CTNF 18/546,731 CTNF 78509 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, and species (ii): a coating of the fire-retardant agent on the surface of the material in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is improper because the amended claims are drawn only to only one combination: a product and a process for the manufacture of the product, forming a single general inventive concept. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons. The Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the requirement for unity of Invention set forth on page 2 of the restriction/Election letter mailed on 5/30/2025. “As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.” The passage indicates two conditions shall be met for the requirement for Unity of Invention according to 37 CFR 1.475(a): (i) one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (37 CFR 1.475(b)), and (ii) the special technical feature shared between the group of inventions makes a contribution over the prior art (PCT Rule 13.1). The condition (ii) is not satisfied because the special technical feature shared between the group of inventions does not make a contribution over the prior art (see rejections below). Therefore, the restriction under 35 USC 121 and 372 is proper. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Applicants are reminded of their right to request rejoinder of method claims with the product claims upon indication of the product claims as being allowable. The method claims must be commensurate with the allowed article claims such that they will be amended to recite all the limitations set out in the allowed article claims. See In re Ochiai 37 USPQ2d 1127. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-17 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. As to claim 1, it is unclear whether the virgin lignocellulose fiber and/or regenerated cellulose fiber could exhibit fiber-retardant properties without any additional treatments. Further, what is meant by an amount of the fibers having fire-retardant properties. It is confusing which fibers are referred to as lacking fire-retardant properties. Further, the term “formed” between --composite foam-- and –material-- is superfluous and should be removed from the claim. Additionally, the term “the” before the phrases “fire growth index" and “total heat release” should be replaced with “a” to avoid an issue of lack of antecedent basis in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2016/0289453 to Cai et al. (hereinafter “Cai”) . Cai discloses an ultra-low density fiber composite (ULDC) foam material having a density of 40 to 100 kg/m 3 within the claimed range (abstract), and comprising cellulose fibers, a foaming agent, water and additives (example 4). As shown in example 4, the fiber suspension comprises: CTMP fiber: 134.9g Kraft fiber: 14.9g PAM: 1.125g PVAc: 5.7g PVAc hardener: 1.14g AKD: 3.648g SiO2: 7.5g K2SO4: 7.5g SDS: 6.72g Zinc borate: 2.25-4.50g CuCO3: 1.5-3.0g The ULDC foam material contains about 78.5-80 wt% of the cellulose fibers, and 3.5 wt% of foaming agent based on 100 wt% of the solids content (example 4). In particular, the ULDC foam material comprises SiO2, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate with their combined content of 10 wt% based on the total solids content of the ULDC foam material. The silica, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate read on the claimed fire/smoke retardant agent. Cai does not explicitly disclose the ULDC foam material experiencing a fire growth index of less than 120 W/s and a total heat release of less than 7.5 MJ in accordance with Single Burning Item method (EN 13823). However, it appears that the ULDC foam material meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claim. The ULDC foam material has a density of 40 to 100 kg/m 3 within the claimed range, and comprises cellulose fibers, a foaming agent, water and additives (example 4). The ULDC foam material contains about 78.5 wt% of the cellulose fibers, and 3.5 wt% of foaming agent (example 4). In particular, the ULDC foam material comprises SiO2, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate with their combined content of 10 wt% based on the total solids content of the ULDC foam material. The silica, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate read on the claimed fire/smoke retardant agents. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the fire growth index of less than 120 W/s and the total heat release of less than 7.5 MJ in accordance with Single Burning Item method (EN 13823) would be inherent to the ULDC foam material as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. As to claims 2-5, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material has a density of 50 or 90 kg/m 3 within the claimed range (figure 8). As to claim 7 and 8, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material contains 3.5 wt% of foaming agent (example 4). As to claim 9, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material contains 0.13 wt% of foaming agent (example 11). As to claim 10, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material comprises SiO 2 , potassium sulfate, and zinc borate with their combined content of 10 wt% based on the total solids content of the ULDC foam material (example 4). The silica, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate read on the claimed fire/smoke retardant agents. As to claim 12, Cai discloses that the foaming agent is sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) (paragraph 122). As to claim 13-16, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material comprises a sizing agent comprising alkyl ketene dimer (AKD), and an adhesive material comprising polyvinyl alcohol (paragraph 122). The ULDC foam material comprises 1.91 wt% AKD (example 4). As to claim 17, the ULDC foam material can be used as a building thermal and acoustic insulation material, a protective packaging material, an air filter product or a hygiene product (abstract) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai . Cai discloses the ULDC foam material comprising cellulose fibers and an additive with a ratio of 95/5 to 30/70 on a dry basis of the cellulose fibers to the additive (paragraph 123). The additive comprises boric acid, zinc borate, silicon dioxide or potassium sulphate and each of which reads on the claimed fire-retardant material (paragraph 122). The content of the fire-retardant material overlaps the claimed range. In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in a content of the flame-retardant material will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a content of the flame-retardant material is critical or provides unexpected results. Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flame-retardant material in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize the flame-retardant properties of the ULDC foam material. This is in line with In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as in view of Zheng et al. (hereinafter “Zheng”), “Improving Fire Retardancy of Cellulosic Thermal Insulating Materials by Coating with bio-based fire Retardants”, Nordic Pulp & Paper Research Journal 2019, 34(1) 96-106 . As to claims 1, 6, and 11, Cai discloses an ultra-low density fiber composite (ULDC) foam material having a density of 40 to 100 kg/m 3 within the claimed range (abstract), and comprising cellulose fibers, a foaming agent, water and additives (example 4). As shown in example 4, the fiber suspension comprises: CTMP fiber: 134.9g Kraft fiber: 14.9g PAM: 1.125g PVAc: 5.7g PVAc hardener: 1.14g AKD: 3.648g SiO2: 7.5g K2SO4: 7.5g SDS: 6.72g Zinc borate: 2.25-4.50g CuCO3: 1.5-3.0g The ULDC foam material contains about 78.5-80 wt% of the cellulose fibers, and 3.5 wt% of foaming agent based on 100 wt% of the solids content (example 4). In particular, the ULDC foam material comprises SiO2, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate with their combined content of 10 wt% based on the total solids content of the ULDC foam material. The silica, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate read on the claimed fire/smoke retardant agent. Cai does not explicitly disclose the ULDC foam material comprising 20-40 wt% of a fire-retardant agent; and experiencing a fire growth index of less than 120 W/s and a total heat release of less than 7.5 MJ in accordance with Single Burning Item method (EN 13823). Zheng, however, discloses a composite material comprising a cellulosic thermal insulating material and a fire-retardant coating provided thereon. The cellulosic thermal insulating material is produced from recycled cotton fibers and chemithermomechanical pulp (CTMP) fibers and SDS surfactant (Methods, page 97). The fire-retardant coating comprises microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) binder in combination with fire retardant agents including sulfonated kraft lignin, nanoclay, expandable graphite and synergetic fire retardants (table 1). The fire retardants + MFC coated samples showed 20% increased weight (table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a fire-retardant coating material disclosed in Zheng on the ULDC foam material of Cai motivated by the desire to enhance fire retardancy of the ULDC foam material. The combined disclosures of Cai and Zheng results in an article comprising 30 wt% flame retardants (10 wt% of Cai’s flame retardants and 20 wt% of Zheng’s flame retardants) based on the combined content of 120 wt% for the ULDC foam material and the fire-retardant coating. The total amount of the flame retardant is present in the ULDC foam material/fire-retardant coating: 30/120 x 100% = 25 wt% within the claimed range. It appears that the ULDC foam material/fiber-retardant coating meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claim. The ULDC foam material has a density of 40 to 100 kg/m 3 within the claimed range, and comprises cellulose fibers, a foaming agent, water and additives (example 4). The ULDC foam material contains about 78.5 wt% of the cellulose fibers, and 3.5 wt% of foaming agent (example 4). In particular, the ULDC foam material comprises SiO2, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate with their combined content of 10 wt% based on the total solids content of the ULDC foam material. The silica, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate read on the claimed fire/smoke retardant agents. The ULDC foam material/fire-retardant coating comprises 25 wt% of the fire-retardant material within the claimed range. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the fire growth index of less than 120 W/s and the total heat release of less than 7.5 MJ in accordance with Single Burning Item method (EN 13823) would be inherent to the ULDC foam material/fire retardant coating as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. As to claims 2-5, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material has a density of 50 or 90 kg/m 3 within the claimed range (figure 8). As to claim 7 and 8, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material contains 3.5 wt% of foaming agent (example 4). As to claim 9, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material contains 0.13 wt% of foaming agent (example 11). As to claim 10, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material comprises SiO 2 , potassium sulfate, and zinc borate with their combined content of 10 wt% based on the total solids content of the ULDC foam material (example 4). The silica, potassium sulfate, and zinc borate read on the claimed fire/smoke retardant agents. As to claim 12, Cai discloses that the foaming agent is sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) (paragraph 122). As to claim 13-16, Cai discloses that the ULDC foam material comprises a sizing agent comprising alkyl ketene dimer (AKD), and an adhesive material comprising polyvinyl alcohol (paragraph 122). The ULDC foam material comprises 1.91 wt% AKD (example 4). As to claim 17, the ULDC foam material can be used as a building thermal and acoustic insulation material, a protective packaging material, an air filter product or a hygiene product (abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off. 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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. /Hai Vo/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 2 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 3 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 4 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 5 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 6 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 7 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 8 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 9 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 10 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 11 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 12 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 13 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/546,731 Page 14 Art Unit: 1788