FIRE RESISTANT BUILDING BOARD

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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 6, 10, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinianov et al. (WO 2009/025885 – previously cited). Considering claims 1 and 12-13, Tinianov teaches a wallboard for building construction (e.g. a building board) (abstract). The wallboard comprises an embodiment having improved fire resistance (Paragraph 12) of a laminated panel with exterior layers (301) and (303) (e.g. first and second cover sheets) and constraining layers (302) and (306) with glue layer (305) (e.g. an interlayer) (Paragraph 29). The constraining layers may be gypsum, etc. (Paragraph 25) and the glue is an intumescent viscoelastic material (Paragraph 10) and Tinianov is silent regarding the glue comprising gypsum. PNG media_image1.png 287 655 media_image1.png Greyscale While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed building board this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Tinianov as this is considered a conventionally known combination of materials known to form wallboards and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, while not teaching the claimed TC4 failure or improvement thereof or expansion, these features are expected to be present as Tinianov teaches a substantially identical wallboard and materials thereof as that which is claimed and disclosed and therefore these features are expected to be present as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01. Considering claims 6 and 18, Tinianov teaches where the glue is placed in a pattern (Paragraph 16) which is necessarily discontinuous. Considering claim 10, Tinianov teaches where the zinc borate (e.g. the intumescent material) content in the adhesive is up to 25 wt.% (Table 1). See MPEP 2144.05. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinianov et al. (WO 2009/025885 – previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 13 further in view of Yu et al. (US 2011/0132235). Considering claims 2 and 14, the teachings of Tinianov as applied to claims 1 and 13 are outlined above. Tinianov teaches gypsum for the constraining layers (Paragraph 25), but does not teach the claimed materials. In a related field of endeavor, Yu teaches gypsum-containing products with increased resistance to permanent deformation (abstract) for gypsum boards (Paragraph 2) where the gypsum-containing product comprises calcium sulfate materials including calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate dihydrate, etc. (Paragraphs 16-17). As both Tinianov and Yu teach gypsum boards they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Tinianov with the gypsum board composition taught by Yu as this is known to have increased resistance to permanent deformation and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Claims 4, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinianov et al. (WO 2009/025885 – previously cited) as applied to claims further in view of Vandersall (Intumescent Coating Systems, Their Development and Chemistry – Non-Patent Literature). Considering claims 4 and 16, the teachings of Tinianov as applied to claims 1 and are outlined above. Tinianov teaches where the glue material comprises intumescent compounds including materials disclosed by Vandersall (Paragraph 17), but does not teach the claimed materials. In a related field of endeavor, Vandersall teaches intumescent coatings (abstract) where the intumescent comprises exfoliated mica (p.103, continuing paragraph), vermiculate (p.105, 2nd paragraph), etc. As Tinianov and Vandersall teach intumescent materials, they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Tinianov with the intumescent materials taught by Vandersall as this is considered a combination of conventionally known intumescent compositions and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Considering claim 20, Tinianov teaches a wallboard for building construction (e.g. a building board) (abstract). The wallboard comprises an embodiment having improved fire resistance (Paragraph 12) of a laminated panel with exterior layers (301) and (303) (e.g. first and second cover sheets) and constraining layers (302) and (306) with glue layer (305) (e.g. an interlayer) (Paragraph 29). The constraining layers may be gypsum, etc. (Paragraph 25) and the glue is an intumescent viscoelastic material (Paragraph 10) and Tinianov is silent regarding the glue comprising gypsum. Tinianov teaches where the composition of FE Quiet Glue adhesive comprises 0-10 wt.% melamine phosphate, and 0-10 wt.% ammonium polyphosphate with a preferred amount of each being 6% (p.12 – Table 1). Vandersall teaches where these are intumescent materials (p.130, 1st full paragraph and Table 7). The ratio of content of the melamine phosphate and ammonium polyphosphate overlaps that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinianov et al. (WO 2009/025885 – previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 13 further in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0119417). Considering claims 5 and 17, the teachings of Tinianov as applied to claims 1 and 13 are outlined above. Tinianov teaches where the intumescent may comprise expandable graphite. However, Tinianov does not teach the claimed particle size. In a related field of endeavor, Li teaches fire resistant gypsum boards (abstract). To achieve the improved fire resistance, expandable graphite is included in the gypsum slurry (Paragraph 16). The expandable graphite may have any particle size and teaches a range of about 5-400 mesh (Paragraph 24). As both Tinianov and Li teach gypsum panels with intumescent materials they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Tinianov with the expandable graphite particle size as taught by Li as this is considered a combination of conventionally known fire resistant material features and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the size range disclosed by modified Tinianov overlaps that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinianov et al. (WO 2009/025885 – previously cited) as applied to claim 1 further in view of Tinianov et al. (US 10,174,499 – hereafter Tinianov’499; previously cited). Considering claim 8, Tinianov teaches where the glue is applied as a pattern (Paragraph 16), but does not teach the claimed coverage. In a related field of endeavor, Tinidanov’499 teaches laminated boards for use in construction (abstract). The panel comprises two or more different materials including gypsum boards and a layer of adhesive comprising an intumescent glue (Column 3 lines 39-54). The glue may be applied in a pattern including about 20-80% coverage (Column 10 lines 29-51) and the pattern is taught to improve handling during installation (Column 11 lines 6-12). As both Tinianov and Tinianov’499 teach gypsum panels with adhesive they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Tinianov with the adhesive pattern taught by Tinianov’499 as this is known to improve handling during installation and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Considering claim 9, Tinianov’499 teaches where the thickness of the glue layer is 1/32 – 5/8” in thickness (Column 3 lines 50-54) (e.g. 0.03125-0.625 inches). See MPEP 2144.05. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p.5, filed 22 September 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11 has been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled the claim. Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p.5, filed 22 September 2026, with respect to 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 in view of Yuan have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-5, 9-17, and 20 have been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims beyond the teachings of Yuan. Applicant's arguments filed 22 September 2026 regarding 35 USC 103 rejections in view of Tinianov as well as Tinianov in view of Tinainov’499 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Tinianov and Tinainov’499 do not teach the claimed TC4 failure feature(s) as Tinianov is directed to acoustical sound proofing and not the claimed TC4 feature(s) (remarks p.8 last paragraph – p.10, 1st full paragraph). This is not persuasive as Tinianov teaches a panel structure substantially identical to that which is claimed comprised of substantially identical materials as that which is claimed and disclosed and therefore the claimed TC4 feature(s) are expected to be present absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01. As of the writing of this Office action, no objective evidence or technical reasoning has been presented demonstrating the argued TC4 feature(s) is/are not present within the teachings of Tinianov. Absent such a showing, the prior rejection is maintained. Further, applicant is reminded that, “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” See MPEP 2145 (II) and In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) . Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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. SETH DUMBRIS Primary Examiner Art Unit 1784 /SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784