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 § 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 1-8 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The end portion of the claim is written unclearly. First, the step is written in passive voice, thus making it clear if water spraying is required or merely the result of such a step is required. Since the spraying location appears central to the claim, Examiner assumes Applicant intend to positively claim the spraying step. Further, no “forming machine disposition position” or “rough cutting machine disposing position” is previously introduced, thus giving no antecedent basis to these terms. Finally, the end of the claim is quite unclear and recites two alternatives that appear to state the same thing. Examiner recommends amending: “spraying or applying water at a spraying location between the forming machine , wherein the forming machine and rough cutting machine are separated by a distance, and the spraying location
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 5,496,441).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Tran teaches a conventional process of forming paper-lined gypsum board including a method for continuously producing a gypsum board (See col. 1, line 65 to col. 2, line 8, teaching gypsum board), the method comprising a forming- and-conveying step of forming a board-like laminate (See col. 2, lines 8-10, stucco/gypsum between paper sheet) in which a gypsum slurry being a raw material for a gypsum material layer of a gypsum board is laminated between top paper of lining paper for gypsum board and bottom paper of lining paper for gypsum board and conveying the board-like laminate while forming the board-like laminate, wherein
the forming-and-conveying step has a series of processes of continuously pouring the gypsum slurry onto the bottom paper of lining paper for gypsum board before being continuously fed into a forming machine, laminating the top paper of lining paper for gypsum board on the poured gypsum slurry with the forming machine to mold the board-like laminate (See col. 2, lines 12-15 and lines 20-34, wherein a raw slurry is continuously coated onto paper, i.e. a series of processes as claimed, and the top layer of backing paper is applied through a “set of rolls” that act as a forming machine), and conveying the molded board-like laminate to a rough cutting machine with a conveying-and-forming belt (See col. 2, lines 43-50, wherein the board is conveyed, via a belt, i.e. conveying and forming belt at 300 ft/min, and cut into individual sheet, anything cutting being a rough cutting machine as claimed or at least rendering such a machine obvious to perform said cutting), and
spraying water onto the top paper of lining paper for gypsum board at a spraying location between the forming machine and the rough cutting machine (See col. 2, lines 38-42, wherein after forming and before cutting, the paper cover board is sprayed with water on the of the board to prevent rippling or buckling by uneven wetness).
Tran teaches after forming at the series of rollers that act at the forming machine, the paper covered board is sized and then sprayed with the water before being conveyed about 1000 feet to the cutter for 3 or 4 minutes for setting. Although Tran doesn’t specifically teach the exact distance of the spraying between forming and cutting, it clearly indicates its closer to the forming machine so drying can occur after spraying before cutting. Further, there is motivation to space the spraying from the forming machine at least partially in order to allowing sizing to occur prior to spraying so the board is sized to its final form without more fluid constraining compression into the paper before spraying to even out wetting. As such, spraying somewhere along the past after forming closer to forming than to cutting is clearly preferred in Tran and whether the distance is 1/16th, 1/8th, or 1/4th the distance is normally a routine optimization to balance the distance of sizing with the distance of drying, wherein the distance for drying is implicitly greater. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Note Applicant’s data only shows further distances from 1/4th away are worse, which is clearly implied in Tran so sprayed water can facilitate setting/drying which occurs afterwards for a sufficient period before cutting.
Regarding Claim 4, although precise water amounts sprayed are not articulated, it would have been apparent spraying should fully wet the paper wherein more water ensures this occurs easier and for thicker facings but increases drying times and less water improves drying efficient but requires more precise wetting and may be inadequate for thick facings. Where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. amount of water for wetting) are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use routine experimentation to arrive at the water wetting amount, such as that which is claimed, in order to facilitate wetting to reduce rippling as recited.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of JP2006082487 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided, original in IDS filed 2/5/2025).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8, Tran teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Tran teaches a conventional method for produces gypsum board but is silent as to paper basis weight. However, 80-200 g/m2 is well-known in conventional gypsum board making in order to provide breathability while also providing sufficient strength (See, for example, JP2006082487, page 8, paragraph [0010]). Further, using different basis weight, such as a difference of 10 g/m2, for top and bottom sides paper is well-known since the visually facing side and the non-visual side are known to have distinct requirements (See JP2006082487, page 22, paragraph [0035]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize 80-200 g/m2 basis weight paper. Doing so would have predictably provided suitable coverings for the respective requirements of the visual and non-visual sides for conventional gypsum board while adding breathability. Note Claims 5, 7, and 8 are rejected for the same reasons and claims 4 and 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
