DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 2/17/2026 wherein claims 5-6 and 9 are canceled, and claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 11,452,896) in view of Chattaway et al. (US 2019/0308043).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Allen teaches a method of extinguishing or abating a class B fire (see Column 1, lines 50-61), the method comprising:
administering to the class B fire a fire-fighting composition (see tables 1-8) comprising:
a surfactant component comprising a sugar based surfactant (decyl glucoside; see tables 1-8);
a polysaccharide component comprising xantham gum (see tables 1-8); and
water (see tables 1-8).
Monfils does not explicitly teach that his method may be used for extinguishing or abating a lithium battery fire.
Chattaway teaches that lithium battery fires are considered a type of class B fire (see Paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Allen extinguish a lithium battery fire, as taught by Chattawy, in order to fight a class B fire (Paragraphs 0013 and 0063 of Monfils) since lithium battery fires are considered a type of class B fire (Paragraph 0001 of Chattaway).
Regarding Claim 2, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition (tables 1-8) comprises: about 0.1 to 25 wt% of the surfactant component (see tables 1-2 and Column 1, lines 50-61); about 0 to 1.5 wt% of the polysaccharide component (see tables 1-2 and Column 1, lines 50-61); and at least about 50 wt% of water (see tables 1-2 and Column 1, lines 50-61).
Regarding Claim 4, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the water is deionized water (see Column 8, lines 23-27).
Regarding Claim 7, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the sugar-based surfactant comprises an alkyl polygucoside (decyl glucoside; see tables 1-8).
Regarding Claim 8, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the sugar-based surfactant comprises decyl glucoside (see tables 1-8).
Regarding Claim 10, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition further comprises an additive component comprising at least one of a biocide (boric acid or citric acid; see tables 1-8) or an organic solvent (propylene glycol; see tables 1-8).
Regarding Claim 11, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition comprises 0 to 0.5 wt% of the additive component (the wt.% of citric acid; see tables 1-8).
Regarding Claim 12, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the additive component is salt-free (propylene glycol; see tables 1-8).
Regarding Claim 13, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the organic solvent comprises a glycol (propylene glycol; see tables 1-8).
Regarding Claim 14, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the glycol comprises propylene glycol (see tables 1-8).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Allen teaches a method of controlling a thermal runaway event associated with a class B fire (by applying a firefighting agent to the class B fire; see Column 1, lines 50-61), the method comprising:
administering to the thermal runaway event a fire-fighting composition (see tables 1-8) comprising:
a surfactant component comprising a sugar based surfactant (decyl glucoside; see tables 1-8);
a polysaccharide component comprising xantham gum (see tables 1-8); and
water (see tables 1-8).
Monfils does not explicitly teach that his method may be used for extinguishing or abating a lithium battery fire.
Chattaway teaches that lithium battery fires are considered a type of class B fire (see Paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Allen extinguish a lithium battery fire, as taught by Chattawy, in order to fight a class B fire (Paragraphs 0013 and 0063 of Monfils) since lithium battery fires are considered a type of class B fire (Paragraph 0001 of Chattaway).
Regarding Independent Claim 17, Allen teaches a method of extinguishing or abating a class B fire (by applying a firefighting agent to the class B fire; see Column 1, lines 50-61), the method comprising:
administering to the class B fire a fire-fighting composition (see tables 1-8) comprising:
a surfactant component comprising a sugar based surfactant (decyl glucoside; see tables 1-8);
a polysaccharide component comprising xantham gum (see tables 1-8); and
a diluent (water; see tables 1-8).
Monfils does not explicitly teach that his method may be used for extinguishing or abating a lithium battery fire.
Chattaway teaches that lithium battery fires are considered a type of class B fire (see Paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Allen extinguish a lithium battery fire, as taught by Chattawy, in order to fight a class B fire (Paragraphs 0013 and 0063 of Monfils) since lithium battery fires are considered a type of class B fire (Paragraph 0001 of Chattaway).
Regarding Claim 18, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition (tables 1-8) comprises: about 0.1 to 25 wt% of the surfactant component (see tables 1-2 and Column 1, lines 50-61); about 0 to 1.5 wt% of the polysaccharide component (see tables 1-2 and Column 1, lines 50-61); and at least about 50 wt% of water (see tables 1-2 and Column 1, lines 50-61).
Regarding Claim 19, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the diluent is deionized water (see Column 8, lines 23-27).
Regarding Claim 20, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen further teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition further comprises an additive component comprising a biocide (boric acid or citric acid; see tables 1-8) or an organic solvent (propylene glycol; see tables 1-8).
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monfils et al. (US 2022/0362604) in view of Chattaway et al. (US 2019/0308043).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Monfils teaches a method of extinguishing or abating a class B fire (an aqueous foam composition used to fight a class B fire; see title, abstract, Paragraph 002 and Paragraph 0063), the method comprising:
administering to the class B fire a fire-fighting composition (an aqueous foam composition used to fight a class b fire; see title, abstract, Paragraph 002 and Paragraph 0063) comprising:
a surfactant component comprising a sugar based surfactant (alkyl polyglucoside; see Paragraph 0023).
a polysaccharide component (a polysaccharide thickener; see Paragraph 0007) comprising xantham gum (Paragraphs 0027, 0028, 0029, 0051, 0069, and claim 5); and
water (at least about 40% water; see Paragraph 0007).
Monfils does not explicitly teach that his method may be used for extinguishing or abating a lithium battery fire.
Chattaway teaches that lithium battery fires are considered a type of class B fire (see Paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Monfils extinguish a lithium battery fire, as taught by Chattawy, in order to fight a class B fire (Paragraphs 0013 and 0063 of Monfils) since lithium battery fires are considered a type of class B fire (Paragraph 0001 of Chattaway).
Regarding Claim 2, Monfils in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Monfils further teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition (an aqueous foam composition used to fight a class b fire; see title, abstract, Paragraph 002 and Paragraph 0063) comprises: about 0.1 to 25 wt% of the surfactant component (see Paragraph 0023); about 0 to 1.5 wt% of the polysaccharide component (Paragraph 0030); and at least about 50 wt% of water (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 7, Monfils in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Monfils further teaches wherein the sugar-based surfactant comprises an alkyl glycoside or an alkyl polyglycoside (alkyl polyglucoside; see Paragraph 0023).
Regarding Claim 8, Monfils in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Monfils further teaches wherein the sugar-based surfactant comprises an alkyl polyglucoside (alkyl polyglucoside; see Paragraph 0023).
Regarding Claim 10, Monfils in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Monfils further teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition further comprises an additive component comprising at least one of an organic solvent (diethylene glycol n-butyl ether, dipropylene glycol n-propyl ether, hexylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether, dipropylene glycol monoethyl ether, and/or glycerol; see Paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 13, Monfils in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Monfils further teaches wherein the organic solvent comprises a glycol (diethylene glycol n-butyl ether, dipropylene glycol n-propyl ether, hexylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, dipropylene glycol monobutyl ether, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether, and/or dipropylene glycol monoethyl ether; see Paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 14, Monfils in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Monfils further teaches wherein the glycol comprises propylene glycol or hexylene glycol (hexylene glycol and/or propylene glycol see Paragraph 0024).
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. (CN 116251324) in view of Monfils et al. (US 2022/0362604) and Allen et al. (US 11,452,896).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Qian teaches (Figures 1-7) a method of extinguishing or abating a lithium battery fire (see title and abstract), the method comprising:
administering to the lithium battery fire a fire-fighting composition (see abstract) comprising:
a surfactant component (see abstract and claim 3) comprising a sugar-based surfactant (alkyl glycoside; see Claim 6);
a polysaccharide component (see abstract and claim 7); and
water (deionized water; see abstract, embodiment 1 on page 7, and embodiment 2 on page 9).
Although Qian teaches that the polysaccharide component can comprise methylcellulose and/or hydroxyethylcellulose (see abstract and Claim 7), Qian does not teach that the polysaccharide component comprises agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, succinoglycan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, propylene glycol alginate, or a mixture of any two or more thereof.
Monfils teaches that any of methylcellulose, hydroxyethylcellulose, agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, propylene glycol alginate can be used as suitable polysaccharide thickeners (see Paragraph 0028). Therefore, methylcellulose and/or hydroxyethylcellulose are recognized in the art as equivalents to agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, succinoglycan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, and/or propylene glycol alginate.
In addition, Allen teaches that xantham gum creates a shear thinning effect that allows a firefighting agent to maintain a low viscosity when under high shear such as passing through hoses and nozzles, while at the same time increasing the viscosity of the agent when it lands on its target material (see Column 2, lines 32-51 and Column 4, lines 51-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qian to include the xantham gum, as taught by Monfils and Allen, in order to maintain a low viscosity when under high shear such as passing through hoses and nozzles, while at the same time increasing the viscosity of the agent when it lands on its target material (see Column 2, lines 32-51 and Column 4, lines 51-57 of Allen). In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 2, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the fire-fighting composition (see abstract) comprises: about 0.1 to 25 wt% of the surfactant component (0.5 to 1 parts by weight of alkyl glycoside in a composition that is 91.5-109 parts by weight; see abstract and claim 6); about 0 to 1.5wt% of the polysaccharide component (0.2-1.5 parts by weight of an ether in a composition that is 91.5-109 parts by weight; see abstract); and at least 50 wt% of water (86-95 parts water in a composition that is 91.5-109 parts by weight; see abstract).
It is noted that Monfils also teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition (an aqueous foam composition used to fight a class b fire; see title, abstract, Paragraph 002 and Paragraph 0063) comprises: about 0.1 to 25 wt% of the surfactant component (see Paragraph 0023); about 0 to 1.5 wt% of the polysaccharide component (Paragraph 0030); and at least about 50 wt% of water (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 3, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the fire-fighting composition is salt-free (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 4, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the water is deionized water (see abstract, embodiment 1 on page 7, and embodiment 2 on page 9).
Regarding Claim 7, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the sugar-based surfactant comprises an alkyl glycoside (see abstract and Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the fire-fighting composition (see abstract) further comprises an additive component (a perfluoro compound; see abstract) comprising at least one of an organic solvent (which can be hexafluorobenzene or ethylene glycol; see Claims 6 and 7) or a corrosion inhibitor (which can be pentafluorobutane; see Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the fire-fighting composition (see abstract) comprises 0 to 0.5 wt.% of the additive component (the perfluoro compound, which can be an organic solvent or corrosion inhibitor, is 0.5-2.5 parts by weight in a composition that is 91.5-109 parts by weight; see abstract and Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the additive component is salt-free (hexafluorobenzene, ethylene glycol, and pentafluorobutane are salt-free).
Regarding Claim 13, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the organic solvent comprises a glycol (ethylene glycol; see Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. It is noted that the organic solvent is recited in the alternative in claim 10 and the claimed composition therefore does not require a glycol solvent.
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Qian teaches (Figures 1-7) a method of controlling a thermal runaway event associated with a lithium battery (see title and abstract), the method comprising:
administering to the thermal runaway event a fire-fighting composition (see abstract) comprising:
a surfactant component comprising a sugar-based surfactant (alkyl glycoside; see Claim 6);
a polysaccharide component (which can include hydroxyethylcellulose; see abstract and claim 7); and
water (deionized water; see abstract, embodiment 1 on page 7, and embodiment 2 on page 9).
Although Qian teaches that the polysaccharide component can comprise methylcellulose and/or hydroxyethylcellulose (see abstract and Claim 7), Qian does not teach that the polysaccharide component comprises agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, succinoglycan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, propylene glycol alginate, or a mixture of any two or more thereof.
Monfils teaches that any of methylcellulose, hydroxyethylcellulose, agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, propylene glycol alginate can be used as suitable polysaccharide thickeners (see Paragraph 0028). Therefore, methylcellulose and/or hydroxyethylcellulose are recognized in the art as equivalents to agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, succinoglycan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, and/or propylene glycol alginate.
In addition, Allen teaches that xantham gum creates a shear thinning effect that allows a firefighting agent to maintain a low viscosity when under high shear such as passing through hoses and nozzles, while at the same time increasing the viscosity of the agent when it lands on its target material (see Column 2, lines 32-51 and Column 4, lines 51-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qian to include the xantham gum, as taught by Monfils and Allen, in order to maintain a low viscosity when under high shear such as passing through hoses and nozzles, while at the same time increasing the viscosity of the agent when it lands on its target material (see Column 2, lines 32-51 and Column 4, lines 51-57 of Allen). In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Independent Claim 17, Qian teaches (Figures 1-7) a method of extinguishing or abating a lithium battery fire (see title and abstract), the method comprising:
administering to the lithium battery fire a fire-fighting composition (see abstract) comprising:
a surfactant component comprising a sugar-based surfactant (alkyl glycoside; see Claim 6);
a polysaccharide component (which can include hydroxyethylcellulose; see abstract and claim 7); and
a diluent (deionized water; see abstract, embodiment 1 on page 7, and embodiment 2 on page 9).
Although Qian teaches that the polysaccharide component can comprise methylcellulose and/or hydroxyethylcellulose (see abstract and Claim 7), Qian does not teach that the polysaccharide component comprises agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, succinoglycan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, propylene glycol alginate, or a mixture of any two or more thereof.
Monfils teaches that any of methylcellulose, hydroxyethylcellulose, agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, propylene glycol alginate can be used as suitable polysaccharide thickeners (see Paragraph 0028). Therefore, methylcellulose and/or hydroxyethylcellulose are recognized in the art as equivalents to agar, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gum guaicum, neem gum, pistacia lentiscus, gum chatti, caranna, galactomannan, gumtragacanth, karaya gum, guar gum, welan gum, rhamsam gum, locust bean gum, beta-glucan, chicle gum, kino gum, dammar gum, glucomannan, succinoglycan, mastic gum, spruce gum, tara gum, gellan gum, xanthan gum, acacia gum, cassia gum, diutan gum, fenugreek gum, ghatti gum, karaya gum, konjac gum, pectin, and/or propylene glycol alginate.
In addition, Allen teaches that xantham gum creates a shear thinning effect that allows a firefighting agent to maintain a low viscosity when under high shear such as passing through hoses and nozzles, while at the same time increasing the viscosity of the agent when it lands on its target material (see Column 2, lines 32-51 and Column 4, lines 51-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qian to include the xantham gum, as taught by Monfils and Allen, in order to maintain a low viscosity when under high shear such as passing through hoses and nozzles, while at the same time increasing the viscosity of the agent when it lands on its target material (see Column 2, lines 32-51 and Column 4, lines 51-57 of Allen). In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 18, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the fire-fighting composition (see abstract) comprises: about 0.1 to 25 wt% of the surfactant component (0.5 to 1 parts by weight of alkyl glycoside in a composition that is 91.5-109 parts by weight; see abstract and claim 6); about 0 to 1.5wt% of the polysaccharide component (0.2-1.5 parts by weight of an ether in a composition that is 91.5-109 parts by weight; see abstract); and at least 50 wt% of diluent (86-95 parts water in a composition that is 91.5-109 parts by weight; see abstract).
It is noted that Monfils also teaches wherein the fire-fighting composition (an aqueous foam composition used to fight a class b fire; see title, abstract, Paragraph 002 and Paragraph 0063) comprises: about 0.1 to 25 wt% of the surfactant component (see Paragraph 0023); about 0 to 1.5 wt% of the polysaccharide component (Paragraph 0030); and at least about 50 wt% of water (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 19, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the diluent is deionized water (see abstract, embodiment 1 on page 7, and embodiment 2 on page 9).
Regarding Claim 20, Qian in view of Monfils and Allen teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Qian further teaches (Figures 1-7) wherein the fire-fighting composition (see abstract) further comprises an additive component (a perfluoro compound; see abstract) comprising at least one of an organic solvent (which can be hexafluorobenzene or ethylene glycol; see Claims 6 and 7) or a corrosion inhibitor (which can be pentafluorobutane; see Claim 7).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 11,452,896) in view of Chattaway et al. (US 2019/0308043) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vincent (US 2022/0134153).
Regarding Claim 15, Allen in view of Chattaway teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Allen in view of Chattaway does not teach that the lithium battery fire is outdoors, in a building, or in an electric vehicle.
Vincent teaches (Figures 1-2) that there have been a number of cases of fires in electric vehicles includes a battery, or battery pack with several lithium-ion batteries (Paragraph 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Allen in view of Chattaway be used in a lithium battery fire in an electric vehicle, as taught by Vincent, in order to carry out efficient extinguishing of a fire in a lithium ion battery (abstract of Qian) since they are difficult to bring under control (Paragraph 0011 of Vincent).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, and 10-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Monfils does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) because the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. In response, it is noted that Monfils is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) since Monfils is a printed publication available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, being owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person is an exception to the reference being applied under U.S.C. 102(a)(2), but is not listed as an exception to the reference being applied as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741