DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: While it is clear that the term “quat” in lines 2 and 3 of claim 1 means “quaternary ammonium compound” in light of the instant specification, the full term should be used to make the claims clear . Appropriate correction is required. 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 . Claims 1- 7 , 9-11 and 1 4 - 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-19, 25- 35, and 3 7 of copending Application No. 19/106417 in view of Odani et al. (US 2021/008 7 351). Co-pending application ‘417 recites a composition for producing polyurethane (PU), comprising a polyisocyanate component, a polyol component, and at least one solid filler, wherein the composition comprises at least one surfactant based on a quaternary ammonium compound (claim 18), wherein said composition is a rigid PU foam and further comprises blowing agents; at least one catalyst that catalyzes the formation of a urethane or isocyanurate linkage (claim 19). Co-pending application ‘417 recites that t he quaternary ammonium compound used is at least one ester quat of formula (1) or (2), an alkyl quat of formula (3), an imidazolinium quat of formula (4), an amidoamine quat of formula (5) and/or cetylpyridinium chloride, wherein formula (1) and formula (2) are as follows: wherein: R¹ is an acyl radical of a saturated or mono- or polyunsaturated, linear or branched fatty acid having a chain length of 8 to 22 carbon atoms or the acyl radical of ricinoleic acid, or hydrogen; and wherein a compound of formula (1) or (2) may comprise different radicals R¹, with the proviso that at least one radical R¹ must be an acyl radical; R² is an alkyl radical having 1 to 6 carbon atoms or hydrogen; R³ is an alkyl radical having 1 to 6 carbon atoms or hydrogen; R⁴ is an alkyl radical having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, a hydroxyethyl radical or hydrogen, wherein a compound of formula (1) or (2) to may comprise different radicals R⁴; n = 0 to 20; a = 1 to 3 and b = 1 to 3; with the proviso that a + b = 4; wherein formula 3 is as follows: wherein: R⁵ is a saturated, or mono- or polyunsaturated, linear or branched alkyl radical having a chain length of 8 to 24 carbon atoms, wherein a compound of formula (3) may comprise different radicals R⁵; R⁶ is an alkyl radical having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, a hydroxyethyl radical or a benzyl radical or hydrogen, wherein a compound of the formula (3) may comprise different radicals R⁶; c = 1 to 3 and d = 1 to 3; with the proviso that c + d = 4; and wherein formula (4) is as follows: wherein: R⁷ is an alkyl radical having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, a hydroxyethyl radical or hydrogen; R⁸ is a saturated or mono- or polyunsaturated, linear or branched alkyl radical having 8 to 22 carbon atoms or a radical O(CO)R¹⁰, wherein R¹⁰ is an aliphatic, saturated or mono- or polyunsaturated, linear or branched alkyl radical having 7 to 21 carbon atoms; R⁹ is an aliphatic, saturated or mono- or polyunsaturated, linear or branched alkyl radical having 7 to 21 carbon atoms; Z is an NH group or oxygen; e is an integer between 1 and 4, and wherein formula (5) is as follows: wherein: R¹¹ is a saturated or mono- or polyunsaturated, linear or branched alkyl radical having a chain length of 7 to 21 carbon atoms; R 12 is an alkyl radical having 1 to 6 carbon atoms , a hydroxyethyl radical or hydrogen, wherein a compound of formula (5) may comprise different radicals R¹²; f can be an integer between 0 and 5, h = 1 or 2 and g = 2 or 3, with the proviso that h + g = 4, wherein a compound of the formula (5) can have different values of f f or h = 2; may comprise different radicals R¹¹, if R⁴, R⁶, R⁷ or R¹²; may comprise a hydroxyethyl radical which is optionally alkoxylated wherein the alkoxylated hydroxyethyl radical may comprise repeating units based on ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, butylene oxide and/or styrene oxide and comprise 1-15 repeating units. See claim 27 of copending application ‘417. Co-pending application ‘417 recites R², R³, R⁴, R⁶, R⁷ and R¹² are independently hydrogen, methyl, ethyl, propyl or isopropyl and n=0-10 (claim 26). Copending application ‘417 recites R², R³, R⁴, R⁶, R⁷ and R¹² are independently hydrogen or methyl and n=0 (claim 27). Copending application ‘417 recites that in formula (1) and/or formula (2), R¹ is selected from the acyl radicals of the acids selected from the group consisting of: oleic acid, isostearic acid, lauric acid, palmitic acid, elaidic acid, vaccenic acid, gadoleic acid, eicosenoic acid, cetoleic acid, erucic acid, nervonic acid, linoleic acid, alpha-linolenic acid, gamma-linolenic acid, calendic acid, punicic acid, alpha- eleostearic acid, beta- eleostearic acid, arachidonic acid, timnodonic acid, clupanodonic acid, cervonic acid and combinations thereof (claim 28). Copending application ‘417 recites that in the formula (1), a = b = 2 and/or, in formula (5), h = 1 and g = 3 (claim 29). Copending application ‘417 recites that s aid composition further comprises at least one counter anion to the compounds of general formulae (1), (2), (3), (4) and/or (5) selected from the group consisting of: chloride, bromide, iodide, alkyl sulfate, triflate, tosylate , phosphate, sulfate, hydrogen sulfate, lactate, glycolate, acetate, citrate, and combinations thereof (claim 30) . Copending application ‘417 recites that t he at least one surfactant based on a quaternary ammonium compound is present in a total amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of polyols (claim 31) or 0.1 to 4 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of polyol (claim 32). Copending application ‘417 teaches that the solid filler is present in a total amount of 1 to 80 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of polyols (claim 33) or 8 to 40 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of polyols (claim 34). Copending application ‘417 recites that the composition additionally comprises at least one foam stabilizer in an amount of 0.5 to 4 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of polyols (claim 35) . Copending application ‘417 recites a process for producing PU using the composition of claim 18 (claim 37). The formulas of copending application ‘417 include embodiments which meet instant claims 16-19. Copending application ‘417 recites that R 2 , R 3 , R 4 , R 6 , R 7 , or R 12 are independently hydrogen or methyl (claim 27 of copending application ‘417). Co-pending application does not expressly recite that the solid filler is a flame retardant, and does contain claims in which the quaternary ammonium surfactant formulas (see claim 25) are used together in claims which also include a blowing agent. However, Odani et al. teach a method for producing a polyurethane foam, the method comprising combining a polyisocyanate (¶ 41-43), a polyol (¶44), a foaming (i.e. blowing) agent (¶45), a catalyst (¶46), a surfactant, and a solid flame retardant such as ammonium polyphosphate (¶52). Both the copending application ‘417 and Odani et al. relate to the field of polyurethane foams, including rigid polyurethane foams (see claim 19 of ‘417 and ¶55 of Odani) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a solid flame retardant as the filler in copending application ‘417 as disclosed in Odani in order to provide flame retardancy to the PU compositions of copending application ‘417. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to also include a blowing agent in the composition of copending application ‘417 as disclosed in Odani in order to provide thermal insulation, in addition to the flame retardancy provided by the solid flame retardant, to compositions and foams produced in copending application ‘417. The surfactants used in the polyurethane compositions of copending application ‘417 are identical to those recited in the instant claims. These surfactants will necessarily provide the same improvements as the instantly claimed surfactants, including improving dispersibility, redispersibility , and/or sedimentation stability of a solid flame retardant (for the reasons discussed above from Odani et al.) recited in instant claim 15. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 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. Claim s 1- 7 and 11-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Burdeniuc (US 2016/0102169) . Burdeniuc teach polyurethane foam products including rigid foam polyurethane polymers (abstract). The foam products are produced from compositions compris ing flame retardants (¶63), quaternary ammonium surfactants (¶59), catalysts (¶48), blowing agents (¶57), polyisocyanates (¶49), and polyols (¶7, ¶17, ¶18, ¶50). This anticipates instant claim 1. The components are reacted to produce a polyurethane foam. This anticipates instant claims 11 and 14 . The foams produced in Burdeniuc include rigid polyurethane foams. This anticipates instant claim 12 and 14 . Examples of the flame retardant include melamine powder, which is a solid flame retardant which meets instant claims 1 and 7. With regards to instant claim 2, expressly named example s of quaternary ammonium surfactant for use as cell stabilizer are cetyl trimethylammonium chloride and cetyl pyridinium chloride (which is recited in instant claim 2) . C etyl trimethylammonium chloride meets Formula (3), wherein R 5 is linear radical having a chain length of 16 ( cetyl ), R 6 is methyl (which also meets instant claim 17) , c is 3 and d is 1 and which further meets instant claim 4 (h = 1 and g =3) and instant claim 5 (chloride). With regards to instant claims 3, 16, and 18-19, formula 1 and 2 are disclosed in the alternative to formula (3). Burdeniuc teaches a quaternary ammonium compound which meets formula (3). To the extent that formula (1) and/or formula (2) are alternative to (3), Burdeniuc meets instant claims 3, 16, and 18-19. With regards to the limitations of instant claim 15, the recited improvements are dispersibility, redispersibility , and/or sedimentations stability of the solid flame retardant in the composition due to the quaternary ammonium compound. As embodiments of the compositions of Burdeniuc include both a quaternary ammonium surfactant (¶59) and solid flame retardants (¶63), the added quaternary ammonium surfactants will necessarily provide improved dispersibility, redispersibility , and/or sedimentations stability of the solid flame retardant. The limitation in instant claim 13 which recites “an insulating material and/or a construction material,” this is an intended use of the rigid foams of instant claim 13. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey , 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The rigid foams (see abstract of Burdeniuc ) comprises identical components as recited in the instant claims. These rigid foams are capable of performing the intended uses of “an insulating material” or a “construction material” . The amount of cell stabilizers, of which quaternary ammonium surfactants are a named example, is typically 0.1 to 1 0 pphp (parts per hundred polyol ; see ¶48). See ¶64. This falls within the range of instant claim 6. 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 9 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdeniuc (US 2016/0102169). Burdeniuc teach the compositions, polyurethane foam and methods as discussed in this action above, the rejections of which are incorporated herein by reference. Burdeniuc teaches that t he amount of fire retardant, of which melamine powder, a solid flame retardant, is a named example, is from about 0 to about 20 pphp (parts per hundred polyol , see ¶48). This overlaps the amount of instant claim 9. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris , 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari , 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teaching Burdeniuc to use an amount of flame retardant, including melamine powder which is solid, which meets the instant claim limitations of instant claim 9 because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123. With regards to instant claim 10, Burdeniuc teaches that cell stabilizers (which are foam stabilizers) are present in the compositions in amounts of from about 0.1 to about 20 pphp , in some cases from about 0.1 to 5 pphr (parts per hundred polyol). This overlaps the amount of foam stabilizer of instant claim 10. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris , 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari , 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teaching Burdeniuc to use an amount of cell stabilizer which meets the instant claim limitations of instant claim 10 because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdeniuc (US 2016/0102169) and further in view of Dueber et al. (US 6,130,267). However, Dueber et al. teach a fire retardant for producing rigid polyurethane foams (see abstract). The fire retardant is preferably a solid fire retardant, which is preferably, melamine, ammonium polyphosphate, or guanidine carbonate (col. 1., lines 54-55), which can be used in combination (see col. 1, lines 45-49). The fire retardants are added, to, for example, urethane prepolymers obtained by reacting a polyisocyanate with a polyol (col. 2, lines 35-37). The fire retardant may be mixed into the polyisocyanate and/or the polyol (col. 4, lines 49-50). The compositions further comprise blowing agents, catalysts, surface active agents (which are surfactants) and foam stabilizers (col. 6, lines 4-6). The compositions are reacted to form fire resistant, rigid polyurethane foams (col. 7, lines 16-18). In view of Dueber et al.’s recognition that solid melamine and ammonium polyphosphate are equivalent and interchangeable as solid flame retardants for rigid polyurethane foams, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the melamine powder of Burdeniuc with ammonium polyphosphate and thereby arrive at the present invention of instant claim 20. Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). It would have been obvious to use a combination of solid flame retardants, including combinations of solid melamine and ammonium polyphosphate disclosed in Dueber et al., as the flame retardant in Burdeniuc , in order to provide enhanced levels of flame retardancy to the foams of Burdeniuc . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT K. B BOYLE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7338 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 am to 5pm, Monday - Friday . 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 Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1302 . 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. /K. BOYLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766