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 .
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Re claim 22, the steps for conversion to calcium sulfate dihydrate.
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, 5, 7-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110195241A1 to Yu et al.
Re claims 1, 5, 7-15, and 21-22, Yu teaches [71-73, 78-80] gypsum panel as claimed having a gypsum core comprising gypsum, the gypsum core being formed by a gypsum slurry, the gypsum slurry comprising a water resistance enhancement composition and a siloxane composition, the water resistance enhancement composition being an alkali salt (MgO) and ammonium trimetaphosphate [66] (claims 5 and 19), the siloxane composition being a siloxane, and a first covering sheet (facing material) and a second covering (facing material) sandwiching the gypsum core. Yu teaches [46] water/stucco weight ratio of about 0.6 to about 1.2, preferably about 0.8 to about 1.0, Table 8. Yu teaches [0048] polymerization of siloxane is improved using a slurry that includes stucco, Class C fly ash, magnesium oxide, an emulsion of siloxane and water, and greater than 2.0 % by weight based on the weight of the stucco of pregelatinized starch. The slurry is then used to manufacture the gypsum panels. The resulting product is useful for making a fire-resistant water-resistant gypsum panel having a core that includes interwoven matrices of calcium sulfate dihydrate (claim 22) crystals and a silicone resin, where the interwoven matrices have dispersed throughout them a catalyst comprising magnesium oxide and components from a Class C fly ash. [0049] The mixture of magnesium oxide and Class C fly ash catalyzes the polymerization of siloxane to accelerate development of water-resistance in product made from the slurry. Fire resistant/water-resistant gypsum panels made in this way need not be stored for lengthy periods of time awaiting completion of the polymerization reactions of the siloxane. Yu, Table 8 conversion to percentage: water resistance enhancement using alkali salt MgO to siloxane is: (4 part / (4+ 10) whole) × 100 = 28.57% overlaps the claimed about 40:1 to about 1:40 (2%-97%), similarly 20:1 to 1:20 (5%-95%), 10:1 to 1:5 (17%-90%). See pH in Table 8 overlapping also.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
In light of the overlap between the claimed composition and pH and that disclosed by Yu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a composition and pH that is both disclosed by Yu and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Re claim 11, given the material and amounts are the same, the properties are inherent.
Claims 2-4, 6, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110195241A1 to Yu et al. in view of US 11148956 B2 (Papouchado et al.).
Yu is relied upon above.
Re claims 2-4, 6, 16-18 and 20, Papouchado teaches alkali salts magnesium oxide and aluminum and sodium carbonate 17:15-51: sodium carbonate and hydroxides or alkali carbonate. Iron hydroxide is usually fired to the reddish alpha-hematite pigment, aluminum hydroxide is spray dried and convert to different forms of alumina at different temperatures. The REEs and transition metals are best left as the hydroxide and marketed a misch metal to be further processed and separated. The hydroxide form is easier to process. The magnesium is converted to the oxide and the calcium to the carbonate. The calcium carbonate is very high purity and very white which increases its value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the substituted the alkali MgO with the other forms of salts claimed before the effective filing date because Papouchado teaches the benefits as set forth above namely high purity and very white.
References of Interest
The remaining references listed on form(s) 892 and/or 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights