinction (the data points are indistinguishable from each other) between the graphed data points for the graph of the drying rate (weight vs. time) at 4500 F of board formed from a slurry containing uncooked starch compared to board formed from a slurry containing pregelatinized corn starch B, as described in Example 3, each identified as “– –“ for pregelatinized corn starch B, and “ꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏꞏ” for Clinton 260, as described in the specification paragraph [0018]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 seems to mistakenly end on a semicolon “;” – instead of a period ( . ).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 19 and 21 contains the trademark/trade name Viscograph®-E, Claim 20, contains the trademark/trade name Brookfield®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a Viscograph®-E instrument, and the Brookfield® viscometer method, and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 20 – 28 are rejected as indefinite based in their direct/indirect dependent status from a rejected claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANG et al. (US 2014/0113128 A1), in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0376191 A1).
Regarding claim 19, SANG et al. teaches a method of preparing gypsum board [0002] comprising:
(a) mixing a slurry comprising stucco, water, and at least one pregelatinized starch (SANG discloses the pregelatinized starch comprising “any degree of gelatinization”, “partially gelatinized” [0006, 0020, 0041], TABLE 5; SANG discloses the use of uncooked starch e.g., Clinton®-260 (ADM), Supercore® S23F (GPC), Clinton® 444 (ADM), [0021]), having a peak viscosity of from about 120 Brabender Units to about 900 Brabender Units (e.g., 61.43 BU for Clinton® 277, 204.76 BU for Clinton® 260, 314.29 BU for Clinton® 240, 2447.62 BU for Clinton® 106, see TABLE 5 and [0147], SANG discloses viscosity measurements could be converted from other units e.g., cPs to BU by the following formula cP = BU x 2.1) when the viscosity is measured by putting the starch in a slurry with water at a starch concentration of 15% solids and using a Viscograph-E instrument set at 75 rpm and 700 cmg (see [0006, 0023, 0147]),
where the starch is heated from 25 °C to 90 °C at a rate of 5 °C/minute, the slurry is held at 90 °C for ten minutes, and the starch is cooled to 80 °C at a rate of -5 °C/minute [0144],
wherein the at least one uncooked starch is a chemically modified native starch (see SANG [0149] and TABLE 4; SANG [0041] further discloses that, “The starch can be chemically modified (in any order relative to a pregelatinization step) in accordance with some embodiments prior to inclusion in the slurry.”), and wherein the at least one uncooked starch is included in the slurry in a weight percentage of total starch content in the slurry that is greater than 30% ([0033] “a percentage of total starch content to be added to gypsum slurry can be, e.g., at least about 10% by weight, such as at least about 20%, at least about 30%, at least about 40%, at least about 50%, at least about 60%, at least about 70%, at least about 80%, at least about 90%, at least about 95%, at least about 99%, at least about 100%, or any range in between)”);
(b) disposing the slurry between a first cover sheet and a second cover sheet to form a wet assembly ([0006, 0008, 0011, 0041, 0068, 0122]);
(c) cutting the wet assembly into a board (e.g., [0008, 0012, 0041, 0061, 0114, 0133]); and
(d) drying the board ([0004, 0008, 0012, 0020, 0041]);
(e) wherein the gypsum board has a density of about 35 pcf or less (see [0055, 0083-0087]); and
(f) wherein the gypsum board has a strength such that the gypsum board has a nail pull resistance of at least about 70 lb. according to ASTM Standard C473-10, Method B, when the gypsum board is cast at a thickness of ½ inch (see [0043, 0103-0105]).
SANG et al. does not specifically disclose the at least one starch being uncooked starch in the mixing step (a), and where the starch peak viscosity is measured while the starch is heated from 25 °C to 95 °C at a rate of 3 °C/minute, the slurry is held at 95 °C for ten minutes, and the starch is cooled to 50 °C at a rate of -3 °C/minute.
SANG et al., however, discloses the use of commercially available starches supplied without gelatinization (uncooked) [0161] (e.g., Clinton® 260 (ADM)), in similar if not identical composition percentages, see SANG [0033]), which is the same commercially available starch disclosed as an uncooked starch by the Applicant e.g., in “Table 2: Brabender peak viscosity of a 15% of starch slurries” of the instant application and thus, it would inherently have similar properties. Furthermore, it is noted that SANG et al. discloses that the starch could comprise a “combination of starches may be pre-mixed (e.g., in a dry mix, optionally with other components such as stucco, etc., or in a wet mix with other wet ingredients) before addition to the gypsum slurry, or they can be included in the gypsum slurry one at a time, or any variation thereof.” [0033], and that, “In some embodiments, the pregelatinized starch is not fully gelatinized, even upon exiting the kiln so long as the starch meets the mid-range viscosity characteristic when under the conditions according to the VMA method.” [0024], in some embodiments, “the slurry comprises a second type of starch that is (a) not gelatinized” [0088]. SANG further discloses that the starch could comprise any degree of pre-gelatinization (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “any degree” is being interpreted as any degree of gelatinization over 0%), which overlaps with Applicant’s definition of “uncooked” as disclosed in paragraph [0037] of the instant application and cited for reference bellow:
“As used herein, uncooked means that the starch has a degree of gelatinization of less than about 5% (e.g., less than about 3%, or less than about 1%, such as zero) before being included in the gypsum slurry.”
Therefore, the claimed physical properties (e.g., peak viscosity at the claimed conditions “where the starch is heated from 25 °C to 95 °C at a rate of 3 °C/minute, the slurry is held at 95 °C for ten minutes, and the starch is cooled to 50 °C at a rate of -3 °C/minute”, density, board strength) implicitly would have been achieved by the method of preparing a gypsum board as claimed and rendered obvious (MPEP 2112.01(I,II)).
Like SANG et al., Li et al. discloses methods of making a composite gypsum board and a composite gypsum board comprising a board core comprising set gypsum formed from at least water, stucco, and optionally, an enhancing additive, the board core defining first and second core faces in opposing relation [0007-0012], wherein the enhancing additives can include uncooked starches, or pregelatinized starches, which are generally preferred over acid-modifying migrating starches which generally provide paper-core bond enhancement but not core strength enhancement [0101-0102].
Li et al. discloses that due to their low viscosity in water uncooked starches are selected because they are easy to mix with water, and can be selected over pregelatinized (cooked), since pregelatinized starches can sometimes cause “fish eye,” which is a condition that is characterized by one or more large lumps that form in the water solution during mixing. “Uncooked starches are believed to avoid the fish eye condition because of their cold water insolubility, which results in the separation of starch granules.” [0107-0108].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected at least one uncooked starch (e.g., SANG Clinton® 260 and/or Clinton® 240) in the slurry to form the set gypsum core in the gypsum board of SANG et al., as an enhancing additive and to avoid/prevent a fish eye condition, as suggested and taught by the prior art of Li et al., since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.”
Regarding claim 20, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the at least one uncooked starch is acid-modified (e.g., SANG [0008] “The starch can be chemically modified (in any order relative to a pregelatinization step) in accordance with some embodiments prior to inclusion in the slurry. In some embodiments, the pregelatinized starch is partially gelatinized when added to the slurry, with the remaining gelatinization taking place in the drying step (e.g., in a kiln). The starch becomes fully gelatinized in the kiln in some embodiments.”; see SANG TABLE 4 and TABLE 5, and SANG [0041, 0161]), and the dried board has a density of from about 16 pcf to about 35 pcf (SANG [0055, 0132]), except for explicitly disclosing, the at least one uncooked starch has a cold water viscosity of less than about 50 centipoise, as measured according to the Brookfield® viscometer method.
SANG, however, discloses the use of the same commercially available uncooked chemically modified, non-substituted starches used by the Applicant (e.g., Applicant’s disclosure at paragraph [0128] discloses Clinton® 240, Clinton® 277, and Applicant’s paragraph [0133] discloses Clinton® 260), which are disclosed by SANG (e.g., Clinton® 277, Clinton® 260, Clinton® 240, Clinton® 106, see TABLE 5 and [0147]).
Therefore, the claimed physical properties (e.g., a cold water viscosity of less than about 50 centipoise, as measured according to the Brookfield® viscometer method) implicitly would have been achieved by the uncooked chemically modified starch in the method of preparing a gypsum board of SANG/Li as claimed and rendered obvious. It has been held that when the claimed and prior art products are at least substantially identical, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 21, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the at least one uncooked starch is formed by chemically modifying an uncooked native starch (e.g., see SANG TABLE 4, TABLE 5 and [0149]) and , except for specifically disclosing, having a peak viscosity less than about 120 Brabender Units or greater than about 900 Brabender Units when the viscosity is measured by putting the starch in a slurry with water at a starch concentration of 15% solids, and using a Viscograph-E instrument set at 75 rpm and 700 cmg, where the starch is heated from 25 °C to 95 °C at a rate of 3 °C/minute, the slurry is held at 95 °C for ten minutes, and the starch is cooled to 50 °C at a rate of -3 °C/minute.
As discussed in claim 1 above, SANG et al., however, discloses the use of commercially available starches supplied without gelatinization (uncooked) [0161] (e.g., Clinton® 260 (ADM)), in similar if not identical composition percentages, see SANG [0033]), which is the same commercially available starch disclosed as an uncooked starch by the Applicant e.g., in “Table 2: Brabender peak viscosity of a 15% of starch slurries” of the instant application and thus, it would inherently have similar properties.
Therefore, the claimed physical properties (e.g., peak viscosity at the claimed conditions “where the starch is heated from 25 °C to 95 °C at a rate of 3 °C/minute, the slurry is held at 95 °C for ten minutes, and the starch is cooled to 50 °C at a rate of -3 °C/minute”, density, board strength) implicitly would have been achieved by the method of preparing a gypsum board as claimed and rendered obvious (MPEP 2112.01(I,II)).
Regarding claim 22, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the uncooked native starch before said chemically modifying is a native cereal starch or a native tuber starch (notice that SANG discloses the use of the same commercially available starches supplied without gelatinization (uncooked) [0161] (e.g., Clinton® 260 (ADM)), in similar if not identical composition percentages, see SANG [0033]). SANG [0008] further discloses that “The starch can be chemically modified (in any order relative to a pregelatinization step) in accordance with some embodiments prior to inclusion in the slurry.”. Therefore, it is expected that at least SANG uncooked native starch e.g., Clinton® 260 before said chemically modifying is a native cereal starch.
Regarding claim 23, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 21, wherein said chemically modifying the uncooked native starch comprises acid-modifying (SANG [0018] and TABLE 4 and TABLE 5) or enzyme modifying (see SANG [0018]) the uncooked native starch to adjust a molecular weight (SANG [0018]).
Regarding claim 24, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 21, wherein said chemically modifying the uncooked native starch comprises acid-modifying the uncooked native starch to adjust a molecular weight, wherein said acid-modifying is halted by neutralizing an acid (SANG [0018] “To prepare acid-modified starches, it will be appreciated that aqueous suspension of unmodified starch can be treated with, e.g., a small quantity of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, or the like. By adjusting reaction time, the degree of depolymerization can be modified. For example, when the proper fluidity is achieved, e.g., as determined by in-process laboratory controls, mild alkali is introduced to neutralize the acid and stop hydrolysis.”).
Regarding claim 25, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 24, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the at least one uncooked starch is a non-migratory starch, and wherein the prepared slurry further comprises an uncooked migratory starch.
SANG, however, discloses the use of the same commercially available uncooked chemically modified starches used by the Applicant (e.g., Applicant’s disclosure at paragraph [0128] discloses Clinton® 240, Clinton® 277, and Applicant’s paragraph [0133] discloses Clinton® 260), which are disclosed by SANG (e.g., Clinton® 277, Clinton® 260, Clinton® 240, Clinton® 106, see TABLE 5 and [0147]). Furthermore, SANG [0033] discloses “the pregelatinized starches exhibiting the desired mid-range viscosity characteristic can be combined with other starches to enhance both core strength and paper-core bond, particularly if some increase in water demand is accepted.” … “Thus, in some embodiments of the invention, gypsum slurry may include one or more pregelatinized starches having the mid-range viscosity characteristic, as well as one or more other types of starches. The other starches may also be in the form of, e.g., non-pregelatinized starches [uncooked starches], such as acid-modified starches, as well as alkylated starches, e.g., ethylated starches, that are not gelatinized, etc. The combination of starches may be pre-mixed (e.g., in a dry mix, optionally with other components such as stucco, etc., or in a wet mix with other wet ingredients) before addition to the gypsum slurry, or they can be included in the gypsum slurry one at a time, or any variation thereof. Any suitable proportion of pregelatinized starch having the mid-range viscosity characteristic and other starch may be included.”
Li et al. [0101] discloses that “the enhancing additive comprises an ingredient, such as starch, that is effective to increase the dry strength of the composite gypsum board relative to the strength of the composite board without the ingredient such as starch (e.g., via increased compressive strength, nail pull resistance, flexural strength, core hardness, or other strength parameter),” and that “if desired, the acid-modifying migrating starch can be included with the enhancing additive in some embodiments.”
As the gypsum board strength parameters (e.g., compressive strength, nail pull resistance, flexural strength, core hardness), and the paper-core bond strength are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said quantities of uncooked non-migratory starch and said uncooked migratory starch in the slurry composition of gypsum board, with said strength parameters and paper-core bond strength both increasing as the quantities of uncooked non-migratory starch and said uncooked migratory starch are increased, the precise quantities of uncooked non-migratory starch and said uncooked migratory starch would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed slurry composition comprising the uncooked non-migratory starch and said uncooked migratory starch cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the gypsum slurry composition to comprise an uncooked non-migratory starch and an uncooked migratory starch in the gypsum board slurry composition in the method of SANG/Li to obtain the desired balance between the board strength parameters (e.g., compressive strength, nail pull resistance, flexural strength, core hardness), and the paper-core bond strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 26, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the method further comprises drying the set gypsum core (SANG [0004, 0008, 0012, 0020, 0041]), and wherein during said drying the set gypsum core, the migratory uncooked starch migrates to a paper-core interface between the set gypsum core and at least one of the first and second cover sheets while the at least one uncooked starch remains in the set gypsum core (notice that Li et al. [0103] discloses this is known and expected from migratory starches, since migratory starches “are used in the art for paper-core bond enhancement as they migrate to the paper-core interface due to their smaller chain lengths”, see Li et al. [0101]) .
Regarding claim 27, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the at least one uncooked starch is included in the slurry as a weight percentage of total starch content in the slurry that is greater than 90% (e.g., SANG [0033] “a percentage of total starch content to be added to gypsum slurry can be, e.g., at least about 10% by weight, such as at least about 20%, at least about 30%, at least about 40%, at least about 50%, at least about 60%, at least about 70%, at least about 80%, at least about 90%, at least about 95%, at least about 99%, at least about 100%, or any range in between)”).
Regarding claim 28, SANG/Li teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the at least one uncooked starch is included in the slurry in an amount that is greater than 0.5% and less than 2% by weight of the stucco (SANG [0074 – 0076]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andersen et al. (US Pat. No. 5,736,209): “Compositions and methods for manufacturing sheets having a starch-bound matrix reinforced with fibers and optionally including an inorganic mineral filler.” (Abstract).
US Pat. No. 5,641,349: Col. 7 lines 20 – 40 “When the thermally-inhibited starches and flours are non-pregelatinized granular starches or flours, the starches or flours exhibit an unchanged or reduced gelatinization temperature. In contrast, most annealed and heat/moisture treated starches show an increased gelatinization temperature. Chemically-crosslinked starches show an unchanged gelatinization temperature. It is believed the overall granular structure of the thermally-inhibited starches and flours has been altered.”
US PGPub. 2005/0223949 A1: [0022] As used herein, the term "gelatinization" refers to the irreversible physico-chemical change of a starch composition wherein the starch granules swell upon the addition of a solvent and heat. Gelatinization onset is illustrated at the point when the viscosity of the starch slurry composition initially increases upon the addition of heat. [0023] As used herein, the term "acid modified starch" refers to a class of starches that have properties that have been chemically and/or physically altered through the addition of an acid to perform degradative attacks on the starch molecule. The principle objective of acid modification is to decrease the molecular weight of the starch by breaking the starch chains and to reduce the hot paste viscosity; thus the term "thin-boiling" starch. [0024] As used herein a "Brabender micro visco amylograph" is a measuring devise to determine the viscosity profile of a starch slurry at a given percent solids by measuring viscosity relative to time at a given start temperature, temperature rate increase/decrease, concentration, speed (rpm), and measuring range (cmg). The Brabender micro visco amylograph is commercially available from C. W. Brabender, South Hackensack, N.J. The test parameters set forth in the general operating procedures (Example 7) and in FIGS. 3-6, are the parameters that were employed to generate the viscosity profiles set forth herein and in the claims. [0025] As used herein the phrase "nail pull" refers to an industry measure of strength, typically measured in pounds, for the amount of force required for the board to be pulled over the head of the nail. A typical nail pull value for gypsum wallboard is in the range of 65 to 85 pounds of force.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742