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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 40, and 67-68 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claims 1 and 8 are amended in the response filed 4/27/2026.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1,4-5,7-9 and 67-68 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Holm et al. (US 8,889,185 B2) is withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered. Upon an updated search, the claim amendments are addressed below.
New Grounds of 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.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 67 are 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 1 as now presented for examination and from which it depends. 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 9 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. It is indefinite and unclear how claim 9 step d can require adding the same amount of water and poloxamer 182 while independent claim 8 from which claim 9 depends requires 0.1-5% poloxamer 182 and 94.9-99.89% water. Because the percentage ranges never overlap, it is unclear how the same amount can be added? Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-8, 10-11, 40, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN109054753A Google & Espacenet translations), Wolff et al. (US 9,017,767B2) and further in view of Mallard (US 2015/0342920A1).
Hu et al. teach the wet binding of dust with a composition comprising wetting dust sticking material, which is used for coal mine dust reduction. The wetting dust sticking material is prepared from:
0.5 to 5 %wt of secondary alkane sulphonate sodium,
0.1 to 0.5 %wt. of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose,
0.1 to 0.3 %wt of synergistic ions,
0.05 to 0.2 % of moisturizer or humectants
and the balance of water. See the CN109054753A Google Patents translation abstract).
With respect to claim 1i limitation to 0.01 % to about 0.1 % hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), Hu et al. teach 0.1 to 0.5 percent of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose. See claim 1.
With respect to claim 1iv limitation to 94.9 % to about 99.89 % wt. water, Hu et al. teach dust suppressant composition have a high percentage amount of water, encompassing the claimed range when calculated is 94%-99.25%wt balance of water.
Hu et al. is silent with respect to the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose having a viscosity of about 10,000 to about 300,000 cps as required by claim 1i.
Also Hu et al. do not teach the claim 1 iii. limitation said liquid amphiphilic polymer is poloxomer 182. Examiner notes that the Google patents translation discloses 0.05 to 0.2 % of humectants (pg.2 middle of page) while the Espacenet Description of the same composition with 0.05 to 0.2 % of humectants. (See page 1 of the Espacenet description ¾ of the way down) copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
292
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regardless, with respect to the claim 1iii amount ranging from about 0.1 % to about 5 % a liquid amphiphilic polymer, Hu et al. guide one of ordinary skill to propylene glycol in an amount of 0.05 to 0.2 wt%. However, Hu et al. do not teach the claimed poloxamer 182. Finally, Hu et al. do not teach wherein said composition has a viscosity of less than 100 cps.
In the analogous art of suppressing dust, Wolff et al. teaches dust suppressant compositions commonly use hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose having a viscosity of about 3 cps to about 100,000 cps with glycerin in solution. See col.4,ln. 25-37 copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
392
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wolff et al. teach the water-soluble cellulose ethers are dispersed in water and stirred until fully hydrated, producing a homogeneous solution to which the plasticizer and surfactant are added at any point during the manufacturing step and the material is sprayed onto a pile or surface. See col.5,ln. 30-36. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed viscosity of the HPMC in the claim 1i does not provide a contribution in the art of dust suppression.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dust suppressant composition of Hu et al. with the claimed high viscosity HPMC as taught by Wolff et al. is commonly used in dust suppressant compositions. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Hu et al. with that of Wolff et al. since both are in the analogous art of dust suppression.
Wolff et al. do not teach the claim 1 iii poloxamer 182 and instead teach propylene glycol or glycerin (col.7,ln.5) with the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose which are also disclosed by Hu et al.
In the analogous art of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose based compositions, Mallard (US20150342920A1) teach it is commonly known to mix HPMC with propylene glycol or the claimed poloxamer 182. See page 5, [0099-0100] teaching the tradename Synperonic™ PE/L62 which is commonly known tradename of the claimed poloxamer 182 Synperonic™ PE/L 62 PHARMA | Croda Pharma.
Mallard [0102] teaches preferentially from 0.1% to 10% of poloxamer wetting agents which range overlaps with the claim1iii range. Also [0099-0100] disclose the propylene glycol as was also used by Hu et al. in their dust suppression composition. Examiner notes that Mallard teach claim 1 limitation to 0.01 % to about 0.1 % hydroxypropyl methylcellulose [0096] teaching on page 5, left column, [0094] a hydroxypropyl methylcellulose METHOCEL E4 Premium cellulose which is commonly understood to have a viscosity of 3550 mPa.s Methocel E4M Premium USP — Bella Corp Trading. However, as noted above in Wolff et al. it is common knowledge to use HPMC of viscosities of 3-100,000cps in dust suppressant compositions and Mallard teaches a HPMC within that same range mixed with the claimed poloxamer 182 along with propylene glycol as taught by the dust suppressants of Hu and Wolff above.
Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill is guided by Mallard teaching the use of poloxamer 182 in a composition with HPMC in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the propylene glycol in the dust suppressant composition of Hu et al. with the claimed poloxamer 182 as taught by Mallard teaching the claimed poloxamer 182 is commonly used in mixtures with HPMC in general.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Hu et al. and Wolff et al. with Mallard since all three references teach aqueous mixtures of HPMC with a polymer surfactant and water used as sprays in general. See Mallard [0127]. See Wolff col.5,ln.30-36. And see Hu et al. Espacenet translation, page 1, last paragraph.
Finally, Examiner notes that none of the references teach the claim 1 limitation that the composition has a viscosity of less than 100 cps. However, each reference in the combination teach HPMC and surfactant and water components in a spray in general and thus, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed viscosity because the combination suggests the mixture of the same components in the same amounts and used as a spray would necessarily have the same viscosity.
With respect to claim 7, Hu et al. teach their dust suppressant is sprayed on to a dirt source to control the generation and diffusion of dust. See page 2, paragraph 5 from the bottom.
The independent claim 8 to the claimed method of making a concentrated dust suppression composition has the 1 step of combining the ingredients as claimed. Hu teach dust suppressant comprising HPMC and a polymer surfactant and water in the same amounts as claimed. It is the Examiner’s position that, one of ordinary skill reading Hu, Wolff and Mallard would reasonably arrive at the claimed method of combining the same ingredients in the proportion taught by Hu et al. to arrive at the claimed composition.
With respect to the solid or liquid concentrate having 1:5, 1:700, and 1:1 ratio of HPMC to POLOXOMER 182 as required in claims 10-11, 40 and 68, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the solid or liquid concentrate with the broadly claimed ratios, because Mallard teach a solid or liquid [0127] having 0.001% to 15% of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose [0094-0096] with Poloxamer 182/Synperonic PE/L62 in concentration of 0.0001% to 20 [0100-0102] on pages 5-6 Mallard along with Wolff et al. teaching in col.7,ln.30-40 that in dust suppression compositions, the HPMC having viscosity of 3-100,000 cps will make up no more than 20% of the dust suppressant with no more than 125% being the glycerin humectant to achieve the crusty dried liquid (see abstract) solution dust suppressant. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the broadly claimed ratios because Hu et al. teach a dust suppressant composition having the claimed proportions and Wolff and Mallard guide one of ordinary skill to the combination of a high viscosity HPMC, water and poloxamer 182 in amounts overlapping the claimed amounts. Thus it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed ratios because the prior art made of record teach the same ingredients being combined together within the percentages as claimed. And it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed concentrates because the prior art made of record teach the same ingredients in the same proportions being combined together has both the solid and liquid consistencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights