DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim is narrative in form. The claim must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-10, 16-17, 21, 25, 30-32, 35, 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robles (US 20200254290-appears on the PTO-892) .
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Robles teaches liquid fire retardant concentrate compositions comprising mixtures of ammonium phosphate fire retardants. Specifically, Robles teaches liquid fire retardant concentrate compositions comprising one or more of monoammonium phosphate (MAP), diammonium phosphate (DAP), and ammonium polyphosphate (APP). The ammonium phosphate fire retardant(s) is typically suspended and/or dissolved in a liquid (see abstract).
Further provided are liquid fire-retardant concentrate compositions comprising a mixture of ammonium phosphates, the mixture comprising monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and diammonium phosphate (DAP), a biopolymer and water, wherein water constitutes less than 50% by volume of the concentrate composition (see para 0012; 0037 and 0052-0053).
The biopolymer can constitute from about 1% to about 5%, or from about 1% to about 3%, from about 1% to about 2%, or from about 1% to about 1.5% by weight of the concentrate. Representative examples of biopolymers include xanthan gum, rhamsan gum, welan gum, diutan gum, and mixtures thereof (see para 0050). The fire retardant concentrate composition can also comprise a corrosion inhibitor (see par 0054-0055).
Robles teaches that certain aspects of his invention are directed to use of a suspending agent comprising micronized clay, which promotes the stabilization of the MAP and DAP. Representative examples of micronized clay include attapulgite clay, kaolinite clay, halloysite clay, and bentonite clay and mixtures thereof. The micronized clay constitutes at least about 1% of a concentrate formulation. The concentrates are typically utilized to form fire retardant solutions containing less than about 2% by weight of micronized clay, or less than about 1% by weight of micronized claim. For example, suitable fire retardant solutions may contain from about 0.25% to about 0.75% by weight (see para 0034; 0049).
The fire-retardant solution exhibits a viscosity in the range of from about 100 cPs to about 1500 cPs, when measured in accordance with Specification 5100-304d, January 2020, including any and all amendments (see para 0082).
A liquid fire retardant concentrate (LC) containing the following components was prepared. The composition was prepared by first dispersing the MAP and DAP components in water, followed by addition of the other components (see para 0092).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A diluted fire retardant solution (DS) was prepared by combining 5.2 parts of water with 1 part of the liquid concentrate to provide a diluted solution having the following composition (see para 0093):
PNG
media_image2.png
617
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also see embodiments A-J3 (see para 0111-0206). Embodiments G specifically discuss that all specifications of Forest Service Number 5100 are met.
Accordingly, Robles meeting all the material limitations of the claims anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-10,16-17, 21, 25, 30-32, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 3,730,890).
Nelson teaches concentrated fire retardant compositions comprising attapulgite clay suspended in an electrolytic fire suppressing salt (ammonium polyphosphate) and containing water, corrosion inhibitors, and gum thickeners For use, the concentrate is diluted with water in amounts to yield the desired viscosity e.g. 50-90 pts. water per 100 pts. concentrate (see abstract; col. 3, lines 29-34). In preparing the concentrate, the attapulgite clay is mixed into the ammonium polyphosphate liquid to form an intimate dispersion and suspension of the clay in the liquid, and other desired components such as corrosion inhibitors, thickeners or coloring agents are then mixed into the clay-liquid suspension (see col. 2, lines 33-38). For further adjustment of the final viscosity of the fire-retardant composition, addition of various materials which are known as thickening agents in other prior art fire-retardant composition, such as guar gum, algin, polysaccharides, carboxymethylcellulose, and the like may be used (see col. 2, lines 53-57). In order to increase the viscosity of the final fire-retardant composition, if desired, 5 parts of a polysaccharide gum can be mixed into 100 parts of the concentrate (see Examples 1 and 2).
The attapulgite clays are commercially available and the amount of clay which is employed will vary with the particular ammonium polyphosphate liquid employed and the desired viscosity of the concentrate. Nelson prefers to use from about 7 to about 10 parts by weight of clay per 100 parts of polyphosphate used in the concentrate (see col. 2, line 70 through col. 3, lines 1-7). Since all of the components of the final fire-retardant composition except water of dilution are present in the concentrate, transportation of the materials from the manufacturing facility to the application equipment loading site is facilitated. The concentrate may be stored at the loading site until needed and then finally diluted as desired with water to produce the final fire-retardant composition of desired viscosity just before the composition is loaded into the equipment for application at the fire site (see col. 3, lines 15-24). ). Nelson meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Nelson does not specifically teach that the clay is micronized. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because since micronization reduces particle size to the micron range, the micronized clay would enhance the dispersion, flow properties, and reactivity in compositions.
With respect to the viscosity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prepare the composition such that the viscosity is from 50 cp to about 1000 cp because Nelson teaches that the composition’s viscosity will be based upon the environment in which the composition is to be applied.
With respect to the pH of the composition and requirements of t the Forest Service Specification No. 5100, it would be reasonable to expect that since Nelson teaches substantially the same composition as that of the present invention that the composition of Nelson would posses a pH of from about 5.5 to about 6.5, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 21,25, 30-32, 35, 37, 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandersall (US 4,839,065-appears on PTO-892).
Vandersall teaches an aqueous concentrate adapted to be diluted with water and used in fire control. The concentrate exhibits a viscosity of less than about 2000 centipoise and containing between about 0.75% and about 6% by weight a thickening agent and at least about 24% by weight of certain fire retardants, particularly diammonium phosphate or a blend of monoammonium phosphate and diammonium phosphate. Processes for the preparation of such concentrates and for use thereof are also disclosed (see abstract).
Commonly, fire control mixtures further contain a gum thickener to modify the viscosity of the mixture. In addition, the mixture may contain corrosion inhibitors and flow conditioners. Aqueous fire retardant solutions are frequently prepared by mixing a solid powder form fire retardant composition with water. Typical flow conditions, which are added to the powder form of the fire control mixture to keep the mixture free-flowing, are tricalcium phosphate, magnesium carbonate, talc, sodium silicate and finely divided, colloidal silica (see col. 2, lines 35-50).
Since the mixture, as used in fire control, comprises a relatively dilute solution or suspension of active ingredients and other auxiliary components in water, it is more economical to ship and store the fire control mixture in a relatively concentrated, lighter and less voluminous dry form, and to dilute the dry or liquid concentrate form on site or as needed or it is frequently preferred to have a concentrated liquid retardant composition which can be merely diluted before use rather than a dry powder composition which must be mixed. It is frequently preferred to have a concentrated liquid retardant composition which can be merely diluted before use rather than a dry powder composition which must be mixed(see col. 2, lines 56-68).
Vandersall is further directed to a novel aqueous concentrate that contains such fire retardant and is adapted to be diluted with water to produce a fire retardant mixture exhibiting a viscosity of between about 50 centipoise and about 250 centipoise and containing between about 5% and about 20% by weight fire retardant (see col. 4, lines 10-16).
The thickening agent of the composition of this invention may be any of a number of thickeners, including standard gum thickeners such as galatomannan guar gum compositions. The thickening agent is employed to maintain the viscosity of the diluted fire retardant solution, for example, at between about 1000 centipoise and about 2000 centipoise for aerial bombardment from fixed-wing aircraft, or between about 50 centipoise and about 250 centipoise for aerial bombardment from helicopter. The thickener should make up between about 0.75% and about 6% by weight of the concentrate. Since addition of thickener to the concentrate does not produce the expected thickening action, the thickener concentration in the concentrate can be even higher, but the specific concentration depends on the viscosity desired in the diluted mixture. Thus, the thickener concentration in the concentrate for fixed-wing aircraft applications should be between about 1.9% and about 6% by weight of the concentrate to produce an expanded mixture upon dilution exhibiting a viscosity of between about 1000 cps and about 2000 cps, and comprising about 0.8% or 0.9% by weight thickener. Example 4 uses a polysaccharide guar gum.
The thickener concentration in the concentrate for helicopter applications should be and between about 0.25% and about 2% by weight of the concentrate to produce an expanded mixture upon dilution exhibiting a viscosity of between about 50 cps and about 250 cps, and comprising between about 0.28% and about 0.36% by weight thickener (see col. 8, lines 40-68). The colloidal silica may be present in an amount from about 0.3% to about 1.5 % by wt , in the concentrate (see col. 9, lines 14-23).
The aqueous concentrate of this invention contains at least about 25% and as much as about 75% by weight fire retardant, between about 0.75% and about 6% by weight thickening agent, minor amounts of other additives as discussed above, and exhibits a viscosity below about 2000 centipoise. When a fire retardant solution for helicopter delivery is prepared by diluting a concentrate of appropriate composition with enough water to lower the concentration of the fire retardant to between about 5% and 20% by weight of the mixture, the mixture obtained exhibits a viscosity between about 50 centipoise and about 250 centipoise. When a fire control retardant for fixed-wing aircraft delivery is prepared in a comparable manner, the mixture obtained exhibits a viscosity between about 1000 centipoise and about 200 centipoise (see col. 10, lines 5-20). The pH of the compositions is from 6.0 to 8.0 (see Table col. 14). Vandersall teaches the use of corrosion inhibitors in the examples. Such inhibitors include mercaptobenzothiazole and dimercaptothiadiazole. Vandersall meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Vandersall does not exemplify a composition wherein the colloidal silica is present. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the silica and that the presence of the silica would crosslink with the guar gum because Vandersall teaches that this compound may be present in the concentrate composition.
With respect to the limitations of claim 39, it would be reasonable to expect that the concentrate and composition of Vandersall would meet the claims regulations because Vandersall teaches substantially the same fire retardant concentrate and composition.
With respect to claim 40, it would be reasonable to expect that the proportions set forth in claim 40 would be met by Vandersall upon proper dilution of the concentrate for the desired fire-fighting/retarding purpose.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 36 is allowable. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the combination of the colloidal silica and micronized clay in a fire-retardant concentrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18836425/20260823
Prosecution Insights