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 of claims 1–18 in the reply filed on 23 September 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 23 September 2026.
Drawings
The drawings filed 14 August 2024 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites chloride-containing flue-gas desulfurization gypsum powder having the median particle size (D50) of at least about 20 µm. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the” median particle size in this claim. The Examiner does not find this to lead to indefiniteness, as any powder must implicitly have a median particle size, but the use of “the” is still a formal issue that must be corrected. The Examiner recommends the article “a” in lieu of “the”, which properly establishes explicit antecedent basis for the median particle size.
Parent claim 1 recites a composition comprising flue-gas desulfurization gypsum having the (interpreted as “a”) D50 particle size. Claim 2 recites a limitation wherein the composition’s friction coefficient is compared to that of a composition made with natural gypsum, wherein the natural gypsum has its own D50 particle size. However, the natural gypsum is recited as having “the median particle size (D50)” (emphasis added). Since claim 2 is drawn to a different type of gypsum with its own D50, referring to “the D50” is potentially ambiguous, since the antecedent D50 refers to a different gypsum with a larger D50. The Examiner recommends “a D50”, since the D50 introduced in parent claim 1 is not meant to provide antecedent support for the D50 in claim 2.
Claim 13 recites “about 0.04 wt.% to about 1.5 wt.% chloride by weight”. The unit “wt.%” is synonymous with “by weight”, and thus the claim language is redundant. Claim 13 can be amended to recite “about 0.04% to about 1.5% chloride by weight”, or the words “by weight” can be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Various claims use the qualifier “about” when reciting values. The Specification, paragraph 0028, defines “about” as ±10% of the recited value, e.g., “about 50%” encompasses 45–55%. As the term “about” is clearly defined in the Specification, it does not lead to indefiniteness.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the process by which the gypsum powder of the claimed product is obtained. These are considered product-by-process limitations. Pursuant to MPEP 2113, if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Any product-by-process limitations that materially affect the resulting product are considered to have patentable weight, however. In claim 5, the limitation “wherein the method is performed without a step of lowering the chloride concentration” is considered to materially limit the chloride content of flue-gas desulfurization gypsum. The Examiner will herein consider any flue-gas desulfurization gypsum as meeting the product-by-process limitations of claims 5 and 6, so long as the gypsum has not had its chloride content lowered.
Claim 6 recites the limitation wherein the method further comprises removing fine particles from the chloride-containing FGD gypsum powder. The term “fine particles” is defined in the Specification, paragraph 00048 as encompassing particle sizes of 5 µm or smaller. As the term “fine particles” is clearly defined in the Specification, it does not lead to indefiniteness.
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 3, 10–12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 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 3, 10, 11 and 14 each recite Markush groups preceded by the transitional phrase “comprises” or “comprising” (claim 3: chloride salts; claim 10: additive; claim 11: light-weight fillers; claim 14: dedusting agents). Pursuant to MPEP 2117 and 2173.05(h), a Markush group is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of” (rather than “comprising”). The transitional phrase “comprises” leads to indefiniteness because it is unclear what other alternatives are meant to be encompassed by the claim. For purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an open-ended Markush group is for the Markush species to be treated as examples. The Examiner will therefore consider prior art teaching any chloride salt, any additive, any light-weight filler, and any dedusting agent as meeting the claimed subject matter, regardless of whether or not the prior art species is explicitly recited in the Markush group.
Claim 12, being dependent on claim 11, inherits its deficiencies, and is rejected on the same grounds of indefiniteness.
Claim 15 recites a latex binder “with a high glass transition temperature”. The word “high” is a relative term that is not clearly defined in the Specification as to inform a person having ordinary skill in the art of the exact glass transition temperature that is considered “high”. The Specification, paragraph 00097, recites latex binders with high glass transition temperatures as preferably being in the range from about 30 to about 60 °C. However, preferable embodiments do not inform a person having ordinary skill in the art of the non-preferred embodiments which are still intended to be encompassed by the claimed invention. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner will herein treat any latex binder as meeting the claim limitation, since any glass transition temperature could potentially be encompassed by the relative term “high”.
Claim 17 recites a compound comprising, inter alia, “the one or more clays comprising about 0.5–5.0 wt.% attapulgite clay and about 0.1–3.0 wt.% kaolin clay” (emphasis added). This leads to indefiniteness because “one or more” still allows for just one clay to be used, while the limitation uses the conjunction “and”, which indicates that at least two clays are required. It is therefore unclear whether a prior art composition reciting, e.g., just attapulgite clay in an otherwise identical composition would infringe on the claim. For purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is “at least two clays” (which is still encompassed by the “one or more clays” recited in parent claim 1), comprising attapulgite and kaolin clays in the recited amounts.
Claim 18, being dependent on claim 17, inherits its deficiencies, and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7–9, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Petit (US 2008/0210136 A1, hereinafter “Petit”). Evidentiary support for the composition of flue-gas desulfurization gypsum is provided by Chen et al. (Energy Sci Eng., 2020, 8, 2662–2679, hereinafter “Chen”), and is applied directly to claims 1 and 3, and to all claims dependent thereon.
Regarding claim 1, Petit teaches a drying-type joint compound composition (see generally abstract and paragraph 0001), comprising:
chloride-containing flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum powder having the (interpreted as “a”; see the above Claim Objection section) median particle size (D50) of at least about 20 µm (see paragraph 0007 teaching FGD gypsum; see paragraph 0008 teaching the D50 as being from 35–70 µm, which meets the “at least” limitation; also see Chen describing a method of dechlorinating FGD gypsum, wherein Figure 5 shows a maximum dechlorination of about 84%, and wherein Figure 7 shows the “after dechlorination" chloride content to be above 0%, indicating that even dechlorinated FGD gypsum retains at least some chloride content; Petit also teaches the use of FGD gypsum as directly obtained from the outlet of a desulfurization unit [see paragraph 0012], i.e., without any further processing; Petit is therefore considered to implicitly and inherently meet the “chloride-containing” limitation; see MPEP 2112 regarding rejections based on inherency);
a binder (see paragraph 0018 teaching a binder);
one or more clays (see paragraph 0021 teaching a clay);
a cellulosic thickener (see paragraph 0022 teaching a cellulose derivative as a thickener; “cellulosic” refers to any material that is made from or derived from cellulose); and,
an additive (see paragraphs 0023–0030 teaching various additives).
Petit therefore anticipates each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Petit teaches the drying-type joint compound composition of claim 1, and further teaches the limitation wherein the chloride-containing FGD gypsum powder comprises one or more chloride salts (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 3; see paragraph 0012 teaching the gypsum as being used as directly obtained from a desulfurization unit, i.e., without any further processing such as dechlorination; see Chen, section 3.2, first paragraph teaching FGD gypsum as primarily containing chloride in the form of CaCl2, MgCl2, KCl, and NaCl; Petit is therefore considered to implicitly and inherently teach the presence of chloride salts; see MPEP 2112 regarding rejections based on inherency).
Regarding claim 7, Petit further teaches the limitation wherein the additive includes a polymeric additive selected from, inter alia, a surfactant, a dispersing agent, and a defoaming agent (see paragraph 0023 teaching an anti-foaming agent, which is a non-ionic surfactant; also see paragraph 0028 teaching dispersing agents).
Regarding claim 8, Petit further teaches the limitation wherein the chloride-containing FGD gypsum powder has the D50 value in the range from about 20 µm to about 80 µm (see paragraph 0008 teaching a D50 ranging from 35–70 µm).
Regarding claim 9, Petit further teaches the limitation wherein the chloride-containing FGD gypsum powder is in an amount ranging from about 50 wt.% to about 95 wt.% on a dry basis of the drying-type joint compound (see paragraph 0007 teaching 50–85 wt.% FGD gypsum). Claim 9 includes an alternative limitation, but the conjunction “or” means that the claim can be met by prior art teaching either limitation. Nonetheless, Petit also teaches the inclusion of calcium carbonate (see paragraph 0016), which is required by the alternative limitation, but fails to teach the weight percentage thereof. Petit is considered to anticipate claim 9 by teaching the first limitation, but, in the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that if Applicants were to amend claim 9 to solely recite the second limitation, Petit could still reasonably render the second limitation prima facie obvious even without explicitly reciting a concentration of calcium carbonate (see MPEP 2144.05(II) regarding differences in concentration).
Regarding claim 11, Petit further teaches the limitation wherein the drying-type joint compound composition further comprises one or more light-weight fillers (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 11; see paragraph 0017 teaching expanded perlite as a light weight aggregate).
Regarding claim 14, Petit further teaches the limitation wherein the drying-type joint compound composition further comprises one or more dedusting agents (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 14; see paragraph 0024 teaching wax and siloxanes, which are included in the recited list of acceptable dedusting agents; see MPEP 2112
Regarding claim 15, Petit further teaches the limitation wherein the binder is a latex binder (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 15; see paragraph 0018 teaching a latex binder).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 2, 4–6, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit. Evidentiary support for the composition of flue-gas desulfurization gypsum is provided by Chen, and is applied directly to claims 4 and 13. Evidentiary support for differences in particle size distribution measurements is provided by Anton Paar (“Particle size analysis methods: Dynamic light scattering vs. laser diffraction”, <wiki.anton-paar.com>, 2020, hereinafter “AP”), and is applied to only to claim 2.
Regarding claim 2, Petit teaches the drying-type joint compound composition of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the median particle size (D50) is measured in a dynamic light scattering analyzer (see paragraph 0048 teaching the D50 as being measured by Malvern® Mastersizer s, which is a laser diffractometer and thus is not equivalent to dynamic light scattering analysis). Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) measures the hydrodynamic diameter of particles, which is often larger than the particle itself due to agglomeration and/or solvation shell, and the D50 measured by DLS is intensity-weighted. Conversely, Laser Diffraction (LD) measures scattering intensity of individual particles, and the D50 measured by LD is volume-weighted (see AP). As a result, the claimed D50 is expected to differ from Petit’s D50. AP discusses the degree of difference between these two methods, and specifically notes that the deviation between values can be 10% or more, meaning Petit’s LD-based D50 may be equivalent to ~31–77 µm as measured by DLS. However, even if Petit’s LD-based D50 is assumed to have more than 10% deviation when compared to the claimed DLS-based D50, there is expected to still be at least some overlap between Petit’s D50 and the claimed D50, sufficient to support a prima facie obviousness rejection (also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Petit further fails to teach the limitation wherein, when the drying-type joint composition is mixed with water and allowed to dry, it has a friction coefficient lower than a friction coefficient of a drying-type joint compound comprising natural gypsum. However, Petit anticipates the composition of claim 1 (see the above 102 rejection of claim 1), and thus the properties of Petit’s composition are inherently the same as the claimed properties, including having a friction coefficient lower than that of a composition comprising natural gypsum (see MPEP 2112.01(II) regarding the inherency of properties in identical compositions). Therefore, although Petit fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2, Petit’s teachings are sufficient to support a prima facie obviousness rejection.
Regarding claim 4, Petit further teaches the limitation wherein the chloride-containing FGD gypsum powder contains from about 500 PPM to about 20,000 PPM of chloride (see paragraph 0012 teaching the gypsum as being used as directly obtained from a desulfurization unit, i.e., without any further processing such as dechlorination; see Chen, section 3.2, first paragraph teaching the average chloride content in FGD gypsum as being as high as 1041.69 mg/L [=1041.69 PPM]). Absent evidence to the contrary, Petit is considered to teach FGD gypsum with an average chloride content, which can be as high as 1041.69 PPM, though “as high as” does imply a lower bound which may extend below the claimed range. Petit is therefore considered to teach a chloride content potentially ranging from 0–1041.69 PPM, which overlaps with the claimed range (also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Petit fails to explicitly teach the claimed product-by-process limitations, but Petit’s product is substantially similar to the claimed product, and thus Petit still meets the limitations of the product-by-process (see the above Claim Interpretation section and MPEP 2113). Petit does teach the meaningful method limitations wherein the method is performed without a step of lowering the chloride concentration and wherein the method further comprises removing fine particles from the FGD gypsum powder (see paragraph 0012 teaching the gypsum as being used as directly obtained from a desulfurization unit, i.e., without any further processing such as dechlorination; also see paragraph 0012 teaching the use of sieving to keep the D50 within a set range, which inherently encompasses removing fine particles).
Regarding claim 10, Petit further teaches the limitation wherein the drying-type joint compound composition comprises on a dry basis:
about 50 wt.% to about 95 wt.% of the FGD gypsum powder (see paragraph 0007 teaching 50–85 wt.% FGD Gypsum);
about 0.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of the binder (see paragraph 0019 teaching 1–8 wt.% binder);
about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the one or more clays (see paragraph 0021 teaching 1–5 wt.% clay);
about 0.05 wt.% to about 3 wt.% of the cellulosic thickener (see paragraph 0022 teaching 1–15 wt.% cellulose thickener; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges);
about 0.1 wt.% to about 3 wt.% of the additive (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 10; see paragraph 0023 teaching 1–15 wt.% anti-foaming agent, which is one of the recited additives; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Regarding claim 12, Petit fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the one or more of the light-weight fillers are used in an amount from about 0.5 wt.% to about 25 wt.% on a dry basis (see paragraph 0017 teaching the use of lightweight aggregates, but no concentration is specified). However, the use of lightweight aggregate is known to lower the density of compositions, and density is identified by Petit as a property to be optimized within a set range (see paragraph 0031). Pursuant to MPEP 2144.05(II), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Because Petit identifies density as an optimizable parameter, and because lightweight filler is known to reduce the overall density of a composition, a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to practice the disclosure of Petit, including the use of lightweight aggregate, can reasonably arrive at a concentration of lightweight aggregate that falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Petit fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the chloride-containing FGD gypsum powder comprises from about 0.04 wt.% to about 1.5 wt.% chloride by weight, but still meets this limitation implicitly (see paragraph 0012 teaching the gypsum as being used as directly obtained from a desulfurization unit, i.e., without any further processing such as dechlorination; see Chen, section 3.2, first paragraph teaching the average chloride content in FGD gypsum as being as high as 1041.69 mg/L [=0.104169 wt.%]). Absent evidence to the contrary, Petit is considered to teach FGD gypsum with an average chloride content, which can be as high as 0.104 wt.%, though “as high as” does imply a lower bound which may extend below the claimed range. Petit is therefore considered to teach a chloride content potentially ranging from 0–0.104 wt.%, which overlaps with the claimed range (also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vitiello (Results in Materials, 2023, 100370, hereinafter “Vitiello”).
Regarding claim 16, Petit fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the drying-type joint compound composition further comprises one or more of ASE and/or HASE rheological modifier. Petit does teach the use of rheological modifiers (see paragraph 0022 teaching workability agents such as water-retaining agents, which is a genus that includes hydrophobic alkali-swellable emulsion (HASE) polymers), but fails to explicitly teach HASE polymers. Vitiello teaches HASE polymers for cementitious systems (see generally abstract; gypsum-based systems like Petit’s are considered cementitious). Because Petit teaches a cementitious composition comprising a genus that includes HASE polymers, and because Vitiello teaches HASE polymers in cementitious systems, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been sufficiently motivated to modify Petit according to Vitiello. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale B, which states it is prima facie obvious to simply substitute one known element (Vitiello’s HASE polymers) for another (Petit’s water-retaining rheological modifiers) to obtain predictable results (both references teach water-retaining rheological modifiers in cementitious systems, and there is no teaching in either reference to suggest the disclosures are incompatible, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). The proposed modification arrives at the claimed invention, and thus claim 16 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Active Minerals (“Construction”, <activeminerals.com>, 2021, hereinafter “AM”). Evidentiary support for the composition of flue-gas desulfurization gypsum is provided by Chen, and is applied directly to claim 17.
Regarding claim 17, Petit teaches a ready-mix drying-type compound, wherein the compound comprises the composition of claim 1 (see the above 102 rejection of claim 1) and water in the following amounts:
about 25.0–67.0 wt.% of the chloride-containing FGD gypsum powder containing about 0.04–1.5 wt.% of chloride (see paragraph 0051, wherein the table discloses 505 weight parts gypsum per 767.29 weight parts total, i.e., 65.8 wt.%; see paragraph 0012 teaching the gypsum as being used as directly obtained from a desulfurization unit, i.e., without any further processing such as dechlorination; see Chen, section 3.2, first paragraph teaching the average chloride content in FGD gypsum as being as high as 1041.69 mg/L [=0.104169 wt.%]). Absent evidence to the contrary, Petit is considered to teach FGD gypsum with an average chloride content, which can be as high as 0.104 wt.%, though “as high as” does imply a lower bound which may extend below the claimed range. Petit is therefore considered to teach a chloride content potentially ranging from 0–0.104 wt.%, which overlaps with the claimed range (also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges);
about 0.1–5.0 wt.% of the binder (see paragraph 0051, wherein the table discloses 20 weight parts EVA [see paragraph 0018 teaching EVA as a binder] per 767.29 weight parts total, i.e., 2.6 wt.%);
the one or more clays comprising about 0.5–5.0 wt.% attapulgite clay (see paragraph 0051, wherein the table discloses 10 weight parts clay [see paragraph 0021 teaching the clay as attapulgite clay] per 767.29 weight parts total, i.e., 1.3 wt.%);
about 0.1–0.6 wt.% of the cellulosic thickener (see paragraph 0051, wherein the table discloses 3.2 weight parts of cellulose ether per 767.29 weight parts total, i.e., 0.42 wt.%);
about 0.1–2.0 wt.% of the additive (see paragraph 0052 teaching 0.85 weight parts non-ionic surfactant, 0.48 weight parts microbiocide, and 3 weight parts starch [all of which are identified as additives by applicants], which is 4.33 weight parts additives per 767.29 weight parts total, i.e., 0.56 wt.%); and
about 25.0–55.0 wt.% water (see paragraph 0052 teaching 200 weight parts water per 767.29 weight parts total, i.e., 26.1 wt.%).
Petit fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the composition also comprises from about 0.1–3.0 wt.% kaolin clay. Although Petit specifically teaches attapulgite clay, Petit also teaches the spreading agent as including any known spreading agent, which allows for other types of clay (see paragraph 0021). AM teaches attapulgite clay as being the thickener and rheology modifier of choice for decades in hundreds of joint compound formulations (see section “Joint (or Tape Joint) Compound”), but goes on to teach kaolin clay as being used to improve workability and sanding properties, wherein kaolin clay is especially useful in lightweight joint compounds (see section “Lower Dosage Rate”). Because Petit teaches attapulgite clay in a jointing compound, and because AM teaches attapulgite and kaolin clays in jointing compounds, with additional benefits associated with the inclusion of kaolin clays, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been sufficiently motivated to modify Petit according to AM. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale G, which states it is prima facie obvious for some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art (AM’s teachings of the benefits of kaolin clay in joint compounds) to lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (modifying Petit according to AM to include kaolin clay with the attapulgite clay) to arrive at the claimed invention, if there is a reasonable expectation of success (AM explicitly teaches attapulgite and kaolin clays as useful in joint compounds, and Petit teaches the use of attapulgite clay in joint compounds, and there is no teaching in either reference to suggest that Petit’s composition is incompatible with kaolin clay, so one of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success). The proposed modification arrives at the claimed invention, and thus claim 17 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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 and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 18 depends from claim 17, and recites the limitation wherein the water is seawater. This limitation is significant because the use of seawater introduces salinity to the composition, which is generally something avoided by comparable compositions. Chloride content is known to increase corrosion and hinder adherence of the jointing compound to substrates. It is for these reasons and more that references such as Chen actively seek to dechlorinate FGD gypsum. Therefore, a composition which actively incorporates additional chloride into the system is distinct from similar prior art compositions. Furthermore, due to the negative effects associated with chloride, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to use seawater in lieu of tap water or deionized water. Therefore, claim 18 appears to be novel over the prior art of record, and is therefore considered to encompass allowable subject matter. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of its dependence on rejected claim 17, and is further objected to as being dependent on rejected claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Thu, Sat, Sun from 7 AM to 5 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
