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, 3-6, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015/023961 (herein referred to as Lei) in view of Hayashi et al (US 2006/0210711).
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 dispersing 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),
adding 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) wherein 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 in the form of a slurry (0023; example 1).
Lei teaches aliphatic polyisocyanates may be utilized in the process but does not explicitly teaching the use of lysine triisocyanate. However, Hayashi teaches a process for producing microcapsules wherein the isocyanate utilized to make said microcapsule may comprise lysine triisocyanate (0092). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the lysine triisocyanate as the isocyanate disclose in Lei. The motivation for doing so would have been that Hayashi teaches lysine triisocyanate is a useful isocyanate for the production of microcapsules and is functionally equivalent to the isocyanates disclosed in Lei. The examiner notes that the species disclosed in the prior art is understood to read on the claimed genus (amino-acid polyisocyanate ) as the courts have held that a species taught by the prior art anticipates a claimed genus (see MPEP 2131.02). Furthermore, the teachings of Hayashi are understood to render obvious the invention of claim 9.
With regards to claim 3, 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 4, Lei teaches the polyamine reactant may be selected from the group consisting of water soluble guanidine salts, guanidine, and tris-(2-aminoethyl)amine, N,N,N’,N’-tetrakis(3-aminopropy]l)-1,4- butanediamine (0064).
With regards to claim 5, said claim does not require that the polyaminoester be present, said claim merely further limits the polyaminoester from the claimed group of claim 4 when polyaminoester is present.
With regards to claim 6, Lei teaches the reactant may be amino acid such as lysine (0063).
With regards to claim 10, 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 11, Lei teaches the polyisocyanate utilized may include blends of polyisocyanates including a trimethylol propane-adduct of toluene diisocyanate and a trimethylol propane-adduct of xylylene diisocyanate( 0020)
With regards to claim 12, Lei teaches the emulsifier may be chosen from the group consisting of gum Arabic, modified starch, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrolidone (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 13, 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).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015/023961 (herein referred to as Lei) in view of Hayashi et al (US 2006/0210711), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Ouali et al. (US 9,034,384).
With regards to claims 14-16, Lei in view of Hayashi 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 Hayashi 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 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
With regards to the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Lei (WO 2015/023961) in view of Hayashi (US 2006/0210711), the examiner relied upon Hayashi to render obvious the use of lysine triisocyanate as the isocyanate disclose in Lei based upon its functional equivalence to the isocyanates disclosed in Lei. Applicant respectfully disagrees noting Lei teaches the use of a trimethylol propane-adduct of xylylene diisocyanate and Hayashi merely teaches that xylylene diisocyanate per se and lysine ester triisocyanate may be interchangeable within the process of Hayashi. Applicant argues such assertions fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons of record; Specifically, the examiner maintains the prior art of record demonstrates the lysine triisocyanate of Hayashi is functionally equivalent to the isocyanate utilized in Lei.
Applicant further disagrees with the examiner’s position that Lei’s emulsifiers read on the claimed stabilizer. Applicant acknowledges the emulsifiers of Lei “partially overlap with the stabilizers of claim 12” but argues these are technically different groups of components, including as taught by Lei. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as counsel’s argument cannot take the place of evidence. Applicant has not provided any evidence supporting the conclusion that emulsifiers (as taught in Lei) “are technically different groups of components” from the claimed stabilizers. Furthermore, the prior art recognizes emulsifiers to be stabilizers (see e.g. US 2001/0050031 @0082-“Stabilizers includes emulsifiers…”).
With regards to the rejection of claims 14-16 d under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Lei (WO 2015/023961) in view of Hayashi (US 2006/0210711) and further in view of Ouali (US 9,034,384), applicant argues claims 14-16 depend from claim 13 and are patentable for the reasons addressed above. Said argument is not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
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