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 .
The amendment filed 11/3/2025 has been entered. Claims 3, 8, 12, and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-23 are pending in the application. Claims 13-14 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed 4/25/2024. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 11/3/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US2017/0166709A1, hereinafter referred to as Wilson ‘709) in view of Kobilka (US2018/0280913A1).
Similar to the teachings of Wilson as discussed in prior office actions, Wilson ‘709 teaches a self-healing polymeric material that is microencapsulated into a two-capsule system and may be utilized in a coating, an adhesive, or a sealant, to repair damage to a matrix thereof containing both capsule types that will rupture upon damage to the matrix (e.g. “can be activated”), releasing their contents into the site of damage where they will react and restore structural continuity in the case of polymerized resins and protective function in the case of coating (Abstract, Paragraphs 0011 and 0021). More particularly, Wilson ‘709 teaches a microencapsulated system, particularly provided for use in the protection and/or joining of metal substrates, comprising microencapsulated aminosiloxanes with primary amine functionality that may be utilized in single-microcapsule and dual-microcapsule formulations, such as for a one-part formulation comprising single first capsules, wherein a curing event is initiated upon rupture of one or more of first microcapsules, such as via heat or application of mechanical force; or for a two-part formulation, e.g., a resin component and a curing agent component that are mixed together at the time of application, wherein in some embodiments, the dual-capsule formulations include a first plurality of microcapsules encapsulating an aminosiloxane curing agent that may be combined with a plurality of second microcapsules encapsulating an epoxy resin capable of being cross-linked at ambient conditions by a primary amine, e.g., as shown in Fig. 6, such that upon rupture, the ingredients of these capsules may mix and react to form a cross-linked epoxy material (Paragraphs 0002, 0020-0023, and 0027; Fig. 6). Wilson ‘709 teaches that the formulations may include corrosion inhibitors that can be combined and encapsulated with the aminosiloxanes, with one category of suitable corrosion inhibitors being hybrid sol-gel alkoxysilane-based liquid corrosion inhibitors, particularly having a molecular structure as shown in Paragraph 0033 and that can couple to the metal surface via silanol groups formed by hydrolysis of the alkoxysilane; wherein in various embodiments, the corrosion inhibitor molecule may be tethered to an oligomer or polymer chain prior to encapsulation, or in other embodiments, the corrosion inhibitor may be tethered to the microcapsule shell via the R1, R2, R3, or R4 groups (thus the capsules are functionalized and/or “silanized” by the alkoxysilane compound as in instant claim 21; Paragraphs 0028-0035). Wilson ‘709 teaches that a second category of corrosion inhibitors that may be used are derivatives of benzothiazolyl-thio succinic acid having a structure as shown in Paragraph 0034, wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each independently hydrogen, alkyl, halogenoalkyl, alkoxy, alkyl thio, alkyl sulfonyl, cyclo alkyl phenyl, phenyl alkyl, halogen, -CN, -NO2, -COOH, -COOalkyl, -OH, a carbamoyl, or a primary, second or tertiary amino group; X is oxygen, sulfur, or a secondar or tertiary amine group; Y constitutes the rest of the corrosion inhibitor’s chemical structure that in various embodiments may include an aliphatic or cycloaliphatic mono-, di-, tri- or tetracarboxylic acid; and similar to the first category, the corrosion inhibitor may be tethered to an oligomer or polymer or support through any part of the functional groups labeled R, X, or Y, or may be tethered to the microcapsule shell wall via R1, R2, R3, R4, Y or X if X is a tertiary amine (Paragraph 0034; hence also reading upon the capsules being functionalized including functionalized with primary amines or carboxyl groups as in instant claim 20).
Wilson ‘709 teaches that the shell walls of the microcapsules may include shell walls of melamine-formaldehyde, urea-formaldehyde, polyurethane, polyurea, and polyacrylate; or may be formed from thermoplastic polymers such as poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) (Paragraph 0050); wherein in one example, Wilson ‘709 utilizes a mixture of 2,2’-azobis(isobutyronitrile) (AIBN) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) to produce microcapsules containing aminosiloxane encapsulated within a poly(HEMA) shell wall, and to “further improve the shell integrity, a melamine-formaldehyde shell wall was built on the previously formed acrylate shell via employment of pendant hydroxyl groups present in the poly(HEMA) shell wall in the melamine-formaldehyde shell wall formation reaction” (thus covalently bonded to the microcapsule shell) forming microcapsules having a dual shell wall construction as described in Example 6, the procedure of which Wilson ‘709 teaches may be adapted for the use of alternative shell walls, such as, urea-formaldehyde, polyurethane, polyurea and polyacrylate shell walls formed from similar interfacial or in situ procedures (Paragraphs 0062-0066; wherein the Examiner takes the position that the PMMA or first shell wall would read upon the claimed capsule shell and the melamine-formaldehyde or second wall coated thereon and covalently bonded to the first wall would read upon the claimed linker that is distinct from and made of a different material than the capsule shell, and that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize dual shell wall constructions on both types of microcapsules, e.g. resin and aminosiloxane curing agent, selecting from any combination of the wall materials as taught by Wilson ‘709 for the first and second shell walls).
Wilson ‘709 teaches that the two different capsules are incorporated into the matrix in a specified ratio, wherein damage to the matrix will rupture both capsule types releasing their contents into the site of damage where they will react to form an epoxy film restoring or “self-healing” the matrix (Paragraphs 0011, 0020-0021, and 0044). Wilson ‘709 also teaches that “[i]n various embodiments, for efficient healing after damage, the healing agent contained within the microcapsules in microcapsule-based self-healing systems, must quickly migrate out of the microcapsules and into the site of damage” (Paragraph 0046), and that selection of appropriate solvents in a dual-capsule system can facilitate mixing of both compositions from the two types of capsules in the site of damage during a healing event (Paragraph 0046).
Hence, with respect to instant claims 1, 16, and 18, given the above teachings of Wilson ‘709 wherein the melamine-formaldehyde coating or second shell wall is grafted on and different from the poly(HEMA) microcapsule shell wall and has amine functional groups that would be present on a surface of the coating or second shell at a given, predetermined or “tuned” distance from the microcapsule or poly(HEMA) first wall based upon the thickness of the melamine-formaldehyde coating/shell as the claimed “linker”, Wilson ‘709 clearly teaches a “multi-component system comprising a first substance and a second substance, wherein the multi-component system can be activated, wherein the first substance and the second substance are present in a plurality of portions of substance, wherein the first substance and the second substance are components of a multi-component adhesive, wherein first portions of substance are first capsules with a first shell and are formed with at least one first functional group and are provided with a first linker, wherein second portions of substance are second capsules with a second shell and are formed with at least one second functional group and are provided with a second linker…wherein a distance of the at least one first functional group to the first capsules is tuned by the first linker, and wherein a distance of the at least one second functional group to the second capsules is tuned by the respective second linker, wherein the first capsules and the second capsules are different from each other and are both capable of being activated, wherein contents of the first capsules and of the second capsules are capable of being reacted with each other, wherein the first linker and the second linker are each independently…a copolymer…and wherein the first and second linkers are distinct from and made of a different material than the respective capsule shells” as in instant claim 1, wherein “the portion of substance of the first substance and/or the second substance is arranged in a nanocapsule and/or microcapsule” as in instant claim 16, and “wherein the first substance and the second substance are components of a two-component adhesive” as in instant claim 18; and although Wilson ‘709 teaches and/or suggests the presence of functional groups on the microcapsules of the dual-microcapsule formulation, and discusses the importance of the healing agent, e.g., both components of the dual-microcapsule formulation, being able to get to the site of damage for efficient healing after rupture of the microcapsules, Wilson ‘709 does not teach that “the at least one first functional group was reacted with and bound to the at least one second functional group via a covalent bond” as in instant claim 1.
However, as discussed in detail in prior office actions and incorporated herein by reference, Kobilka teaches similar payload-containing microcapsules for self-healing applications (as in Wilson ‘709), wherein the microcapsules have polymeric shell walls that are functionalized with orthogonal functionality, and example payloads to be microencapsulated in said walls may include a self-healing agent, curing agents, a solvent, catalysts, or combination thereof (e.g. as in Wilson ‘709), as well as polymerizable molecules or monomers such as cyclic olefins, acrylates, acrylic acids, molecules having isocyanate functional groups along with molecules having hydroxyl functional groups, and epoxies (e.g., as in Wilson ‘709); wherein various payloads may be selected to provide various functionalities for various applications (Paragraphs 0028-0030 and 0034-0035). Kobilka teaches that in some embodiments, first microcapsules comprising a first payload may be covalently bonded, optionally through a linking group, to second microcapsules comprising a second payload to form a linked microcapsule thereby setting or controlling a distance between the two types of capsules and thus a distance between the two payloads upon rupture (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0019, 0021, and 0075). Kobilka specifically teaches one embodiment wherein first nano/microcapsules R having a first orthogonal functionality (401) or reactive functional group and comprising a catalyst alone or with an optional solvent, as a first payload agent, are bonded to second nano/microcapsules R’ having a second orthogonal functionality (402) or reactive functional group and comprising a self-healing agent, as a second payload agent, by polymerizing or reacting the first and second functional groups, optionally with the aid of a coupling agent (also reading upon the claimed linker(s)), to covalently link the two types of nano/microcapsules to each other (reading upon the instantly claimed first and second portions/capsules formed with respective at least one first and at least one second functional groups provided with respective first and second linkers, and respective distances between the first and second functional groups and the first and second capsules, respectively, being “tuned” as discussed in detail in the prior office actions and incorporated herein by reference, as well as the claimed “wherein the at least one first functional group was reacted with and bound to the at least one second functional group via a covalent bond” as in amended claim 1), such that upon rupture of the microcapsules, the catalyst in the catalyst-encapsulated microcapsule is close to the self-healing agent microcapsule and yet separated by a given distance, thereby preventing the self-healing agent from closing only the capsule and not the crack or damage throughout the polymer matrix and allowing for a faster response when a capsule is ruptured (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0002-0003, 0017-0019, 0021-0022, 0075-0083; Fig. 4). Kobilka also teaches that for the embodiment comprising distinct microcapsules, coupling agents used to bond the distinct microcapsules may include isocyanate chains to react with residual poly(ureaformaldehyde) groups of the microcapsule (e.g., a suitable microcapsule wall material taught by Wilson ‘709); and more broadly recites that “[i]f an orthogonal functionality of the individual microcapsules is used to bond the microcapsules together, those skilled in the art would be able to determine appropriate reagents for such reaction” (Paragraph 0079).
Hence, given that Kobilka is of the same field of endeavor as Wilson ‘709 with both concerned with improving the rate of response/efficiency of the encapsulated healing materials upon rupture of the microcapsules, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kobilka with the teachings of Wilson ‘709 to arrive at the claimed invention given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and given the further teachings of Kobilka as discussed in detail in prior office actions and incorporated herein by reference with respect to the limitations of instant claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 17, and 22-23 (see paragraph 17 of the office action dated 6/4/2025, paragraph 6 of the office action dated 12/4/2024, and paragraphs 13-24 of the office action dated 6/12/2024), the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in amended claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 16-18, and 22-23, would have been obvious over Wilson ‘709 in view of Kobilka.
With respect to instant claim 19, it is again noted that Wilson ‘709 teaches that the shell walls of the microcapsules may include shell walls of melamine-formaldehyde, urea-formaldehyde, polyurethane, polyurea, and polyacrylate; or may be formed from thermoplastic polymers such as poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA), with the dual-shell example utilizing poly(HEMA) as the first shell although Wilson ‘709 clearly teaches that the procedure may be adapted for the use of alternative shell walls, such as, urea-formaldehyde, polyurethane, polyurea and polyacrylate shell walls formed from similar interfacial or in situ procedures, such that the claimed “polymethacrylate” – an obvious polyacrylate polymer in the art would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, and given that Kobilka broadly teaches that the polymeric shell may be tailored to provide the desired orthogonal functional groups and/or functional groups that can be reacted to provide the desired orthogonal groups that can be reacted to bond the microcapsules together, and based upon the polymer matrix and end use, with acrylates discussed throughout Kobilka (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0028-0042 and 0075-0083), the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 19 would have been obvious over the teachings of Wilson ‘709 in view of Kobilka given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claims 20-21, it is again noted that the melamine-formaldehyde coating or second capsule shell of Wilson ‘709 contains amine groups on a surface thereof as discussed above, wherein at least some of the amine groups would be primary amines as in instant claim 20, and that as also discussed above, Wilson ‘709 teaches that alkoxysilane corrosion inhibitors having a molecular structure as shown in Paragraph 0033 can be tethered to the microcapsule shell via the R1, R2, R3, or R4 groups (Paragraphs 0028-0035) reading upon the claimed “silanized” as in instant claim 21. Further, it is again noted that Kobilka teaches that the first and second microcapsules may be bonded to each other via functional groups provided thereon, and also teaches that one skilled in the art would be able to determine the appropriate reagents for the reaction between the microcapsules (Paragraph 0076), wherein non-limiting reactions include those as recited in claim 14 of Kobilka including a Michael addition reaction (Claim 14, wherein it is noted that the reaction of an amine with an acrylate is a “Michael addition” reaction) or reactions with other functional groups, such as methacrylates of 104D and acrylates of 104E as discussed in detail with respect to the orthogonally-bound catalyst embodiment (Paragraphs 0055-0059); or alternatively, may be bonded to each other with the aid of a coupling agent (Paragraph 0075), such as hydrosilanes, and given that Kobilka generally teaches the use of other silane coupling agents for silane modification (e.g. “silanized” as in instant claim 21) in other embodiments such as (3-mercaptopropyl)trimethoxysilane as well as acrylate and acrylic acid functional groups as well as polyamides for the polymer matrix material (wherein it is noted that the reaction of a primary amine with a carboxyl group results in an amide linkage; Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0023, 0029, 0037, 0040, 0058, 0061, 0066, 0074, 0077, and 0086), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 20-21 would have been obvious over the teachings of Wilson ‘709 in view of Kobilka, wherein one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize a silane coupling agent as in Wilson ‘709 and/or Kobilka, and/or motivated to determine the optimum first and second functional groups to react with each other to bond the microcapsules to one another based upon the intended end use of the self-healing microcapsule system, wherein any of the functional groups taught and/or suggested by Wilson ‘709 and/or Kobilka would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above over Wilson ‘709 in view of Kobilka.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s response filed 11/3/2025.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787