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
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), Claims 12 – 20, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 23, 2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
it is suggested Claim 12 be amended to recite “and
Claim 19 should be amended to recite “to obtain.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 7, and 12 – 20 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 because:
The term “high” ethylene oxide polyether polyol in Claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” ethylene oxide polyether polyol is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as referring to a polyether polyol which is derived from a reaction mixture comprising ethylene oxide.
Claims 3, 7, 14, and 19 contain the trademarks/trade names NRC2000, DL 400, RAYNOL 3152, SZ-1959, and Teflon. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name NRC2000 is used to identify/describe a high ethylene oxide polyether polyol; the trademark/trade name DL 400 is used to identify/describe a cross-linked polyether polyol; the trademark/trade name RAYNOL 3152 is used to identify/describe a phthalic anhydride polyester polyol; the trademark/trade name SZ-1959 is used to identify/describe an organosilicon surfactant; and the trademark/trade name Teflon is used to identify/describe a liner used in a high-pressure reactor. Accordingly, the trademarks/trade name identifications/descriptions are indefinite.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the” grouting reinforcement filler for injecting into a fracture of a coal-rock mass through a grouting pump in Claim 12. Prior to this recitation, independent Claim 1 and Claim 12 only set forth a grouting reinforcement filler for mining. Consequently, for the purposes of examination, the aforementioned recitation in Claim 12 will be interpreted as setting forth the grouting reinforcement filler for mining.
As Claims 13 – 20 all ultimately depend on Claim 12, they incorporate its subject matter. They are also consequently rejected under this statute.
Additionally, use of parentheses in Claim 19 renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the limitations enclosed in parentheses are required or optional. Specifically, the claim sets forth an aluminum chloride hydrated metal salt, while the limitation enclosed in parentheses (AlCl3 6H2O) corresponds to a species thereof. For the purposes of further examination, the recited aluminum chloride hydrated metal salt will be interpreted as optionally corresponding to AlCl3∙6H2O.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 11 are allowed. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 7, and 12 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not teach or suggest a grouting reinforcement filler for mining, comprising a first component and second component in the claimed weight ratio in which the first and second components comprise all of the instantly claimed ingredients in the instantly claimed amounts.
CN 102558498 to Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen) corresponds to the closest prior art. For the purposes of discussion, the following citations of Chen are taken from a machine translation of the document provided herewith. Chen teaches a polyurethane reinforcement and filling material for coal mines [0002]. Chen combines a first (A) component which consists of an isocyanate with a second (B) component in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 2:1 [0017]. The B component comprises 33 to 70 weight percent polyether polyol, 0 to 40 weight percent polyester polyol, 0.1 to 1.5 weight percent composite catalysts, 6 to 30 weight percent composite flame retardant, 0 to 15 weight percent foaming agent, 0.5 to 2.5 weight percent stabilizer, 0.5 to 10 weight percent foam stabilizer, and 5 to 25 weight percent plasticizer [0019].
However, the flame retardant in Chen is required to be composed of tris(β-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP) and dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP) in a weight ratio of 1:2 to 5 [0023]. TCEP and DMMP correspond to non-reactive flame retardants. Chen teaches the obtained material meets the flame retardancy properties required by the technical standard MT113-1995 polymer product used in underground coal mines. It would then be improper to substitute the required non-reactive composite flame retardant of Chen with a reactive flame retardant, as it cannot be reasonably expected that grouting reinforcement filler would still have the aforementioned flame retardancy properties of the invention. Additionally, no secondary reference provides the necessary teaching or guidance to further include 10 to 15 parts by weight of a reactive flame retardant relative to 65 to 85 parts by weight of the isocyanate in Chen. Further, there does not appear proper motivation to make this modification, as the targeted flame retardancy properties have already been satisfied by the non-reactive flame retardants provided by Chen.
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0169350 and US 2019/0127542 also pertain to two component polyurethane foams; and
US 2016/0024268 also utilizes the foam stabilizer SZ-1959 in a polyurethane foam composition.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764