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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on August 21st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claims 15-25 have been cancelled.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohs (US 9103038 B2).
With regard to claims 1-6, Mohs discloses an acidic destaining composition for removing hard water and metal stains (see Abstract). Mohs further discloses any inorganic or organic acid may be combined with the specific reducing agents according to the invention, such as acetic acid, citric acid, oxalic acid, and sulfuric acid, all of which are traditionally used in acid cleaning compositions (see Col 2 line 64- Col 3 line 1). Mohs further discloses the acid can be present in the composition at 0.001-50wt% (see Col 6 line 44-45). Mohs further discloses ascorbic acid as a reducing agent (see Col 6 line 64-65) at 0.01-10wt% (see Col 7 line 12-14). Mohs further discloses water at 70-99wt% (see Col 5 line 54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 0.001-50wt% of oxalic acid and 0.01-10wt% of ascorbic acid of Mohs to produce an acidic destaining composition as Mohs discloses an acidic destaining composition for removing hard water and metal stains.
With regard to claim 7 and claim 8, Mohs discloses anionic surfactants (see Col 12 line 37-39).
With regard to claim 9, Mohs discloses sodium lauryl sulfate as a suitable alkyl sulfate (see Col 13 line 13-17).
With regard to claim 10, Mohs discloses an acidic destaining composition for removing hard water and metal stains (see Abstract). Mohs further discloses any inorganic or organic acid may be combined with the specific reducing agents according to the invention, such as acetic acid, citric acid, oxalic acid, and sulfuric acid, all of which are traditionally used in acid cleaning compositions (see Col 2 line 64- Col 3 line 1). Mohs further discloses the acid can be present in the composition at 0.001-50wt% (see Col 6 line 44-45). Mohs further discloses ascorbic acid as a reducing agent (see Col 6 line 64-65) at 0.01-10wt% (see Col 7 line 12-14). Mohs further discloses water at 70-99wt% (see Col 5 line 54-55). Mohs further discloses sodium lauryl sulfate as a suitable alkyl sulfate (see Col 13 line 13-17).
With regard to claim 11, Mohs discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Mohs further discloses oxalic acid (see Col 2 line 64- Col 3 line 1) at 0.001-50wt% (see Col 6 line 44-45).
With regard to claim 12, Mohs discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Mohs further discloses ascorbic acid as a reducing agent (see Col 6 line 64-65) at 0.01-10wt% (see Col 7 line 12-14).
With regard to claim 13 and claim 14, Mohs discloses the composition need only comprise an acid and a reducing agent (see Abstract). Mohs further discloses oxalic acid (see Col 2 line 64- Col 3 line 1) at 0.001-50wt% (see Col 6 line 44-45). Mohs further discloses ascorbic acid as a reducing agent (see Col 6 line 64-65) at 0.01-10wt% (see Col 7 line 12-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 21st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected (1) the exactly claimed oxalic acid; and (2) the exactly claimed ascorbic acid, and then choose: (3) the exactly claimed amount of the oxalic, and (4) the exactly claimed amount of the ascorbic acid.
As stated above, Mohs discloses an acidic destaining composition for removing hard water and metal stains (see Abstract). Mohs further discloses any inorganic or organic acid may be combined with the specific reducing agents according to the invention, such as acetic acid, citric acid, oxalic acid, and sulfuric acid, all of which are traditionally used in acid cleaning compositions (see Col 2 line 64- Col 3 line 1).
Oxalic acid is disclosed as one of a total of four specified options for an inorganic or organic acid. Applicant is directed toward MPEP 2143(1). This states examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include “Obvious to try”, meaning “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. The four options of Mohs constitute a finite number with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ascorbic acid is disclosed as one of a larger list. However, Table 2 discloses ascorbic acid.
With regard to the selection of a specific concentration of a component, Applicant is directed toward MPEP 2144.05. Optimization or even simply varying of the relative amounts within the prior art’s general conditions amounts to routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F,2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05.
Applicant further argues unexpected results. However, the results are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Applicant specifically discloses Table 3 as providing evidence of unexpected results. However, the formulations of Table 3 showing the most favorable results include a surfactant. This surfactant is not stated in claim 1. The formulations of Table 3 further comprise an organic acid. This is also not stated in claim 1. A specific surfactant and organic acid are not disclosed. Further, several options are given throughout the claims. Therefore, the unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims as the instant claims disclose only oxalic acid, ascorbic acid, and water.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights