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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 7/02/2021 are accepted.
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, 3-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015/023961 (herein referred to as Lei) in view of Woodhouse (US 6,221,997) and Arumugam et al (US 20150231589).
Regarding claims 1; Lei teaches a process for preparing a core-shell microcapsule comprising:
Dissolving at least a polyisocyanate having at least two isocyanate functional groups in a hydrophobic material to form an oil phase (0023),
preparing a phase comprising a stabilizer and a solvent, wherein the phase is no miscible with the oil phase, and wherein the solvent consists of water (0023; example 1),
add the oil phase into the dispersing phase to from a two-phase dispersion (0023),
adding a crosslinking agent (herein relied upon to read on the claimed “reactant”) to the dispersion obtained in step c with the reactant is selected from the group consisting of an amino acid, a polyamine, a polyol, and mixtures thereof (0057)
performing a curing step to from core-shell microcapsules I the form of a slurry (0023; example 1).
prepared by preparing an aqueous solution containing an emulsifier (herein understood to read on the claimed “stabilizer”) wherein the solvent consists of water (col 5, lines 55+). Said phase is not miscible with the oil phase , dispersing, with agitation, in the aqueous solution, a water- immiscible solution (i.e. oil) comprising a water immiscible amino resin prepolymer, polyacid halide, and a water miscible active ingredient (hydrophobic material) to form an emulsion, and heating (curing step) the emulsion to form microcapsules [col6, line14-28; Ex1].
Lei teaches the slurry should further comprise a polymer such as polyamine (claim 8) to make a polyurea (0006) or a polyol (claim 9) to make a polyurethane shell, but does not teach adding the claimed polyaminoester. However, Woodhouse teaches the reaction product of an amino acid and a diol may be added to such polymeric compositions as a chain extender (col 6, lines 60+). The chain extender enhances the biodegradability and hydrophilicity of the composition (col 7, lines 5+; col 8, lines 57+). Said chain extender may be added to polyol and isocyanate reactants prior to their reaction to form a backbone containing the amino acid chain extender (col 2, lines 22-42); addition at said step would correlate to claimed step (c). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the chain extenders disclosed in Woodhouse (comprising the reaction product of an amino acid and a diol or triol (col 9, lines 14+) to the two-phase dispersion disclosed in Lei (prior to the curing step to form the core-shell microcapsule) in order to improve the microcapsule’s biodegradability.
Lei in view of Woodhouse is relied upon as above, but does not teach adding the amino acid chain extender to claimed step a). However, Arumugam teaches a method of making microcapsules (abstract). Arumugam teaches that chain extenders may be added to the polar or non-polar phase of the process (0049) based upon the relative polarity of the ingredient. Thus, it would have bee obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the chain extender to step a) (oil phase) of Lei because Arumugam teaches chain extenders may be added to either phase of a microcapsule process.
With regards to claim 3, Woodhouse teaches the polyol may be an aliphatic diol (claim 12, herein understood to anticipate the claimed, 1,4-butanediol specie of claim 3. Specifically, the number of species covered by the genus “aliphatic diol” is sufficiently small that the skilled artisan would have at once envisaged the use of 1,4 butanediol as the diol of Woodhouse.
With regards to claim 4, Woodhouse teaches the amino acid may comprise glycine, phenylalanine, alanine, valine, leucine, isoleucine and mixtures thereof, and mixtures thereof (Table 1).
With regards to claim 5, Woodhouse teaches the chain extender may be a reaction of an amino such as phenylaniline (col 6, lines 29+) and 1, 6, hexane diol ( col 6, lines 58+)-herein understood to anticipate specie 1 of claim 5.
With regards to claim 6, Lei teaches the reactant is used an amount of between 0.1 and 5%, by total weight of the slurry composition (0068).
With regards to claim 7, Lei teaches the at least one polyisocyanate may be selected from the group consisting of a polyisocyanurate of toluene diisocyanate, a trimethylol propane-adduct of toluene diisocyanate and a trimethylol propane-adduct of xylylene diisocyanate (0020).
With regards to claim 8, Lei teaches the emulsifier may be chosen from the group consisting of gum Arabic, modified starch, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), anionic polysaccharides, acrylamide copolymer, inorganic particles, protein such as including soy protein, rice protein, whey protein, white egg albumin, sodium caseinate, gelatin, bovine serum albumin, hydrolyzed soy protein, hydrolyzed sericin, pseudo-collagen, silk protein, sericin powder, and mixtures thereof (0072).
With regards to claim 9, Lei teaches the polyisocyanate may be present in an amount of between 0.5 and 20%, these percentages being defined by weight relative to the total weight of the oil phase (0055).
With regards to claim 10, Lei teaches that the solvent (herein understood to read on the claimed hydrophobic material) , such as oil (0088), should be present in amounts of 80% or less (0089). Sid teaching is understood to anticipate the claimed weight percentages of 20-50%. Alternatively, Lei teaches that the hydrophobic material increase the compatibility of the active material, increase the overall hydrophobicity of the mixture, influence vapor pressure, and serve to structure the mixture (0088). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of solvent in order to control the compatibility of the active material, the overall hydrophobicity of the mixture, influence vapor pressure, and to structure the mixture.
With regards to claim 11, Lei teaches the hydrophobic material may comprise a perfume (0085).
With regards to claim 12, Lei teaches the composition is useful for making a core-shell microcapsule comprising an oil-based core comprising a hydrophobic material, preferably comprising a perfume (0085), and -a shell comprising at least a polymerized polyisocyanate having at least two isocyanate functional groups (see above). Woodhouse renders obvious the use of the claimed polyaminoester compound for the reasons noted above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to claim 16, Woodhouse teaches a formula wherein X is a C2-C20alkane diol wherein X is derived from a diol of formula (HO)2-X.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015/023961 (herein referred to as Lei) in view of Woodhouse (US 6,221,997) and Arumugam et al (US 20150231589), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Ouali et al. (US Patent No. 9034384).
With regards to claims 13-15, Lei in view of Woodhouse and Arumugam is relied upon as above. Specifically, Lei teaches the microcapsules may be used as perfuming microcapsules, but does not teach said microcapsules should be used in a perfuming composition comprising (i) the perfume microcapsule, (ii) at least one ingredient selected from the group consisting of a perfumery carrier, a perfumery co-ingredient and mixtures thereof, and (iii) optionally at least one perfumery adjuvant. However, Ouali teaches that perfume containing microcapsules may be utilized in a liquid perfumed consumer product comprising: a) from 2 to 65% by weight, relative to the total weight of the consumer product, of at least one surfactant; water or a water-miscible hydrophilic organic solvent; and the microcapsule comprising perfume (table 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the perfume containing microcapsules of Lei in view of Woodhouse in a composition comprising a) from 2 to 65% by weight, relative to the total weight, of at least one surfactant; water or a water-miscible hydrophilic organic solvent; and the microcapsule comprising perfume as Ouali teaches compositions with such components are known to be useful for consumer products.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner address arguments which may be germane to the new grounds of rejection.
Specifically, Applicant argues Woodhouse does not relate to poly(ester urea) based core-shell microcapsules or a process thereof, and is silent to a process wherein polyaminoesters may be used as part of a core-shell microcapsule. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the examiner maintains the position that Woodhouse is in the same field of endeavor-polyurethane/polyurea compositions.
Applicant further disagrees with the Office’s position that Lei’s emulsifier reads on the claimed 'stabilizer') . Specifically, applicant argues the emulsifier of Lei is not equivalent to a stabilizer as claimed. Applicant acknowledges “certain emulsifiers” taught in Lei “overlap with the stabilizers of claim 8” but argues they “are technically different groups of components.” Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as counsel’s argument cannot take the place of evidence.
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 KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787