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/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-19 , drawn to a firefighting foam concentrate , classified in A62D1/0071 . II. Claim s 20-23 , drawn to a fire fighting foam concentrate solution , classified in A62D1/0042 . The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as mutually exclusive species in an intermediate-final product relationship. Distinctness is proven for claims in this relationship if the intermediate product is useful to make other than the final product, and the species are patentably distinct (MPEP § 806.05(j)). In the instant case, the intermediate product is deemed to be useful as a fire extinguishing composition and the inventions are deemed patentably distinct because there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and (c) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention . Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Andrew Wegman on March 25, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-19 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 20-23 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1- 2, 4, 8, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al (US Patent Application 2016/0166867 (already of record) ) . Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 8, 16-17 , Hansen et al teaches an aqueous foaming Newtonian concentrate compositions (Abstract). Hansen et al further teaches a foam mixture comprising 1.5wt% alkyl polyglucoside, 1.5wt% polymeric alkyl polyglucoside anionic surfactant, 7wt% triethanolamine alkyl sulfate, 9wt% sodium-n-octylsulfate, 2wt% sodium-n-decylsulfate, 6 wt% sodium alkylethoxy sulfate, 7.14wt% cacoamidopropyl hydroxysutaine, 5.63wt% cocoamido propyl betaine, 0.75wt% cocamidopropylamine oxide, 7wt% magnesium acetate, 5wt% butyl carbitol (which satisfies claimed glycol ether solvent) and 22.98wt% water (Table 1). Hansen et al further teaches a viscosity of less than 100cp (Figure 6). Hansen et al teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Hansen et al anticipates the claims. With respect to claim 4, a fire fighting foam solution is an intended use of the claimed foam concentrate; however, Hansen et al teaches the same foam concentrate composition; hence, the properties of the foam concentrate and a foam concentrate solution upon dilution of the foam concentrate will inherently have the same properties. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rand (US Patent 4,442,018) . Regarding 1 and 4 , Rand teaches fire-fighting foam concentrate comprising 8 wt% alphaolefin sulfonate surfactant, 2 wt% Carbopol 941, 2wt% n-dodecyl alcohol, 10wt% of n-butyl alcohol (solvent) and 78wt% of deionized water, which a viscosity of 49.3 centipoise (Example 1, Col. 8). Rand inherently teaches a Newtonian behavior composition. Rand teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Rand anticipates the claims. With respect to claim 4, a fire fighting foam solution is an intended use of the claimed foam concentrate; however, Rand teaches the same foam concentrate composition; hence, the properties of the foam concentrate and a foam concentrate solution upon dilution of the foam concentrate will inherently have the same properties. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II. 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. 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. Claims 3, 5-7, 9 -15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US Patent Application 2016/0166867 (already of record) ) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8, 16-17 above, and in further view of Bowen et al (US Patent Application 2016/0038779). Regarding claims 3 , 5-7, 9-15 , Hansen et al discloses the invention as claimed. Hansen et al teaches the features above. Hansen et al further teaches 6-20wt% of salts (Paragraph 63 , Table 1 ). Hansen et al further teaches 3-33wt% of surfactant (Paragraph 56). However, Hansen et al fails to specifically disclose magnesium inorganic salts , fatty alcohol surfactants and the specific ranges of sulfate, betaine, sultaine, ethoxylated sulfate surfactants . In the same field of endeavor, Bowen et al further teaches fire foam concentrates comprising surfactants and electrolytes (Abstract, Table 1). Bowen et al further teaches polyvalent salts including magnesium sulfate and magnesium nitrate (Paragraph 49). Bowen et al further teaches the concentrate may contain a fatty alcohol surfactant including octyl alcohol, lauryl alcohol and myristyl alcohol (Paragraph 14). With regard to magnesium inorganic salts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted magnesium sulfate or nitrate in Hansen et al in view of Bowen et al as Hansen et al already encompasses the incorporation of magnesium salts . Simple substitution of one magnesium s alt for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) . See MPEP 2144.07. With regard to fatty alcohol surfactants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted or provided the fatty alcohol surfactant in Hansen et al in view of Bowen et al as Hansen et al already encompasses the incorporation of surfactants. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). Simple substitution of one surfactant for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. With regard to sulfate, betaine, sultaine, ethoxylated sulfate surfactants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the sulfate, betaine, sultaine, ethoxylated sulfate surfactants in Hansen et al in view of Bowen et al as Hansen et al teaches ranges of the sulfate, betaine, sultaine and ethoxylated sulfate surfactants that satisfy/overlap the instantly claimed ranges. Furthermore, the broad teachings of Bowen et al teaches 3-33wt% of surfactants (Paragraph 56) which include sulfate, betaine, sultaine and ethoxylated sulfate surfactants. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I). The word “about” permits some tolerance. At least about 10% was held to be anticipated by a teaching of a content not to exceed about 8%, see In re Ayers, 154 F 2d 182,69 USPQ 109 (CCPA 1946). A pressure limitation of 2-1 5 pounds per square inch was held to be readable on a reference which taught a pressure of the order of about 15 pounds per square inch, see In re Erickson, 343 F 2d 778, 145 USPQ 207 (CCPA 1965). With respect to claim 1 4, a fire fighting foam solution is an intended use of the claimed foam concentrate; however, Rand teaches a similar foam concentrate composition; hence, the properties of the foam concentrate and a foam concentrate solution upon dilution of the foam concentrate will inherently have the similar properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “Where the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best , 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also MPEP 2112.01 I. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US Patent Application 2016/0166867 (already of record)) in view of Bowen et al (US Patent Application 2016/0038779). Regarding claims 18-19, Hansen et al teaches an aqueous foaming Newtonian concentrate compositions (Abstract). Hansen et al further teaches a foam mixture comprising 1.5wt% alkyl polyglucoside, 1.5wt% polymeric alkyl polyglucoside anionic surfactant, 7wt% triethanolamine alkyl sulfate, 9wt% sodium-n-octylsulfate, 2wt% sodium-n-decylsulfate, 6 wt% sodium alkylethoxy sulfate, 7.14wt% cacoamidopropyl hydroxysutaine, 5.63wt% cocoamido propyl betaine, 0.75wt% cocamidopropylamine oxide, 7wt% magnesium acetate, 5wt% butyl carbitol (which satisfies claimed glycol ether solvent) and 22.98wt% water (Table 1). Howver, Hansen et al fails to specifically disclose fatty alcohol surfactants. In the same field of endeavor, Bowen et al further teaches fire foam concentrates comprising surfactants (Abstract, Table 1). Bowen et al further teaches the concentrate may contain a fatty alcohol surfactant including octyl alcohol, lauryl alcohol and myristyl alcohol (Paragraph 14). With regard to fatty alcohol surfactants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted or provided the fatty alcohol surfactant in Hansen et al in view of Bowen et al as Hansen et al already encompasses the incorporation of surfactants. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). Simple substitution of one surfactant for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7730 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM . 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 Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /TANISHA DIGGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 April 2 , 2026