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 Group I, claims 1-6, and 8-22, species A(i): unbound thermal additive in the reply filed on 6/5/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0212996 to Yuan et al. (hereinafter “Yuan”).
As to claim 1, Yuan discloses a gypsum panel comprising a gypsum core 201 and a barrier coating 206, 214 on each surface of the gypsum core (figure 2). The gypsum core comprises three gypsum layers 202, 208 and 210 wherein both gypsum layers 202 and 210 in contact with nonwoven fibrous mats 204 and 212 are called “slate coat” layers (paragraph 27).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The gypsum layer comprises a combination of colloidal silica and colloidal alumina (paragraph 32). The fibrous mat reads on the claimed thermal barrier layer. The barrier coatings 206, 214 read on the claimed first and second facing materials. Further, the gypsum layers 202, 210 correspond to the claimed first and second facing materials as well.
As to claims 2, 3, 10 and 11, Yuan discloses that the nonwoven fibrous mat comprises mineral fibers including glass fibers (paragraph 29) corresponding to the claimed thermal additive.
As to claims 4 and 5, Yuan discloses that the glass fibers have an average diameter of 10 to 17 µm, and an average length of ¼ inch to 1 inch or 0.64 to 2.54 cm (paragraph 65). These are within the claimed ranges.
As to claims 1, 6, 20 and 21, alternatively, Yuan discloses a gypsum panel 300 comprising a gypsum core 301 and two paper facer materials 306, 314 on each surface of the gypsum core (figure 3). The gypsum core comprises three gypsum layers 302, 308 and 310 wherein the gypsum layers 302 and 310 in contact with the paper facer materials are called “slate coat” layers (paragraph 62).
Each gypsum layer comprises a combination of colloidal silica and colloidal alumina (paragraph 32).
Each gypsum layer further contains reinforcing fibers such as glass fibers or particles, having a diameter of 10 to 17 microns and a length of 0.5 to 1.8 cm (paragraph 68). The slate coat layer 302 or 301 reads on the claimed thermal barrier layer. The reinforcing fibers in the slate coat layer are unbound due to the absence of the binder.
PNG
media_image2.png
557
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claims 8 and 9, Yuan discloses that the nonwoven fiberglass mat has a basis weight of 15 to 60 lbs/MSF (paragraph 65).
As to claims 13, and 16-18, Yuan discloses that the gypsum layer comprises a mixture of colloidal silica and colloidal alumina (paragraph 32).
As to claim 14, Yuan discloses that the colloidal silica has an average particle size of 2 to 150 nm, particularly 60 to 90 nm (paragraph 20).
As to claim 19, Yuan discloses that a ratio of the colloidal material to the gypsum core is from 100:150 o to 15:1500 (paragraph 35). Hence, the colloidal material is present in an amount of 1.0 to 6.7 wt% based on the weight of the gypsum core.
As to claim 22, Yuan discloses that the gypsum core further comprises vermiculite (paragraph 41).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2015/0240492 to Teng et al. (hereinafter “Teng”).
Yuan does not explicitly disclose the nonwoven mat comprising ceramic fibers.
Teng, however, discloses a gypsum panel 100 comprising a gypsum core 106 disposed between two nonwoven fibrous mats 102, 108, and each of the nonwoven fibrous mats being coated with a fiber-reinforced coating 104, 110 (figure 1).
The fibrous mat includes glass fibers, ceramic fibers, carbon fibers, polymer fibers or a combination thereof (paragraph 22).
PNG
media_image3.png
550
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include ceramic fibers disclosed in Teng in the fiber mat of Yuan, motivated by the desire to enhance a strong bond of the fiber mat with the gypsum layer through a mechanical interlocking between the interstices of the fibrous mat and the portions of the gypsum layer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan.
Yuan discloses that the colloidal silica has an average particle size of 2 to 150 nm (paragraph 20). This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the average particle size of the colloidal silica will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the in the average particle size of the colloidal silica is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the average particle size of the colloidal silica in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to obtain a gypsum panel having improved strength, lightweight durability and fire resistance. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights