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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2025, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-7, 9-19, 22, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets (US20200002653, herein Smets), in the view of Postma (US20190270064, herein Postma), and Popplewell (US20180110250, herein Popplewell).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 11, Smets teaches “composition comprising a consumer product adjunct material and a slurry” [0021], and the further structure is “slurry comprising benefit agent containing delivery particles comprising a core and a shell encapsulating said core” [0021] and the core further comprising “partitioning modifier” [0027].
Smets teaches “delivery particles are produced by a radical polymerization process” [0052] and the wall composed of “shell comprising, said polyvinyl alcohol” [0027] which composed mainly of 1,3-diol functionality; and a “multifunctional methacrylate monomer, multifunctional methacrylate oligomer” [0055].
Smets does not teach oil-soluble thermal free radical initiator or water-soluble thermal free radical initiator. However, Postma teaches “AIBN” [0110] which matches the claimed oil-soluble thermal free radical initiator and sodium persulfate” [0110] which matches the claimed water-soluble thermal free radical initiator.
Smets and Postma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of functionalized core-shell structured microcapsule development for control release application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smets to add the teachings of Postma and provide “AIBN” [0110] and “sodium persulfate” [0110] as the initiators in the microcapsule development. Doing so would further achieve the desired product development process of “to start the polymerization reactions” [0110] which can lead to the polymers with desired property as of “Such polymers have desirable properties such as good mechanical strength, elasticity, toughness, and flexibility.” [0107]
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding the biodegradability of wall, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. biodegradability would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Smets is silent on wherein at least one of the water-soluble hydroxyl containing polymer or polysaccharide forms carbon/carbon bonds with the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer or oligomer, however, Popplewell teaches “Polymers having multifunctional strong hydrogen bonding groups are suitable to be used in the adjacent layers to induce bonding” [0028] which further “Turning to covalent bonding, it includes carbon-carbon single bonds, carbon-carbon double bonds” [0029]
Smets and Popplewell are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fatty acid based delivery system development toward control-release application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smets to add the teachings of Popplewell and provide wherein said “Polymers having multifunctional strong hydrogen bonding groups are suitable to be used in the adjacent layers to induce bonding” [0028] and “Turning to covalent bonding, it includes carbon-carbon single bonds, carbon-carbon double bonds” [0029] into the microcapsule development. Doing so would further achieve the product development having the desired property of “to obtain a delivery system having a desired release rate” [0025]
Regarding Claim 3, Smets teaches “partitioning modifier comprises a material selected from the group consisting of vegetable oil” [0055].
Regarding Claim 4, Smets teaches “polyvinyl alcohol; a hydrolysis degree from about 55% to about 99%” [0021].
Regarding Claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, Smets teaches “polysaccharide” [0021] with “amine moiety” [0102] as of “AZO-CM-CELLULOSE” [0102].
Regarding Claim 7, Smets teaches “polysaccharide; xanthan gum” [0108].
Regarding Claim 9, Smets teaches “shell comprises a polyacrylate, preferably said shell comprises from about 50% of said polyacrylate polymer” [0032] which lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 10, Smets teaches “polyvinyl alcohol; number average molecular weight of from about 65,000 Da to about 110,000 Da” [0021] which lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 12, Smets teaches “multifunctional acrylate and/or methacrylate” [0034] wherein the “multifunctional acrylate moiety is selected from group consisting of tri-functional acrylate, tetra-functional acrylate, penta-functional acrylate, hexa-functional acrylate, hepta-functional acrylate” [0034] also wherein “polyacrylate that comprises methacrylate moiety” [0034].
Regarding Claims 13, 14, Smets teaches “CN975 (Sartomer, Exter, Pa.)” [0177] matches the claimed “CN975—hexafunctional aromatic urethane acrylate oligomer—(Sartomer)” -instant app [0285] which also matches the claimed multifunctional aliphatic urethane acrylate.
Regarding Claim 15, Smets teaches the composition of the shell as of “shell, preferably said deposition aid comprises a material selected from the group consisting of poly(meth)acrylate” [0053], and “shell comprises a polymer derived from a material that comprises one or more multifunctional acrylate and/or methacrylate moieties” [0034] match the claimed shell composition. Smets does not explicitly teach the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer or oligomer is at least 5 weight percentage of the total wall; however, Postma teaches “multifunctional methacrylate” [0107] in the amount of “5% by mass of the oil phase” [0108] lies in the claimed range. Postma further teaches “oil phase having a hydrophilic core” [0127] indicates the oil phase is shell.
Smets and Postma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of functionalized core-shell structured microcapsule development for control release application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smets to add the teachings of Postma and provide wherein said “multifunctional methacrylate” [0107] in the amount of “5% by mass of the oil phase” [0108]; “oil phase having a hydrophilic core” [0127] into the microcapsule development.
Doing so would further achieve the desired product development of the polymers with desired property as of “Such polymers have desirable properties such as good mechanical strength, elasticity, toughness, and flexibility.” [0107]
Regarding Claim 16, Smets teaches “carboxyl moiety comprises beta carboxyethyl acrylate” [0052] matches functional monomer as evidenced by the CAS Registry Number: 24615-84-7, [Scifinder], structure see below,
PNG
media_image1.png
675
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Smets teaches “pH was 4.84” [0188] lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 24, Smets teaches “deposition aid coats the outer surface of said shell” [0053] which indicates the claimed coating material.
Regarding Claim 25, Smets teaches “adjunct ingredients that include: bleach activators, surfactants”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Smets (US20200002653, herein Smets), Postma (US20190270064, herein Postma) and Popplewell (US20180110250, herein Popplewell) as applied in claim 1, and in the further view of Smets-1 (US20200056126, herein Smets-1).
Regarding Claim 8, Smets, Postma and Popplewell collectively teach the composition of claim 1 as shown above. Smets does not explicitly teach the concentration of PVA, however, Smets-1 teaches “shell material of the capsules is derived from polyvinylalcohol, preferably at a level of 20%” [0061] lies in the claimed range.
Smets and Smets-1 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of functionalized core-shell structured microcapsule development for control release application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smets to add the teachings of Smets-1 and provide wherein said “shell material of the capsules is derived from polyvinylalcohol, preferably at a level of 20%” [0061] into the microcapsule development. Doing so would further achieve the desired product development with desired property as of “the improved deposition, especially the affinity for cotton fabrics, is caused by the interaction between the biphenyl brightener and the polyvinylalcohol of the benefit agent capsules.” [0108]
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Smets (US20200002653, herein Smets), Postma (US20190270064, herein Postma) and Popplewell (US20180110250, herein Popplewell) as applied in claim 1, and in the further view of Struillou (US20230036889, herein Struillou).
Regarding Claim 26, Smets, Postma and Popplewell collectively teach the composition of claim 1 as shown above. Smets is silent on wherein the delivery particle has a leakage of below about 50%. However, Struillou teaches “the delivery system has a stability or chemical stability of not more than 40%, of the perfume leaking out of the microcapsules” [0175] which lies in the claimed range.
Smets and Struillou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of functionalized core-shell structured microcapsule development for control release application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smets to add the teachings of Struillou and provide wherein said “the delivery system has a stability or chemical stability of not more than 40%, of the perfume leaking out of the microcapsules” [0175] into the microcapsule development. Doing so would further achieve the product development having the desired property of “particular storage time and temperature, with the microcapsules being stable.” [0175]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Smets and Popplewell are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fatty acid based delivery system development toward control-release application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smets to add the teachings of Popplewell and provide wherein said “Polymers having multifunctional strong hydrogen bonding groups are suitable to be used in the adjacent layers to induce bonding” [0028] and “Turning to covalent bonding, it includes carbon-carbon single bonds, carbon-carbon double bonds” [0029] into the microcapsule development, which can afford to lead to the desired property of “to obtain a delivery system having a desired release rate” [0025] as taught by Popplewell.
2. In response to the applicant’s argument that “Smets and Postma do not teach the biodegradability, and the addition of Struillou does not remedy the deficiency.” is not persuasive.
Regarding the biodegradability of wall, the office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. biodegradability would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767