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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 40, and 67-68 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claims 8-11, 40 and 68 are amended in the response filed 10/17/2025.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 10-12 and 40 and 68 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1,4-5,7-9 and 67 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Holm et al. (US 8,889,185 B2) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants urge that Holm et al. do not teach the 94.9% to about 99.89% of a diluting agent as required by claim 1 and the amended claim 8. In response, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Holm et al. col.20,ln.56 to col.21,ln.21-27 describe PEG as an oil or oily like material which encompasses BRI to diluting agent and col.22,ln.37 teaches solid dosage forms comprising 90% w/w or more of the oil or oil like material. Copied herein for emphasis,
PNG
media_image1.png
261
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, one of ordinary skill reading Holm et al. is guided to optimize the amount of diluting agent within the claimed range. Accordingly, the claim amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections
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 1,4-5,7-11, 40, and 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Holm et al. (US 8,889,185 B2).
With respect to the claim 1 Holm et al. teach a composition comprising a cellulose ether, a liquid amphiphilic polymer, and a diluting agent, wherein example 1 in col.35,ln.35-55 illustrating a composition comprising:
20% HPMCellulose ether;
34.65% PEG 6000 (diluting agent);
and 14.85% Poloxamer 188 (liquid amphiphilic polymer)
Holm et al. do not exemplify the claim 1 limitation to 0.01 % to about 0.1 % cellulose ether however, Holm et al. reads upon claim 1i limitation to 0.01 to 0.1% cellulose ether by guiding one of ordinary skill in col.27,ln.43-44 to an amount of 0-20% microcrystalline cellulose which is a type of cellulose ether as required in claim 1i.
Holm et al. do not exemplify the claim 1 limitation to 0.1 % to about 5 % poloxomer 182 liquid amphiphilic polymer however, Holm et al. reads upon claim 1ii limitation to 0.1-5% poloxamer 182 by teaching in col.18,ln.42 and col.18,ln.55-60 a range of about 0.1-80%, more specifically 0.1-10% surfactants including the poloxmer 182 which range overlaps with the claimed 0.1-5% range in claim 1ii.
Holm et al. do not exemplify the claim 1 limitation to 94.9 % to about 99.89 % PEG diluting agent however, Holm et al. teach in col.22,ln.7 claim 1iii limitation to about 95% w/w or more of an oil or an oily material solvent including polyethylene glycol diluting agent. See also col.20,ln.56-65.
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. It is the Examiner’s position that while Holm et al. is silent as to their composition intended use as a dust suppression concentrate, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at the claimed method of combining the same ingredients from the teaching of Holm et al. example 1 along with the teaching of the specific limitation to POLOXOMER 182 in col.18,ln.42.
Holm et al. is silent as to the claimed dust suppression composition as required in the preamble of claim 1, and a method of making a dust suppression concentrate composition as required by the preamble of claim 8. It is the Examiner’s position that while Holm et al. is silent as to a recitation of the intended use as a dust suppressant, one of ordinary skill reading Holm et al. understands to combine the same HPMCellulose ether, 0.1-10% POLOXOMER 182 liquid amphiphilic surfactant and PEG diluting agent and thus, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at a composition that is capable of performing the claimed intended use, ie contact dust, and as such the teachings of Holms et al. reads upon the instant claims.
Holm et al. do not exemplify a dust suppression composition as claimed.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed dust suppression composition because Holm et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the combination of a cellulose ether, diluting agent and poloxamer 182 in amounts overlapping the claimed amounts in general and thus, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at a composition that is capable of contacting dust and subsequently capable of suppressing the dust in general.
Holm et al. teach their hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) has viscosity of 3 to 300,000 cps. See col.33,ln.39. It is the Examiner’s position that the example 1 and the col.33,ln.39 meets the claims 4-5.
Holm et al. teach the weight ratio of active substance (HMPC) to polymers PEG (diluting agent) and Poloxamer amphiphilic polymer may be in a range from 3:1 to 1:20, preferably 1:1. See col.23,ln.45-50. It is the Examiner’s position that the 1:1 ratio taught by Holm et al. col.23,ln.50 meets the ratio required in the claim 9a. It is the Examiner’s position that the 1:1 ratio taught by Holm et al. col.15,ln.27 meets the ratio required in the claim 9d. Claim 9b is met by Holm et al. teaching their composition is in liquid form. See col.24,ln.13. See also the example 1, col.35, line 50-51 teaching the PEG and the poloxamer are in solution. Stirring and drying the mixture are explained in example 9 in col.39 where a solution of PEG and poloxamer is mixed and stirred and subsequently the mixture is dried and compressed into a tablet.
With respect to the 1:5, 1:700, and 1:1 ratio of cellulose ether to POLOXOMER 182 as required in claims 10-11, 40 and 68, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed ratio, because Holm et al. guide one of ordinary skill to 0.01 to 0.1% cellulose ether (in col.27,ln.43-44 to an amount of 0-20% microcrystalline cellulose which is a type of cellulose ether as required in claim 1i in general with the teaching in col.18,ln.42 and col.18,ln.55-60 to a range of about 0.1-80%, more specifically 0.1-10% surfactants including the poloxmer 182 which range overlaps with the claimed 0.1-5% range in claim 1ii. Because Holm et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the combination of a cellulose ether, diluting agent and poloxamer 182 in amounts overlapping the claimed amounts, thus it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the broadly claimed ratios because Holm et al. teach the same ingredients being combined together within the percentages as claimed.
Claim 67 limitation to the diluting agent being water is met by Holm et al. guiding one of ordinary skill that their vehicle can be any solvent ie, PEG or water. See col.4,ln.24-26.
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 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