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. Election/Restrictions Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 28-31 , drawn to a fire extinguishing liquid . Group II , claim(s) 43 , drawn to a fire extinguisher . Group III , claim(s) 46 , drawn to a method of extinguishing a fire. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I, II and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a fire extinguishing liquid , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the below prior-art rejections. During a telephone conversation with Aaron Rabinowitz on 03/10/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-4, 6-13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 28-31. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 43 and 46 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 8, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 31 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. Dependent claim 8, which is dependent on independent claim 1, is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the component “ propylene glycol in (d)”. As such, the claimed molar ratio is also indefinite. Dependent claim 11 is due to the limitation of “preferably at least 4:1”, because this has the results of making the metes and bounds of the claimed concentration unclear. Dependent claims 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 31 are each individually indefinite due to the ir individual use of the modifier “optionally” to set forth more specific concentration ranges. This has the results of making the metes and bounds of the claimed concentration ranges unclear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being clearly a nticipated by Crawley et al. GB 2561610 A . Crawley et al. discloses fire extinguishing liquids that are identical to Applicant’s claimed fire extinguishing liquids , see claims and Examples . As such, Applicant’s claims are deemed to be clearly anticipated over Crawley et al.’s disclosure. As way of illustration, Crawley et al.’s independent claim 1 reads as followed: “ A fire extinguishing liquid comprising:(a) one or more of a phosphate, hydrogen phosphate or dihydrogen phosphate salt; (b) a hydrogen carbonate salt; and (c) a sulphate salt .”, which is identical to Applicant’s independent claim 1. As way of further illustration, Crawley et al.’s dependent claim 10 reads as followed: “ A fire extinguishing liquid according to any one of claims 1-9, comprising: diammonium hydrogen phosphate ((NH 4 ) 2 HPO 4 ), ammonium bicarbonate (NH 4 HCO 3 ), and ammonium sulphate ((NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ) .”, which is identical in its claimed subject matter to Applicant’s dependent claim 10. Furthermore, the addition of a surfactant foaming agent is direct taught in Crawley et al.’s dependent claim 3. Finally, Applicant’s other dependent claims correspond to the same claim numbers as set forth in Crawley et al.. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-13, 16, 19, 22 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Shigeaki JP 2007020965 A . Shigeaki discloses a liquid fire-extinguishing composition for extinguishing a burning object in an outdoor fire . The fire-extinguishing composition comprises ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium dibasic phosphate (i.e. diammonium hydrogen phosphate) , and ammonium sulfate as main components which is diluted with water to 1 to 5% by mass, and sprayed on the burning object to extinguishing the fire , see claim 1 . According to Shigeaki’s the claim 2, a fire extinguishing composition can be made that comprise: 1 liter of water which contains 20 to 40 grams of ammonium bicarbonate, 350 to 400 grams of ammonium dibasic phosphate (i.e. diammonium hydrogen phosphate) , and 70 to 90 grams of ammonium sulfate. Using the concentration ranges set forth in Shigeaki’s claim 2, the examiner has made the following calculations. 1) molar ratio of ammonium dibasic phosphate (DAP) to ammonium bicarbonate is about 5.2 : 1 to 11.98:1 thus meeting the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 6, 2) molar ratio of ammonium dibasic phosphate (DAP) to ammonium sulfate is about 3.9:1 to 5.72:1, thus meeting the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 7, 3) molar ratio of ammonium dibasic phosphate (DAP) to water is about 0.048:1 to 0.056: 1 thus meeting the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 9, 4) weight ratio of ammonium dibasic phosphate (DAP) to ammonium bicarbonate is about 8.75:1 to 20:1 thus meeting the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 11, 5) weight ratio of ammonium dibasic phosphate (DAP) to ammonium sulfate is about 3.89:1 to 5,71:1 thus meeting the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 12, 6) the concentration of water in a composition that comprises the maximum each of ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium dibasic phosphate (i.e. diammonium hydrogen phosphate), and ammonium sulfate is calculated to be about 65 wt.% which meets the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 13, 7) the weight percent of DAP in the liquid fire extinguishing composition is calculated to about 26.14 wt.%, which meets the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 16, 8) the weight percent of ammonium bicarbonate in the liquid fire extinguishing composition is calculated to about 2.61 wt.% wt.%, which meets the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 19, and 9) the weight percent of ammonium sulfate in the liquid fire extinguishing composition is calculated to be about 5.88 wt.%, which meets the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 22. 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. Claim (s) 2, 8 and 25 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeaki JP 2007020965 A in view of DATABASE WPI week 201107 Thomson Science, London GB: AN 2010-N85113 (KR 2010 0114991 A). Shigeaki JP 2007020965 A has been described above and differs from Applicant’s claimed invention in that there does not seem to be a direct disclosure to the further inclusion of propylene glycol as an anti-freeze component. The secondary reference (KR 2010 0114991 A), is drawn to a fire extinguishing /anti-corrosion composition comprising a combination of salts (ammonium phosphate, ammonium sulphate, carbonates and bicarbonates etc.) which is then added to water. (KR 2010 0114991 A) fire composition is basically the same as the fire-extinguishing composition disclosed by Shigeaki , but (KR 2010 0114991 A) additional contains about 8-15 wt. percent glycol ( propylene glycol) as an anti-freeze component. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of the secondary reference as strong motivation to actually incorporate propylene glycol as an anti-freeze component into Shigeaki’s fire extinguishing composition to prevent it from freezing during cold weather or storage. An appropriate addition amount of propylene glycol to be use for freezing prevention and anti-corrosion inhibition, can easily be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art. In any, case A pplicant’s dependent claim 25 requires that the concentration of the propylene glycol is from 10% to 20% by weight, which directly overlaps KR 2010 0114991 A’s about 8-15 wt. percent glycol (propylene glycol) concentration range. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1-4, 10 and 28-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-5, 7-12 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/710,937 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are deemed to be a subject of the pending claims . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1117 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7026 . 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. /JOSEPH D ANTHONY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764