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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on XX. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
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, claim(s) 1-11, are drawn to an acidic cleaning composition comprising an alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, citric acid, and formic acid.
Group II, claim(s) 12-14, are drawn to a cleaning kit comprising an acidic cleaning composition.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an acidic cleaning composition comprising citric acid, formic acid, and an alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Jervier et. al (US20220380701A1) hereinafter Jervier. Jervier teaches a cleaning composition comprising 1-15 wt% alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, and 2-5 wt% of carboxylic acids such as citric acid and formic acid (see claim 1; see also [0060]-[0061]).
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Gary Foose on 09/17/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-14 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jervier (US20220380701A1).
Jervier teaches a liquid hand dishwashing composition comprising an alkyl sulfate surfactant, alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, and water (see claim 1). With regards to claim 1, Jervier teaches the use of 1-3 wt% of alkyl polyglucoside (APG) surfactant, and 0.01-10 wt% carboxylic acid such as citric and formic acid (see [0040]-[0041]; see also [0060]-[0061]). A prima facie case for obviousness exists when ranges overlap with the ranges recited in the instant claim. The pH of the composition can be preferably 1.5-2.5 (see [0077] Paragraph V).
Although all the limitations are not disclosed in the same embodiment to the point of anticipation, the general teachings of Jervier suggest the inventive composition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the APG surfactant, citric acid, and formic acid in the required amounts into an acidic composition. This combination would result in the expected benefit of improved cleaning performance on hard water stains (see [0024]).
With regards to claims 2-3, the general weight ranges that citric acid and formic acid can be present in the composition are recited above. Jervier does not teach the weight ratio of citric acid to formic acid to be between 60:1 to 2:1 as recited in claim 2 or between 30:1 to 3:1 as recited in claim 3. However, optimization of components would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan to obtain the most effective detergent composition, absent a showing otherwise. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Even though applicant' s modification results in great improvement and utility over prior art, it may still not be patentable if modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claim 4, Jervier teaches the use of 0.1-1 wt% of a carboxylic acid such as glycolic acid (see [0061]).
With regards to claims 5-6, Jervier teaches the use of 1-3 wt% of alkyl polyglucoside (APG) surfactant (see [0040]-[0041]).
With regards to claim 7, in Example 1 Glucopon 215UP, a C8-C10 APG surfactant, is used (see [0118]). Jervier also teaches the preferable use of C8-C10 alkyl polyglucoside surfactant (see [0042]).
With regards to claim 8, the use of 0.5-10 wt% glycol ether organic solvents is taught (see [0068]).
With regards to claim 10, the use of additional ingredients such as perfume (see [0070]), solvents, detersive enzymes, polymers, and chelants in the composition are taught (see [0003]).
With regards to claim 11, Jervier teaches the use of 85-99 wt% of water in the composition (see [0023]).
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pingulkar et. al (WO2022104031) hereinafter Pingulkar.
With regards to claim 1, Pingulkar teaches an antimicrobial composition comprising 0.008-10 wt% carboxylic acids such as citric acid, formic acid, and glycolic acid and 0.002-2.3 wt% of nonionic surfactant such as alkyl polyglucoside, and water (see claims 1, 7, 10, and 18). Pingulkar teaches the pH can be less than 3 (see [0008]).
Although all the limitations are not disclosed in the same embodiment to the point of anticipation, the general teachings of Pingulkar suggest the inventive composition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the APG surfactant, citric acid, and formic acid in the required amounts into an acidic composition. This combination would result in the expected benefit of improved synergistic antimicrobial efficiency (see [00212]).
With regards to claim 4, Pingulkar teaches 0.008-10 wt% glycolic acid in the composition (see claim 10).
With regards to claims 5-6, the use of 0.002-2.3 wt% of nonionic surfactant such as alkyl polyglucoside is taught (see claim 18).
With regards to claim 7, Pingulkar teaches the use of C8-C10 alkyl polyglucoside surfactant (see claim 19).
With regard to claims 8-9, the use of 0.096-10 organic glycol ether solvents is taught (see claim 40). Dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether and propylene glycol n-butyl ether are given as examples of suitable glycol ether solvents (see [0063]).
With regards to claim 10, the addition of stabilizing agent, hydrotope, thickener, foaming agent, defoaming agent, surfactant, or any combination thereof to the composition are taught (see [0076]).
With regards to claim 11, water is added to the composition in balance to 100 wt% (see Tables 1-17). Based on the exemplary compositions in Table 1-17, the amount of water present in the inventive composition necessarily ranges between 88-99.65 wt% of the total composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/BRIAN P MRUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights