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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (US Pat. 4,946,624) in view of Rassat et al. (WO 2018/115250 Al) when taken with Bacon et al. (US Pat. 5,500,138).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 11-13: Michael teaches microcapsules for an aqueous fabric softener (ie. a laundry composition) (2:35-50); wherein the microcapsules (ie. core-shell) have an encapsulating
material / biodegradable carrier made from gelatin and gum Arabic (reads upon claim 2 and 13) (5:10-25 and 2:45-51); a perfume formulation having a portion that is encapsulated/entrapped and a portion without encapsulation (ie. free perfume oil) (4:5-20 and Table 2); laundry additives such as dialkyl quaternary ammonium salts (11:34-52, eg. when RS and R8 are alkyl groups) and silicones (15:9-26); and a perfume composition comprising about 30% orange terpenes (90% d-limonene), 20% para tertiary butyl cyclohexyl acetate, 10% linalyl acetate, 30% alpha ionone, and 10% para tertiary butyl alpha methyl hydrocinnamic aldehyde (16:44-55). It is submitted that para tertiary butyl cyclohexyl acetate contains a cyclohexane ring and that alpha ionone contains a cyclohexene ring.
Bacon et al. provides evidence that para tertiary butyl alpha methyl hydrocinnamic aldehyde has a log P of 3.86, d-limonene has a log P of 4.23, and linalyl acetate has a log P of 3.50 (Table 1 and Table 4).
Michael does not specifically teach a single embodiment of a perfume composition containing at least 15% of a perfume material having log T less than -4. However, Michael does teach a perfume composition containing beta ionone and methyl beta-napthyl ketone at about 11% (16:55-68). Rassat et al. teaches a perfume oil comprising at least 15% of a perfume material having log T less than -4 (pg. 6, Ii. 10-12) and that beta ionone and methyl napthyl ketone having a log T less than -4 (Table 1). Michael and Rassat et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, microcapsules encapsulating perfume materials. At the time of filing a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted a least 15% of a perfume material having log T less than
-4, such as beta ionone and/or methyl napthyl ketone, as taught by Rassat et al. for a portion of the perfume materials in Michael, and would have been motivated to do so since Rassat et al. suggests that adding such high impact perfume materials help deliver a high olfactive performance at very low dosages.
Regarding Claim 3: The above perfume composition of Michael (16:44-55) constitutes a mixture of ingredients that reads upon a "perfume oil" of about 100% of a perfume formulation.
Regarding Claims 9-10: Michael further teaches fabric softener compositions comprising 0.25-0.90% perfume capsules/delivery system and 0.25-0.30% of unencapsulated perfume/free perfume (Table 2). The examples in Table 2 also show a perfume capsule to unencapsulated perfume ratio of about 3:1 to about 1:1.
Regarding Claims 2, 13, and 15: 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 made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that resuIts in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Specifically, the original specification states that “In case the delivery system is a core-shell microcapsule having a biodegradable shell, it is herein understood that the perfume formulation is comprised in the core which is surrounded by a biodegradable shell wall of the microcapsule. The nature of the biodegradable shell of the microcapsules of the invention can vary.” (page 4, lines 13-16) and merely suggests that the effects and properties arise by the composition of biodegradable shell. Furthermore, the original specification specifically teaches that the biodegradable shell can comprise “gelatin / gum Arabic shell wall”. (page 4, line 22) which is taught by the applied prior art (see above). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, ie. the chemical stability and percentage of perfume leaks out of the microcapsules and the biodegradability of the carrier, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (US Pat. 4,946,624) in view of Rassat et al. (WO 2018/115250 Al) when taken with Bacon et al. (US Pat. 5,500,138) as set forth above regarding claims 1-3 and 9-13, and further in view of Taylor et al. (US Pat. 4,741,856).
Regarding claims 6-7: Michael teaches the basic claimed laundry composition (ie. aqueous fabric softener) as set forth above.
Michael does not specifically teach a perfume composition containing the claimed Hansen solubility parameters (eg. an atomic dispersion force from 12 to 20, a dipole moment from 1 to 8, and a hydrogen bonding from 2.5 to 11). However, Taylor et al. teaches a perfume oil comprising hexyl salicylate, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, or mixtures thereof (5:1-30). Michael and Taylor et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, perfume materials for laundry products. At the time of filing a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted the at least one of the perfume materials, as taught by Taylor et al. for a portion of the perfume materials in Michael, and would have been motivated to do so since Michael suggests the perfume materials of Taylor et al. are especially desirable (3:30-42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16-MAR-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the following:
Applicant argues that the instant claims have “improved olfactive performance and reduced perfume leakage”. This is not persuasive as Applicant’s arguments do not dispute that the applied references of the rejection teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. As such, as set forth in the rejection above, the instant effects and properties of the composition would be necessarily present in a composition formed by the combination of references. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments allege that various improvements are observed, however, it is noted that there is no evidence presented that such effects are unexpected.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EASHOO whose telephone number is (571)272-1197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am - 4pm.
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, Patricia Mallari, can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
MARK EASHOO, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767