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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-14, drawn to a synergistic rust stain removal composition for fabric.
Group II, claims 15-17 and claims 22-24, drawn to a method of removing rust stain from fabric.
Group I and Group II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a synergistic rust stain removal composition for fabric, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Mohs (US 9103038 B2).
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)
During a telephone conversation with Christopher Andrzejak on June 10th, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-17 and claims 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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).
Conclusion
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights