DETAILED ACTION
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 1-21) and Species 2 (claim 14) in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13, 15 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/23/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 and 12/17/2024 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract exceeds 150 words.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “the vinyl acetate polymer”, which should be “the acetate polymer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 20 and 21 each recite NRC value, which should be “noise reduction coefficient (NRC) value”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. (5,347,780).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Richards et al. disclose a gypsum panel comprising a gypsum fiberboard (gypsum core) and a wood veneer (first facing material and second facing material) applied to exposed faces of the gypsum fiberboard (see Abstract and page 10, claim 11). The gypsum fiberboard (gypsum core) comprising about 65 to 90 wt% of gypsum and up to 9 wt% binder (see Abstract). The binder can be poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer (see col. 7, lines 32-35). Accordingly, the amount of poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer is 0 to 9 wt%.
Accordingly, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel. Given that Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel comprising gypsum core including gypsum and acetate polymer identical to that presently claimed, with amounts of gypsum and acetate polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the gypsum panel necessarily inherently exhibits a nail pull resistance identical to that presently claimed.
In light of the overlap between the claimed gypsum panel and that disclosed by Richards et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a gypsum panel that is both disclosed by Richards et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3-5, Richards et al. disclose that the binder can be poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer (see col. 7, lines 32-35).
Regarding claims 6-8, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that there is no disclosure of polyvinyl alcohol in the gypsum core in Richards et al., the amount of polyvinyl alcohol is 0 wt%.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Richards et al. disclose the binder such as poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer in amount of 0 to 9 wt% (see Abstract and col. 7, lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 17, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that there is no disclosure of expanded perlite in the gypsum core in Richards et al., the amount of expanded perlite is 0 wt%.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel comprising gypsum core including gypsum and acetate polymer identical to that presently claimed, with amounts of gypsum and acetate polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the gypsum panel necessarily inherently exhibits a nail pull resistance identical to that presently claimed.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel comprising gypsum core including gypsum and acetate polymer identical to that presently claimed, with amounts of gypsum and acetate polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the gypsum panel necessarily inherently has an NRC value identical to that presently claimed.
Claims 1-9, 12 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. (5,347,780).
Regarding claims 1-5, 9 and 12, Richards et al. disclose a gypsum panel comprising a gypsum fiberboard (gypsum core) and a wood veneer (first facing material and second facing material) applied to exposed faces of the gypsum fiberboard (see Abstract and page 10, claim 11). The gypsum fiberboard (gypsum core) comprising about 65 to 90 wt% of gypsum and up to 9 wt% binder (see Abstract). The binder can be starch (see col. 7, lines 26-27). Given that poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer is optional in the binder, the amount of poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer is 0 wt% (see col. 7, lines 22-31).
Accordingly, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel. Given that Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel comprising gypsum core including gypsum and starch identical to that presently claimed, with amount of gypsum overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the gypsum panel necessarily inherently exhibits a nail pull resistance identical to that presently claimed.
In light of the overlap between the claimed gypsum panel and that disclosed by Richards et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a gypsum panel that is both disclosed by Richards et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6-8, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that there is no disclosure of polyvinyl alcohol in the gypsum core in Richards et al., the amount of polyvinyl alcohol is 0 wt%.
Regarding claim 16, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. The amount of starch is up to 9 wt% and the amount of poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer is 0 wt% as noted above. Given that the amount of starch can be 9 wt%, the amount of starch is greater than amount of poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer.
Regarding claim 17, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that there is no disclosure of expanded perlite in the gypsum core in Richards et al., the amount of expanded perlite is 0 wt%.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel comprising gypsum core including gypsum and starch identical to that presently claimed, with amount of gypsum overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the gypsum panel necessarily inherently exhibits a nail pull resistance identical to that presently claimed.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that Richards et al. disclose the gypsum panel comprising gypsum core including gypsum and starch identical to that presently claimed, with amount of gypsum overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the gypsum panel necessarily inherently has an NRC value identical to that presently claimed.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blades et al. (US 2021/0129479 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 9, Blades et al. disclose a gypsum panel comprising a first encasing layer 130 (first facing material), a second encasing layer 140 (second facing material) and a gypsum core 110 between the first encasing layer and the second encasing layer (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0059). The gypsum core comprises at least 60 wt% of gypsum (see paragraph 0015). Given that there is no disclosure of poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer in the gypsum core, the amount of poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer is 0 wt%. The gypsum panel has a nail pull resistance of at least 25 lbf tested according to ASTM C1396 (see paragraph 0078).
In light of the overlap between the claimed gypsum panel and that disclosed by Blades et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a gypsum panel that is both disclosed by Blades et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3-5, Blades et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that the amount of poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer is 0 wt%, Blades et al. meet present claims.
Regarding claims 6-8, Blades et al. disclose the gypsum panel as set forth above. Given that there is no disclosure of polyvinyl alcohol in the gypsum core, the amount of polyvinyl alcohol is 0 wt%.
Regarding claim 11, Blades et al. disclose the gypsum core can contain a surfactant (see paragraph 0019). Blades et al. do not disclose the surfactant utilized for stabilizing the acetate polymer.
However, the recitation in the claims that the surfacant is “for stabilizing the acetate polymer” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Blades et al. disclose surfactant as presently claimed, it is clear that the surfactant of Blades et al. would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for stabilizing the acetate polymer, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Blades et al. disclose that the gypsum core can comprise starch such as acid-modified starch (see paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 16, Blades et al. disclose that the gypsum core can contain additive such as starch in an amount of 0.0001 to 20 wt% (see paragraphs 0019, 0020). Given that the amount of poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer is 0 wt%, the amount of starch is more than poly(vinyl acetate) homopolymer.
Regarding claim 17, based on the claim, expanded perlite is not required, but if present, Blades et al. disclose that the amount of expanded perlite can be 0.0001 to 20 wt% (see paragraphs 0019, 0020).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Blades et al. disclose that the gypsum panel has a nail pull resistance of at least 25 lbf tested according to ASTM C1396 (see paragraph 0078).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Blades et al. disclose that the gypsum panel has a noise reduction coefficient (NRC) value of 0.15 to 1 tested according to ASTM E1050 (see paragraph 0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights