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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,708,692 (referred to herein as "Stav'692"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both are for a panel with a core of water settable material.
Regarding Instant Claim 1: Stav'692 claims a cementitious panel, comprising: a core layer comprising a first cementitious material; a plurality of sheets of facing material surrounding the core layer, the plurality of sheets of facing material comprising a first sheet of facing material and a second sheet of facing material; and one or more milled swellable materials, the one or more milled swellable materials being in the form of particles and/or discrete domains, the one or more milled swellable materials being milled to a micro-scale size such that the particles and/or discrete domains having an average cross-sectional dimension of 1 µm to 2000 µm (claims 1 and 4 of Stav'692); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --600 µm or less--. Stav'692 differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Stav'692, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,152,385 (referred to herein as "Stav'385"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both are for a cementitious panel with a core of water settable material.
Regarding Instant Claim 1: Stav'385 claims a cementitious panel, comprising: a core layer comprising a first cementitious material; a plurality of sheets of facing material surrounding the core layer, the plurality of sheets of facing material comprising a first sheet of facing material and a second sheet of facing material; and one or more milled swellable materials, the one or more milled swellable materials being in the form of particles and/or discrete domains, the one or more milled swellable materials being milled to a micro-scale size such that the particles and/or discrete domains having an average cross-sectional dimension of 1 µm to 2000 µm (claims 1, 4, 13, and 16 of Stav'385); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --600 µm or less--. Stav'385 differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Stav'385, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation --such that the particles and/or discrete domains having an average cross-sectional dimension-- in lines 8 to 9, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "such that the particles and/or discrete domains have an average cross-sectional dimension".
With Regards to Claim 3: Claim 3 recites the limitation --from 0.1 wt. % to 90 wt.% based on-- in lines 3 to 4, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "from 0.1 wt.%[[wt. %]] to 90 wt.% based on".
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation --provided on a layer of the-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "provided in[[on]] a layer of the". (Support for the change comes from [0049] of the filed specification.)
With Regards to Claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitation --such that the particles and/or discrete domains having an average cross-sectional dimension-- in lines 9 to 10, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "such that the particles and/or discrete domains have.
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 5 and 20 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.
With Regards to Claims 5 and 20: Claims 5 and 20 both recite the same limitation of --the one or more milled swellable materials are provided on a layer of at least one of the first sheet of facing material and the second sheet of facing material--. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) wherein said "layer" is "the first sheet of facing material" and/or "the second sheet of facing material" (wherein the milled swellable materials being in the cover layer would be "on" said layer); or (2) wherein said "the first sheet of facing material" and/or "the second sheet of facing material" are multilayer sheets, said "layer" being one of the layers and said "milled swellable materials" being "in" said "layer" (support in [0049] of the filed specification). For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that both interpretations will be applied to the claim. (Appropriate clarification and correction is requested.)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With Regards to Claim 8: Instant claim 8 recites the limitation --the one or more milled swellable materials are milled such that the particles and/or discrete domains have an average cross-sectional dimension from 1 nm to 1,000 nm-- in lines 1 to 3. Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, recites --the one or more milled swellable materials being milled to a micro-scale size such that the particles and/or discrete domains having an average cross-sectional dimension of 600 µm or less-- in lines 7 to 10; wherein said limitation of "a micro-scale size" would limit the size to be between 1 µm to 2000 µm (see [0055] of the filed specification) and the further limitation of "600 µm or less" would actually limit the average cross-sectional dimension to be from 1 µm to 600 µm. As written, the limitation of claim 1 in view of the disclosure would at most cover 1,000 nm only, but not the full range as recited in the claim. Therefore, the limitation of claim 8 is deemed to be of improper dependent format for failing to include all the limitations of the claim from which it depends (i.e., it broadens the scope of the claimed invention).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, 5-7, 10, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krasnoff (US 2019/0071837 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 17-19: Krasnoff teaches a cementitious composite (ref. #10) including a plurality of layers that include in a containment layer, shown as permeable layer (ref. #20), a cementitious layer, shown as cementitious mixture (ref. #30), a three-dimensional volume layer, shown as structure layer (ref. #40), and an impermeable layer, shown as impermeable layer (ref. #50), wherein the structure layer is sandwiched between the permeable layer and impermeable layer or between the cementitious layer and the impermeable layer, wherein a cementitious material is disposed within the structure layer (figures 2 to 3, [0002], [0005], and [0051]-[0054] of Krasnoff). Krasnoff also teaches that the cementitious mixture can include expanding, water absorbent materials (e.g., superabsorbent materials, superabsorbent polymers, superabsorbent clays, etc.) ([0051] and [0171] of Krasnoff; wherein the absorbent material are considered equivalent to the claimed "swellable materials"). It is also taught by Krasnoff that the absorbent materials can have a particle size ranging from 1 micron to 5000 microns, the majority of absorbent material having a particle size between 90 microns and 300 microns ([0173] of Krasnoff); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of --a micro-scale size such that the particles and/or discrete domains have an average cross-sectional dimension of 600 µm or less-- {instant claims 1 and 18}, --an average cross-sectional dimension of 300 µm or less-- {instant claim 6}, --an average cross-sectional dimension of greater than 25 µm-- {instant claim 7}, and --an average cross-sectional dimension of greater than 25 µm and 300 µm or less-- {instant claims 17 and 19}. See MPEP §2131.03(II). Krasnoff further teaches that the cementitious material can include approximately 0.001 to 5% (e.g., by weight, by volume, etc.) of the absorbent material ([0172] of Krasnoff); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of --an amount of less than 5 wt.% based on the total weight of the core layer-- {instant claims 2, 17, and 19}. See MPEP §2131.03(II).
(With Regards to Claims 1, 6, 7, and 17-19: Claim 1 recites the limitation --the one or more milled swellable materials being milled to a micro-scale size-- in lines 7 to 8, which is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. Claims 6 and 7 both recite the limitation --the one or more milled swellable materials are milled-- in lines 1 to 2, which is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. Claims 17 and 19 both recite the limitation of --the one or more milled swellable materials are milled-- in line 4, which is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. Claim 18 recites the limitation --the one or more milled swellable materials being milled to a micro-scale size-- in lines 8 to 9, which is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. MPEP §2113 recites, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). As such, only the structure or the distinctive structural characteristics of the final product implied/imparted by the process steps are given weight. In the instant case, so long as the particles and/or discrete domains have the claimed average cross-sectional dimension, the limitations are considered taught.)
Regarding Claims 5 and 20: Krasnoff discloses that the one or more milled swellable materials are provided on a layer of at least one of the first sheet of facing material and the second sheet of facing material (figures 2 to 3, [0002], [0005], and [0051]-[0054] of Krasnoff).
Regarding Claim 10: In the instant case, the limitation of --the one or more milled swellable materials are milled in the presence of a solvent-- is treated as a "product-by-process" limitation. In that the product-by-process limitation pertains to milling in the presence of a solvent, which is not considered to impart any structure to the claimed final product of the invention. Since Krasnoff teaches the claimed one or more milled swellable materials with the specified average cross-sectional dimension (figures 2 to 3, [0002], [0005], [0051]-[0054], and [0171]-[0173] of Krasnoff), the limitation is considered taught.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2018/0119417 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 17-19: Li discloses a gypsum board in the form of a set gypsum layer sandwiched between two cover sheets (e.g., paper-faced board) and one or more dense layers ("skim coats") may be included on either side of the core, usually at the paper-core interface ([0001] of Li). It is also disclosed by Li that the gypsum layer can comprise expandable graphite and unexpanded vermiculite (which are considered equivalent to the claimed "one or more swellable materials") ([0007] of Li). Li further discloses that the expandable graphs can have an average particle size of from about 5 mesh to about 400 mesh, and that at least 70% of the expandable vermiculite particles are larger than about 70 mesh (larger than about 210 µm) ([0028] of Li); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --a micro-scale size such that the particles and/or discrete domains have an average cross-sectional dimension of 600 µm or less-- {instant claims 1 and 18}, --an average cross-sectional dimension of 300 µm or less-- {instant claim 6}, --an average cross-sectional dimension of greater than 25 µm-- {instant claim 7}, and --an average cross-sectional dimension of greater than 25 µm and 300 µm or less-- {instant claims 17 and 19}. Li differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Li, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Li also discloses that the gypsum layer can comprise the unexpanded vermiculite in an amount from about 0% to about 20% by weight of the stucco, can comprise the expandable graphite in an amount from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight of the stucco, and wherein a weight ratio of expandable graphite to unexpanded vermiculite is from about 0.1:100 to about 100:0 ([0013] of Li); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --an amount of less than 5 wt.% based on the total weight of the core layer-- {instant claims 2, 17, and 19}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Li, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
(With Regards to Claims 1, 6, 7, and 17-19: Claim 1 recites the limitation --the one or more milled swellable materials being milled to a micro-scale size-- in lines 7 to 8, which is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. Claims 6 and 7 both recite the limitation --the one or more milled swellable materials are milled-- in lines 1 to 2, which is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. Claims 17 and 19 both recite the limitation of --the one or more milled swellable materials are milled-- in line 4, which is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. Claim 18 recites the limitation --the one or more milled swellable materials being milled to a micro-scale size-- in lines 8 to 9, which is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. MPEP §2113 recites, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). As such, only the structure or the distinctive structural characteristics of the final product implied/imparted by the process steps are given weight. In the instant case, so long as the particles and/or discrete domains have the claimed average cross-sectional dimension, the limitations are considered taught.)
Regarding Claim 3: Li discloses that a relatively dense layer of secondary gypsum slurry can be applied to the two face cover sheet to form a thin skim coat (which is considered equivalent to the claimed "first dense layer" and "second dense layer"), the thin skim coat being between the core and face cover sheets, wherein the secondary gypsum slurry is of the same materials of the core (i.e., 0 to 20 wt.% of unexpanded vermiculite and about 0.1 to 10% by weight expandable graphite), prior to adding the foaming agent ([0013], [0035], [0077] and [0078] of Li); which anticipates the claimed range of --one or more milled swellable materials in an amount of from 0.1 wt. % to 90 wt.%--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Li discloses that the cementitious panel further comprises a second dense layer ([0078] of Li).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20: Li discloses that the one or more milled swellable materials are provided on a layer of at least one of the first sheet of facing material and the second sheet of facing material ([0001], [0007], and [0027] of Li).
Regarding Claim 9: Li discloses that the one or more milled swellable materials have the capability to swell to a volume that is from 2 to 100 times the non-swollen volume of the one or more milled swellable materials ([0019] of Li); which anticipates the claimed range of --2 to 100 times--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 10: In the instant case, the limitation of --the one or more milled swellable materials are milled in the presence of a solvent-- is treated as a "product-by-process" limitation. In that the product-by-process limitation pertains to milling in the presence of a solvent, which is not considered to impart any structure to the claimed final product of the invention. Since Li teaches the claimed one or more milled swellable materials with the specified average cross-sectional dimension ([0001], [0007], [0013], and [0028] of Li), the limitation is considered taught.
Regarding Claim 11: Li discloses that the one or more milled swellable materials comprise a graphite (e.g., expandable graphite) ([0011] and [0013] of Li).
Regarding Claim 12: Li discloses that the one or more milled swellable materials comprise a vermiculite (e.g., unexpanded vermiculite) ([0011] and [0013] of Li).
Regarding Claim 13: Li discloses that the one or more milled swellable materials comprise the graphite (e.g., expandable graphite) and vermiculite (e.g., unexpanded vermiculite) ([0011] and [0013] of Li).
Regarding Claim 16: Li discloses the claimed cementitious panel further comprises void volumes in the form of one or more holes ([0044] of Li), but does not explicitly recite that --at least some of the void volume at least partially blocked by the one or more milled swellable materials having been swollen by absorbing water or moisture, wherein the holes optionally include fastener holes--. However, Li discloses the same cementitious panel as applicants (i.e., a cementitious panel comprising, a core layer comprising a first cementitious material, a plurality of sheets of facing material surrounding the core layer, the plurality of sheets of facing material comprising a first sheet of facing material and a second sheet of facing material, and one or more milled swellable materials, the one or more milled swellable materials being in the form of particles and/or discrete domains, the one or more milled swellable materials being milled to a micro-scale size such that the particles and/or discrete domains having an average cross-sectional dimension of 600 µm or less; see ([0001], [0007], [0013], [0028], and [0035]) of Li and ([0006]) of the filed instant specification). It is the decision of the examiner that the cementitious panel of Li inherently possesses the claimed property of at least some of the void volume being at least partially blocked by the one or more milled swellable materials having been swollen by absorbing water or moisture. See MPEP §2112.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2018/0119417 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Perlite", Wikipedia.org) (referred to herein as "WIkipedia") and further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Perlite", USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries) (referred to herein as "USGS").
Li is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 14: Li discloses that the one or more milled swellable materials can comprise vermiculite ([0011] and [0013] of Li), but does not explicitly recite --the one or more milled swellable materials comprise perlite--.
Wikipedia discloses that perlite can be replaced by and vermiculite ("Substitutes" section pages 3 to 4 of Wikipedia). It is further evidenced by other non-patent literature that perlite and vermiculite are well-known alternative materials (Page 2 of USGS). Therefore, as evidenced by other non-patent literature, vermiculite and perlite can be used as alternatives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated perlite of Wikipedia as the one or more milled swellable materials disclosed by Li in order to have --the one or more milled water swellable materials comprise perlite--. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use perlite in place of or in combination with vermiculite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability of the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2018/0119417 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lehnert et al. (US 5,220,762 A).
Li is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 15: Li fails to disclose --the cementitious panel exhibits a surface water resistance according to ASTM C-473 such that the cementitious panel absorbs less than 10% of water--.
Lehnert discloses a fibrous mat-faced gypsum support surface or member comprising a gypsum core having one or more additives which improve the water resistance of the core such that it absorbs less than about 10% water when tested in accordance with ASTM method C-473 ([Col. 7: li. 4-19], [Col. 8: li. 4-16], [Col. 8: li. 31 to Col. 9: li. 54] of Lehnert).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the additive of the gypsum core material as the cementitious material of the core layer of the gypsum panel of Li in order to have the cementitious panel that --absorbs less than about 10% water according to ASTM C-473--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the additive of the gypsum core material as the cementitious material of the core layer of the gypsum panel of Li, from the stand-point of improving the water resistance of the core ([Col. 4: li. 63-68] of Lehnert).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights