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, 9-13, and 15-16are 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) and Burakowska-Meise et al. (US 2017/0043312 A1) when taken with Bacon et al. (US Pat. 5,500,138).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 11-13, 16: 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 logT less than -4 (pg. 6, Ii. 10-12) and that beta ion one 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 ion one 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.
Michael does not specifically teach microcapsule shells comprising a polyurea or polyamide. However, Burakowska-Meise et al. teaches microcapsule shell materials comprising a polyurea or polyamide (para. 3). Michael and Burakowska-Meise et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, microcapsules. At the time of filing a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted or used in a mixture at least one of a polyurea or polyamide, as taught by Burakowska-Meise et al. a microcapsule shell material in Michael, and would have been motivated to do so since Burakowska-Meise et al. suggests that multitudes of shell materials, such as gum Arabic, polyamides, and polyurea, are known and are functional equivalents (para. 3). See MPEP 2144.06, II.
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 results 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 shellof 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 I 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) and Burakowska-Meise et al. (US 2017/0043312 A1) 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Michael teaches the basic claimed composition including microcapsule shell formed from a combination of materials, including gum arabic and polyacrylates (5:10-26). As set forth in the rejection above, Burakowska-Meise et al. teaches other shell materials, including a polyurea or polyamide (para. 3). However, the prior art as a whole does not teach or suggest a combination of shell materials wherein a second material is present in an amount of less than 3% by weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02-JUL-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
in view of the following:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitation directed to the shell material has been substantially responded to in the new rejection set forth above wherein this feature is render obvious by the teachings of Burakowska-Meise et al. renders obvious a second and/or different shell material including, including a polyurea or polyamide (para. 3).
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.
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 (AlR) 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
Prosecution Insights