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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 5 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. Claim 5 recites “short chain sulfonate/sulfate surfactants, short chain branched and linear ethoxylated sulfate surfactants, short chain betaine surfactants, short chain sultaine surfactants”; this renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what constitutes “short chain”.
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, 4-6, 13-15, 19, 21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Monfils et al (US Patent 2022/0362603).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 13-15, 19, 21, 24, Monfils et al teaches an aqueous firefighting foam concentrate comprising 3.4wt% of cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine, 0.5wt% lauryl alcohol, 0.5wt% of octyl alcohol, 3.2wt% of TEA lauryl sulfate, 3.4 wt% Na octyl sulfate, 0.75wt% of diutan gum, 0.75wt% xanthan gum, 5 wt% of ethylene glycol and 2.5wt% of butyl carbitol (wherein the solvents inherently provide a heat thickening concentrate) (Table 7, 2-A).
Monfils et al teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Monfils et al anticipate the instant claims. Monfils et al teaches the same firefighting foam concentrate as the instantly claims; hence, Monfils inherently teaches a concentrate that passes the cold temperature proportioning test.
Claims 2, 6, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaefer (US Patent Application 2008/0196908).
Regarding claims 2, 6, 24, Schaefer et al teaches a firefighting foam concentrate comprising about 1.77wt% of xanthan gum and starch (39.5 g of xanthan gum and 37.5g of starch), about 1.66wt% of cocamidopropyl betaine, 2.12wt% of cocamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, about 2.59wt% of sodium decyl ethoxy sulfate, about 1.3wt% of ethoxylated alcohol and 8.31wt% of butyl di-icinol (diethylene glycol butyl ether) (Example 1, Paragraph 73).
Schaefer teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Schaefer et al anticipates the claims.
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 1-2, 4-6, 13-19, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havelka-Rivard et al (US Patent Application 2019/0262647 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 13-19, 24, Havelka-Rivard et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Havelka-Rivard et al teaches a fire fighting foam concentrate (Abstract, Paragraph 112) comprising 0-40wt% of nonionic surfactants including liner or branched alcohols, 0-40wt% of zwitterionic surfactant including alkyl betaines wherein alkyl can be 1-30 carbons, cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, 0-40wt% of anionic surfactant including sodium octyl sulfate, sodium decyl sulfate, C6-C12 ether sulfates and C6-C12 sulfonates, 0-15wt% of water miscible solvent including hexylene glycol, butyl carbitol, butyl cellosolve, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol and propylene glycol and 0-10wt% of film formers/thickeners including xanthan gum, diutan gum, alginic acid, pectic acid, carrageenan gum, welan gum, locust bean gum, pectin and carboxymethylcellulose (Table 2, Paragraphs 56, 123-125, 127-128, 133). However, Havelka-Rivard et al fails to specifically disclose a preferred embodiment firefighting foam concentrate comprising the claimed one or more organic solvents, one or more surfactants, one or more alcohols and one or more biopolymers.
With regard to a firefighting foam concentrate comprising one or more organic solvents, one or more surfactants, one or more alcohols and one or more biopolymers, 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 a firefighting foam concentrate comprising one or more organic solvents, one or more surfactants, one or more alcohols and one or more biopolymers in Havelka-Rivard et al as Havelka-Rivard et al teaches the claimed components in order to form the fire fighting concentrate that has stability, spreading ability and burn back resistance.
Claims 1, 4-5, 13-17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US Patent Application 2008/0196908).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 13-17, 19, 21, Schaefer et al teaches a firefighting foam concentrate comprising a carbonized saccharide, surfactant, water, solvents and thickening agents (Paragraphs 24-28, 56-57). Schaefer et al teaches a firefighting foam concentrate comprising about 1.77wt% of xanthan gum and starch (39.5 g of xanthan gum and 37.5g of starch), about 1.66wt% of cocamidopropyl betaine, 2.12wt% of cocamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, about 2.59wt% of sodium decyl ethoxy sulfate, about 1.3wt% of ethoxylated alcohol teric and 8.31wt% of butyl di-icinol (diethylene glycol butyl ether) (Example 1, Paragraph 73). Schaefer et al further teaches organic solvents useful in the foaming composition include diethylene glycol butyl ether, dipropylene glycol propyl ether, hexylene glycol, ethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, dipropylene glycol monopropyl ether, propylene glycol, glycerol and polyethylene glycol (Paragraph 56). However, Schaefer et al fails to specifically disclose a preferred firefighting concentrate comprising xanthan gum, starch, cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, sodium decyl ethoxy sulfate, ethoxylated alcohol teric and one or more solvents including hexylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerol and polyethylene glycol.
With regard to preferred firefighting concentrate comprising xanthan gum, starch, cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, sodium decyl ethoxy sulfate, ethoxylated alcohol teric and one or more solvents including hexylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerol and polyethylene glycol, 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 a firefighting concentrate comprising preferred firefighting concentrate comprising xanthan gum, starch, cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, sodium decyl ethoxy sulfate, ethoxylated alcohol teric and one or more solvents including hexylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerol and polyethylene glycol in Schaefer as Schaefer teaches a preferred concentrate comprising xanthan gum, starch, cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, sodium decyl ethoxy sulfate, ethoxylated alcohol teric and diethylene glycol butyl ether, wherein Schaefer further teaches organic solvents useful in the foaming composition include diethylene glycol butyl ether, dipropylene glycol propyl ether, hexylene glycol, ethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, dipropylene glycol monopropyl ether, propylene glycol, glycerol and polyethylene glycol (Paragraph 56); it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide another organic solvent to form the firefighting foam concentrate.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US Patent Application 2008/0196908) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 13-14, 16-17, 19, 21 above, and in further view of Havelka-Rivard et al (US Patent Application 2019/0262647 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Schaefer discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Schaefer teaches the features above. However, Schaefer fails to specifically disclose C10-16 betaine and sultaine surfactants.
In the same field of endeavor, Havelka-Rivard et al teaches a fire fighting foam concentrate (Abstract, Paragraph 112) comprising 0-40wt% of nonionic surfactants including liner or branched alcohols, 0-40wt% of zwitterionic surfactant including alkyl betaines wherein alkyl can be 1-30 carbons, cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamidopropyl hydroxy sultaine, caprylampho hydroxypropyl sultaine, 0-40wt% of anionic surfactant including sodium octyl sulfate, sodium decyl sulfate, C6-C12 ether sulfates and C6-C12 sulfonates, 0-15wt% of water miscible solvent including hexylene glycol, butyl carbitol, butyl cellosolve, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol and propylene glycol and 0-10wt% of film formers/thickeners including xanthan gum, diutan gum, alginic acid, pectic acid, carrageenan gum, welan gum, locust bean gum, pectin and carboxymethylcellulose (Table 2, Paragraphs 56, 123-125, 127-128, 133).
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 a C10-C16 betaine and sultaine surfactant in Schaefer in view of Havelka-Rivard et al as simple substitution of one known betaine/sultaine surfactant for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan for providing surfactant properties to foaming firefighting concentrate.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US Patent Application 2008/0196908) in view of Prat et al (US Patent Application 2013/0221263).
Regarding claim 3, Schaefer discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Schaefer teaches the features above. However, Schaefer fails to specifically disclose a branched alcohol.
In the same field of endeavor, Prat et al teaches a foaming composition for extinguishing fires comprising a foaming surfactant such as an ethoxylated alcohol such as Neodol and Tergitol (Paragraphs 41, 84, 100).
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/substituted a branched alcohol in Schaefer in view of Prat et al in order to provide a foaming surfactant to the foamed firefighting concentrate. Simple substitution of one known alcohol surfactant for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. Furthermore, it is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights