DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This application is a 371 of PCT/IB2023/050558, filed on 01/23/2023, which is entitled to and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/303,556, filed 01/27/2022. The preliminary amendment filed on 05/23/2024 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Claims 1, 3, 13, 16-19, 21-24, 36, 40, 67-73 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 13, 16-19, 21-24, 36, 40, 67-73 are under examination on the merits. Claims 2, 4-12, 14-15, 20, 25-35, 37-39, 41-66, 74-77 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement submitted on 05/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Priority
5. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 05/23/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The term "type" in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "type" 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. It is unclear what smectite "type" clay is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 1 18 (Bd. App. 1955). See also MPEP 2173.05 (B) (e).
8. Claim 71 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 applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 71, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claims 1,16, 19, 21, 24, 36, 67, 69-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hou et al. (CN110064159 A machine translation, hereinafter “159”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘159 discloses an aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]) comprising: a surfactant component comprising an anionic surfactant such as sodium dodecyl sulfate and a zwitterionic surfactant such as cocamidopropyl betaine CAB-35, a polysaccharide thickener such as sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, a rheology additive comprising a clay such as bentonite powder, and at least about 30 wt.% water, wherein: the composition is substantially free of fluorinated additive (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 16: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the clay comprises a smectite-type clay such as bentonite powder (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 19: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the clay comprises bentonite powder (i.e., is an absorbent aluminum phyllosilicate clay primarily made of the mineral montmorillonite, Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claims 21,24: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the clay comprises a smectite-type clay such as bentonite powder (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 36: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the composition comprises a nonionic surfactant comprising one or more of an alkyl polyglycoside such as alkyl glycoside APG0810 (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 67: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the composition is substantially free of any cationic surfactant (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 69: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the composition is substantially free of any amine oxide surfactant (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 70: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the composition is substantially free of any silicone surfactant (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 71: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the composition is substantially free of any hydrophobic additives comprising mineral oil, vegetable oil, or paraffin material (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 72: ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the composition wherein the composition is substantially free of any protein or amino acid based additives (Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1).
Regarding claim 73: ‘159 discloses a method of fighting a fire, comprising forming a foam comprising the aqueous firefighting composition, and applying the foam directly or indirectly onto the fire (Page 17/20, [0081]; Page 20/20, [0109]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (CN110064159 A machine translation, hereinafter “159”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosen et al. (US Pat. No. 3,621,917, hereinafter “’917”).
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘159 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘159 does not expressly teach the firefighting composition further comprises a sugar component.
‘917 teaches an aqueous liquid concentrate for the production of a fire-fighting foam having cell walls comprised of an aqueous liquid (Col. 2, lines 52-65). ‘917 teaches the use of known stabilizers include powdered licorice extract, glue, saponin, glycerin, glucose (i.e., sugar), sodium sulfonate and quillaia bark with benefit of providing to impart additional durability or persistency to the foam (Col. 14, lines 56-68).
In an analogous art of the aqueous firefighting composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aqueous firefighting composition by ‘159, so as to include a sugar component as taught by ‘917, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to impart additional durability or persistency to the foam as suggested by ‘917 (Col. 14, lines 56-68).
13. Claims 13, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (CN110064159 A machine translation, hereinafter “159”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Falana et al. (WO 2021/252379 A1, hereinafter “’379”).
Regarding claims 13,40: The disclosure of ‘159 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘159 does not expressly teach the firefighting composition further comprises a polyanionic polymer, and a water-miscible organic solvent.
However, ‘379 teaches firefighting foam systems employed in extinguishing Class B fires comprising non-toxic and less environmentally challenging and effective in forming foam films that are persist in removing heat reducing the ability for the fire to rekindle and reducing exposure of firefighters to life threatening heat (Page 1, [0005]). ‘379 teaches the firefighting composition further comprises a polyanionic polymer (Page 11, [0052]), and a water-miscible organic solvent (Page 8, [0046, Page 49, Claim 12).
Thus the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since it is held that it is a prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
14. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (CN110064159 A machine translation, hereinafter “159”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White et al. (US Pat. No. 3,977,894, hereinafter “’894”) or Kasowski et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0355148 A1, hereinafter “’148”).
Regarding claim 17: The disclosure of ‘159 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘159 does not expressly teach the clay comprises an organically modified clay.
However, ‘894 teaches a self-activating organoclay rheological additive comprising a homogeneous mixture of an organically modified montmorillonite clay and two solid waxes, wherein the montmorillonite clay is modified with a quaternary ammonium compound (Col. 2, lines 15-22) with benefit of providing the use of organoclays and organo waxes in a manner which reduces the level of the organo compounds (which normally might produce seeding) and to obtain the benefits of both the organoclay and the organic compounds in terms of rheological effects (thixotropy) and superior stability to excessive high shear forces which normally result in thixotropic losses that are only partially recovered after aging when organic thixotropes are used (Col. 2, lines 56-64).
Alternatively, ‘148 teaches an aqueous fire extinguishing solution consisting of one or more aqueous solutions selected from the group consisting of ethyleneamine polyphosphate solution (EAPPA), doped ethyleneamine polyphosphate solution (EAPPA-D), condensed ethyleneamine polyphosphate solution (EAPPA-C), doped condensed ethyleneamine polyphosphate solution (EAPPA-CD) a) in the form of a mist or b) in the form of a foam or a mist when the aqueous solution additionally contains two or more compounds chosen from the group consisting of surfactant, thickening agent, water, and organic solvent (Page 1, [0008]). ‘148 teaches a doped ethyleneamine polyphosphate (EAPPA-D) has been formed comprising a reaction of ethyleneamine with doped polyphosphoric acid formed by reacting polyphosphoric acid with one or more dopants chosen from the group consisting of polyalpha olefin, hydrophilic fumed metal oxides (FMO), nanocomposites, clay, amorphous silica, epoxy, hydrophilic fumed silica, and organo silane (Page 2, [0015]), wherein the clay is an exfoliated organo clays, which are considered prime examples as consisting one dimension sheets of clay, with only one dimension less than 100 nm thick (Page 2, [0016]) with benefit of providing an alternative halogen free environmentally friendly fire fighting technology for application to flammable liquid fires such as an aqueous solutions of ethyleneamine polyphosphate in the form of a mist that can extinguish flammable liquid fires (Page 1, [0007]).
In an analogous art of the aqueous firefighting composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aqueous firefighting composition by ‘159, so as to include the clay comprises an organically modified clay as taught by ‘894, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to the use of organoclays and organo waxes in a manner which reduces the level of the organo compounds (which normally might produce seeding) and to obtain the benefits of both the organoclay and the organic compounds in terms of rheological effects (thixotropy) and superior stability to excessive high shear forces which normally result in thixotropic losses that are only partially recovered after aging when organic thixotropes are used as suggested by ‘894 (Col. 2, lines 56-64).
In an analogous art of the aqueous firefighting composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aqueous firefighting composition by ‘159, so as to include the clay comprises an organically modified clay as taught by ‘148, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing an alternative halogen free environmentally friendly fire fighting technology for application to flammable liquid fires such as an aqueous solutions of ethyleneamine polyphosphate in the form of a mist that can extinguish flammable liquid fires as suggested by ‘148 (Page 1, [0007]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two clays) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
15. Claims 18, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (CN110064159 A machine translation, hereinafter “159”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagguist et al. (US Pub No. 2006/0076531 A1, hereinafter “’531”).
Regarding claims 18,23: The disclosure of ‘159 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘159 does not expressly teach the clay comprises a synthetic smectite clay or the clay comprises a hydrated magnesium silicate clay.
However, ‘531 teaches an aqueous, thixotropic composition having shear thinning properties for fire suppression and prevention comprising: a pseudo-plastic, high yield, suspending agent; starch; and the balance being water (Page 3, [0023]). ‘531 teaches there are many types of pseudo-plastic high yield suspending agents or rheology modifiers that can be used. Two of the major groups of such suspending agents are laponites, a synthetic smectite clay, and Carbopols® (Page 3, [0024]. Of the group of laponites, which are synthetic smectite clays closely resembling the natural clay mineral hectoritic (Page 3, [0024]). ‘531 teaches it is found that Laponites RD and RDS provide the best performance. Laponites RD and RDS are layered hydrous magnesium silicates that disperse rapidly in water without the need for high shear (Page 3, [0024]).
In an analogous art of the aqueous firefighting composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aqueous firefighting composition by ‘159, so as to include clay comprises a synthetic smectite clay or the clay comprises a hydrated magnesium silicate clay as taught by ‘531, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a hydrated magnesium silicate clay that disperse rapidly in water without the need for high shear as suggested by ‘531 (Page 3, [0024]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two clays) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
16. Claims 17,19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (CN110064159 A machine translation, hereinafter “159”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turon et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0256678 A1, hereinafter “’678”) or Kasowski et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0355148 A1, hereinafter “’148”).
Regarding claims 17,19,22: The disclosure of ‘159 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘159 discloses the aqueous firefighting composition (Page 6/20, [0008]), wherein the clay comprises bentonite powder (i.e., is an absorbent aluminum phyllosilicate clay primarily made of the mineral montmorillonite, Page 16/20, [0076], Example 1). ‘159 does not expressly teach the clay comprises an organically modified synthetic phyllosilicate clay.
However, ‘678 teaches a hybrid aerogel obtained by reacting an aromatic or aliphatic isocyanate compound and silanol moieties on a surface of a clay in a presence of a solvent (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the clays suitable for use are mainly organically-modified, in order to enhance clays' compatibility with non-aqueous media (Page 6, [0045]). ‘678 teaches suitable clays for use are phyllosilicate mineral species. Preferably, suitable clay is selected from the group consisting of 2:1 laminar silicates, and more preferably from the subgroup of montmorillonite or sepiolite and mixtures thereof (Page 6, [0047]). In a highly preferred embodiment, the clay is quaternary ammonium alkyl and/or aryl organically modified clay (Page 6, [0048]). Preferred clays have a good dispersion and good solvent compatibility, which leads to homogeneous materials (Page 6, [0049]). Examples of commercially available clays for use are but not limited to Tixogel VZ, Tixogel MPZ, Tixogel VP, Tixogel MP250, Cloisite 30B, Cloisite 10A, Cloisite 15, Cloisite 20, Cloisite 93, Cloisite 116, Optigel CL, Claytone AF, Claytone 40, Laponite EP, Laponite B, Laponite RD, Laponite RDS and Garamite 1958 from BYK; Nanocor 130P and Nanocor PGN from Nanocor; Pangel S9, Pangel W, Pangel 20B, Pangel 40B Pansil 400 from Tolsa (Page 6, [0050]).
Alternatively, ‘148 teaches an aqueous fire extinguishing solution consisting of one or more aqueous solutions selected from the group consisting of ethyleneamine polyphosphate solution (EAPPA), doped ethyleneamine polyphosphate solution (EAPPA-D), condensed ethyleneamine polyphosphate solution (EAPPA-C), doped condensed ethyleneamine polyphosphate solution (EAPPA-CD) a) in the form of a mist or b) in the form of a foam or a mist when the aqueous solution additionally contains two or more compounds chosen from the group consisting of surfactant, thickening agent, water, and organic solvent (Page 1, [0008]). ‘148 teaches a doped ethyleneamine polyphosphate (EAPPA-D) has been formed comprising a reaction of ethyleneamine with doped polyphosphoric acid formed by reacting polyphosphoric acid with one or more dopants chosen from the group consisting of polyalpha olefin, hydrophilic fumed metal oxides (FMO), nanocomposites, clay, amorphous silica, epoxy, hydrophilic fumed silica, and organo silane (Page 2, [0015]), wherein the clay is an exfoliated organo clays, which are considered prime examples as consisting one dimension sheets of clay, with only one dimension less than 100 nm thick (Page 2, [0016]) with benefit of providing an alternative halogen free environmentally friendly fire fighting technology for application to flammable liquid fires such as an aqueous solutions of ethyleneamine polyphosphate in the form of a mist that can extinguish flammable liquid fires (Page 1, [0007]).
In an analogous art of the aqueous firefighting composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aqueous firefighting composition by ‘159, so as to include clay comprises a phyllosilicate clay, or wherein the clay comprises an organically modified synthetic phyllosilicate clay as taught by ‘678, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the clays suitable for use are mainly organically-modified, in order to enhance clays' compatibility with non-aqueous media (Page 6, [0045]), and the clay is quaternary ammonium alkyl and/or aryl organically modified clay (Page 6, [0048]). Preferred clays have a good dispersion and good solvent compatibility, which leads to homogeneous materials as suggested by ‘678 (Page 6, [0049]).
In an analogous art of the aqueous firefighting composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aqueous firefighting composition by ‘159, so as to include the clay comprises an organically modified clay as taught by ‘148, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing an alternative halogen free environmentally friendly fire fighting technology for application to flammable liquid fires such as an aqueous solutions of ethyleneamine polyphosphate in the form of a mist that can extinguish flammable liquid fires as suggested by ‘148 (Page 1, [0007]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two clays) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
17. Claims 1, 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN110102005 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’005”).
Regarding claims 1,68: ‘005 teaches an aqueous firefighting composition (Page 7/9, [0028]) comprising: a surfactant component comprising a zwitterionic surfactant such as octadecyl dimethyl betaine, a polysaccharide thickener such as carboxymethyl cellulose, a rheology additive comprising a clay such as kaolinite and at least about 30 wt.% water, wherein: the composition is substantially free of fluorinated additive, and alkyl polyglycoside surfactant (Page 7/9, [0029], Example 1). 005 also teaches an aqueous firefighting composition (Page 7/9, [0028]) comprising: a surfactant component comprising an anionic surfactant such sodium
lauroylamphoacetate, a polysaccharide thickener such as carboxymethyl cellulose, a rheology additive comprising a clay such as kaolinite, wherein the composition is substantially free of fluorinated additive, and alkyl polyglycoside surfactant. (Page 8/9, [0033], Example 2).
Thus the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since it is held that it is a prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Examiner Information
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
07/20/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights