DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Receipt and consideration of Applicant’s amended claim set and Applicant’s arguments/remarks submitted on March 30, 2026 are acknowledged.
All rejections/objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicant’s claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments. Applicant’s claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16-23 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claims 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 24-29 are cancelled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soni et al. (Soni) (Journal of Food Engineering; of record) and Popplewell et al. (Popplewell) (US 2022/0177815 A1; of record), and evidenced by Orr et al. (Orr) (US 4,976,953; of record).
With regards to Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 18, Soni discloses the use of dodecenyl succinylated guar gum hydrolysate as a wall material for microencapsulation (title). Soni discloses that the esterification of guar gum hydrolysate (GGH) (reading on a guar) by dodecenyl succinic anhydride (DDSA) (reading on compound represented by formula I, wherein G is an anhydride group and R is a C12 hydrocarbyl) was optimized to a degree of substitution (DS) of 0.0029 (abstract).
Soni discloses that the increased chain length of DDSA compared to n-octenyl succinic anhydride (OSA) imparts increased hydrophobicity at the same degree of substitution (p.133, col.1, para.1). Soni discloses that the primary aim of the hydrolysis of the guar gum to form guar gum hydrolysate is to reduce the molecular weight and hence achieve reduced viscosity of guar solutions at higher concentrations. Soni discloses that GGH, due to the absence of any hydrophobicity, lacks emulsifying property. OSA derivative of GGH has been reported for emulsifying and microencapsulation functionality. Soni discloses that it is hypothesized that the longer chain length of DDSA may contribute to better emulsifying activity property of GGH-DDSA derivative than GGH-OSA (p.133, col.2, para.1).
GGH-DDSA (reading on hydrophobically-modified polysaccharide) as wall material for emulsification and subsequent microencapsulation of soybean oil (reading on water-insoluble active material) was shown to stabilize the emulsions over 24 h, their spray dried microcapsules showed smooth surface without fixtures, and showed greatest microencapsulation efficiency compared to GGH-OSA. The higher chain length of DDSA over OSA was advantageous for microencapsulation of lipophilic core (abstract). As evidenced by Orr, soybean oil is known to be an emollient, which Orr defines to be material used for the prevention or relief of dryness, as well as for the protection of the skin (reading on a dermatological active ingredient) (col.5, ln.7-26).
Soni discloses synthesizing various DDSA ester of GGH (hydrophobically-modified polysaccharide). Soni discloses ultimately reacting GGH with DDSA where the concentration of DDSA was 25, 12, 6, 4.5, 3, and 1.5% w/w of GGH (p.134, Methods, 2.2.1). Oil-in-water emulsions were then prepared by mixing a solution of GGH-DDSA with soybean oil (reading on mixing a hydrophobically-modified polysaccharide in an aqueous solution with a water-insoluble active material thereby forming the emulsion) (p.134, Methods, 2.2.7).
With regards to Claim 14, the emulsion droplet size of the GGH-DDSA soybean oil emulsions were found to be about 13.67 micron (p.137, Table 2).
With regards to Claim 16, as evidenced by the instant application’s Example 3 and Table 1, it appears that the for dodecenyl succinic anhydride-modified guar (DSA), when modified with 5% DSA, the stability was 2 weeks, and it increased to 5 weeks when modified with 50% DSA. As Soni discloses DDSA ester of GGH where concentrations of DDSA of 6, 12, and 25% were used, absent evidence to the contrary, it would be reasonable to expect such emulsions formed would also be stable between about 2-5 weeks.
With regards to Claims, 17, 19, and 20, Soni also discloses the preparation of microcapsules from the aforementioned emulsions. The soybean oil emulsions at 30% (w/w of wall material) oil loading prepared using GGH-DDSA were spray dried (p.135, Methods, 2.3.1). Soni discloses that scanning electron microscopy was used to investigate the morphological structure of microcapsules of soybean oil made with GGH-DDSA, and the microcapsules showed a smooth surface without cracks, indicating good microencapsulation (p.139, col.1, 3.7). Soni’s scanning electronic microscopic images of soybean oil microcapsules made from GGH-DDSA appear to show microcapsules having a diameter of varying sizes up to about 20-30 microns (p.138, Fig.5e). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Soni does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the emulsion is further reacted with a crosslinker. Popplewell is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Popplewell are set forth herein below.
Popplewell discloses biodegradable core-shell microcapsule compositions with controlled release of an active material, wherein the shell of the microcapsule is composed of a biopolymer (abstract). The shell of the biodegradable core-shell microcapsule comprises at least one biopolymer cross-linked with one or more cross-linking agents (para.0006). Among the biopolymer wall material that may be used are polysaccharide biopolymers, which are defined to refer to a molecule composed of sugar molecules bonded together. The polysaccharide may exhibit an average molecular weight of from about 10,000 to about 40,000,000 g/mol (para.0011, 0021). A specific polysaccharide that may be used are gums, such as guar gum (par.0038, 0043). In an embodiment, the guar is hydrolyzed to form low molecular weight guar (para.0045). In the case of guar gum in hydrolyzed form, i.e., the low molecular weight guar, it would be expected to be in the lower end of Popplewell’s aforementioned range of about 10,000-40,000,000 g/mol.
Popplewell further discloses that to achieve the desired performance characteristics (i.e., active material retention and controlled release), the biopolymer is cross-linked with one or more cross-linking agents (para.0050). A polyvalent metal cation of use as a cross-linker is derived preferably from singly or multiply charged cations, such as calcium (para.0054).
To prepare the microcapsule composition, Popplewell discloses emulsifying at least one biopolymer, at least one active ingredient, and the cross-linker(s), and cross-linking and curing the microcapsule wall material (para.0150).
With regards to the crosslinker (Claims 1 and 21). As discussed above, both Soni and Popplewell are directed to microcapsules formed from emulsions, wherein the microcapsules encapsulate an active material. In light of Popplewell’s disclosure that crosslinkers are known to be added into and reacted in the emulsion when forming the shell material of the microcapsules, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Soni and Popplewell and add a crosslinking agent disclosed by Popplewell, such as those derived from multiply charged cations such as calcium, into and react with Soni’s emulsion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the advantage of achieving the desired performance characteristics, in particular, active material retention and controlled release. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Popplewell discloses that such crosslinkers are known to be used in forming microcapsules from emulsions.
Further, regarding the molecular weight of the GGH used in the emulsion and microcapsules of the combined teachings of Soni and Popplewell (Claim 10), as discussed above, Soni discloses the use of GGH. As noted by Soni, hydrolysis of the guar gum to form guar gum hydrolysate is to reduce the molecular weight and hence achieve reduced viscosity of guar solutions at higher concentrations. As discussed above, Popplewell discloses that the polysaccharide may exhibit an average molecular weight of from about 10,000 to about 40,000,000 g/mol, and a specific polysaccharide that may be used are gums, such as guar gum. Further, in an embodiment, the guar is hydrolyzed to form low molecular weight guar. Thus, in the case of guar gum in hydrolyzed form, i.e., the low molecular weight guar, it would be expected to be in the lower end of Popplewell’s aforementioned range of about 10,000-40,000,000 g/mol. Moreover, in performing the hydrolysis to form guar gum hydrolysate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to engage in routine experimentation to arrive at the desired or optimal molecular weight of the GGH based on art recognized factors such as to achieve the desired viscosity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Popplewell’s disclosed molecular weight range is known to be used for microcapsule wall material, and GGH is known to be low molecular weight, i.e., on the lower end of the aforementioned range.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soni et al. (Soni) (Journal of Food Engineering; of record) and Popplewell et al. (Popplewell) (US 2022/0177815 A1; of record), and evidenced by Orr et al. (Orr) (US 4,976,953; of record) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16-21 set forth above, further in view of Martyn et al. (Martyn) (US 2005/0084537 A1; of record).
The teachings of Soni and Popplewell (and evidenced by Orr) and the motivation for their combination as they apply to Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16-21 are set forth above and incorporated herein.
The combined teachings of Soni and Popplewell do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the crosslinking agent is CaCl2. Martyn is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Martyn are set forth herein below.
Martyn discloses microparticles comprising a therapeutic agent dispersed within a polymer matrix (abstract). Among the suitable polymers suitable for use in making the microparticles include galactomannans such as guar gum (para.0024, 0031). Among the suitable crosslinking agents suitable for use in creating the microparticles include calcium chloride (para.0033).
As discussed above, Popplewell discloses that to achieve the desired performance characteristics (i.e., active material retention and controlled release), the biopolymer is cross-linked with one or more cross-linking agents, such as a polyvalent metal cation derived preferably from singly or multiply charged cations, such as calcium. In light of Martyn’s disclosure that calcium chloride is known to be used as a crosslinking agent for creating microparticles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Soni and Popplewell with the teachings of Martyn and try the use of calcium chloride as the crosslinking agent in the emulsion of the combined teachings of Soni and Popplewell discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Popplewell discloses calcium as a polyvalent metal cation crosslinker for microcapsules made of polysaccharide, such as guar, and Martyn discloses that calcium chloride (a polyvalent metal cation-containing compound) is known to be used as a crosslinker in guar-based microcapsules.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 13, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popplewell et al. (Popplewell) (US 2022/0177815 A1; of record), Soni et al. (Soni) (Journal of Food Engineering; of record), and Le et al. (Le) (US 2009/0076168 A1; of record).
With regards to Claims 1, 10, 13, 17-19, and 21, Popplewell discloses biodegradable core-shell microcapsule compositions with controlled release of an active material, wherein the shell of the microcapsule is composed of a biopolymer (abstract). The shell of the biodegradable core-shell microcapsule comprises at least one biopolymer cross-linked with one or more cross-linking agents (para.0006). Among the biopolymer wall material that may be used are polysaccharide biopolymers, which are defined to refer to a molecule composed of sugar molecules bonded together. The polysaccharide may exhibit an average molecular weight of from about 10,000 to about 40,000,000 g/mol (para.0011, 0021). A specific polysaccharide that may be used are gums, such as guar gum (par.0038, 0043). In an embodiment, the guar is hydrolyzed to form low molecular weight guar (para.0045).
Popplewell further discloses that to achieve the desired performance characteristics (i.e., active material retention and controlled release), the biopolymer is cross-linked with one or more cross-linking agents (para.0050). A polyvalent metal cation of use as a cross-linker is derived preferably from singly or multiply charged cations, such as calcium (para.0054).
The core of the microcapsules includes at least one active material, such as a fragrance, pro-fragrance, flavor, malodor counteractive agent, vitamin, anti-inflammatory agent, analgesic, anti-viral agent, anti-infectious agent, anti-acne agent, insect repellant, or skin or hair condition agent (para.0080). In an embodiment, the active may be a water-insoluble fragrance (para.0085).
To prepare the microcapsule composition, Popplewell discloses emulsifying at least one biopolymer, at least one active ingredient, and the cross-linker(s), and cross-linking and curing the microcapsule wall material (para.0150). More specifically, an aqueous phase containing the biopolymer is mixed with an oil phase containing the active, the mixture is emulsified, one or more cross-linkers are added, and the resulting mixture is incubated under conditions sufficient to induce interfacial polymerization and crosslinking of the microcapsule wall material (para.0149).
With regards Claim 20, in an embodiment, the microcapsules have a size in the range of 1-50 microns (para.0135).
Popplewell does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the polysaccharide is hydrophobically-modified with a compound of formula (I) wherein G is an aldehyde group. Soni and Le are relied upon for this disclosure. Their teachings are set forth herein below.
Soni discloses the use of dodecenyl succinylated guar gum hydrolysate (GGH) as a wall material for microencapsulation (title). Soni discloses that GGH, due to the absence of any hydrophobicity, lacks emulsifying property. An n-octenyl succinic anhydride derivative of GGH has been reported for emulsifying and microencapsulation functionality. Soni discloses that it is hypothesized that the longer chain length of DDSA may contribute to better emulsifying activity property of GGH-DDSA derivative than GGH-OSA (p.133, col.2, para.1). Soni discloses that the increased chain length of DDSA compared to n-octenyl succinic anhydride (OSA) imparts increased hydrophobicity at the same degree of substitution (p.133, col.1, para.1).
Le discloses a modified polysaccharide having hydrophobic functional groups prepared from the reaction between a polysaccharide comprising a plurality of monosaccharide subunits having at least one primary amino group, and a hydrophobic aldehyde. The process for preparation and use in cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and food industry of the modified polysaccharide is also disclosed (abstract; para.0002).
Among the suitable aldehydes include cinnamaldehyde, benzaldehyde, anisaldehyde, and cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde. Preferred aldehydes are those that can be an antibacterial agent, an antiviral agent, an antioxidant, an antifungal agent, or a pesticide, as they have such activity (para.0072).
With regards to Claims 2 and 4-6, Popplewell discloses emulsifying the mixture of the biopolymer (i.e., wall material such as guar gum or hydrolyzed guar gum) and the active ingredient to form the microcapsule encapsulating the active ingredient. As discussed above, Soni discloses that guar gum, due to the absence of any hydrophobicity, lacks emulsifying property, but discloses imparting hydrophobicity to the GGH to improve the emulsifying activity property. In light of this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Popplewell, Soni, and Le, and modify Popplewell’s guar gum by reacting it with Le’s hydrophobic aldehyde to result in guar gum having hydrophobic functional groups in amounts disclosed by Soni. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the emulsifying activity of the guar gum (i.e., wall material). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to do so in order to additionally impart antibacterial, antiviral, antioxidant, antifungal, or pesticidal activity to the resultant microcapsules, thus widening the scope of the product’s utility. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as guar gum modified to impart hydrophobicity is known to be used in formulating microcapsules from emulsions as in Popplewell.
Moreover, with regards to the amount of hydrophobically-modifying agent as discussed above, Soni discloses that amounts of, for example, 6 wt.%, 12 wt.%, and 25 wt.% based on the amount of the guar compound are known when reacting the hydrophobically-modifying agent with the guar compound. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the instant invention to engage in routine experimentation and adjust the amount of the hydrophobically-modifying agent based on art recognized factors such as the amount of emulsifying activity needed and the amount of additional activity (e.g., antibacterial, antiviral, etc.) desired to be imparted to the final microcapsules. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, new rejections citing combinations of references not discussed in the Applicant’s remarks are set forth above to address the Applicant’s claim amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 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: the prior art references, alone or in combination, do not appear to disclose or fairly suggest the process as claimed in the instant claim 1 wherein the crosslinker is a polyalkoxysiloxane. In particular, the prior art teachings do not teach or fairly suggest the combination of the hydrophobically-modified polygalactomannan as claimed in the instant claim 1 with polyalkoxysiloxane in a method as claimed in claim 1. The closest prior art teachings are the combined teachings of Soni et al. (Soni) (Journal of Food Engineering; of record) and Popplewell et al. (Popplewell) (US 2022/0177815 A1; of record), which are set forth above in detail.
As discussed above in detail, Popplewell was relied upon for the disclosure and motivation for the inclusion of a crosslinker in the method of the combined teachings of Soni and Popplewell of forming an emulsion. However, Popplewell does not disclose or fairly suggest using a polyalkoxysiloxane as a crosslinker.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16-22 are rejected. Claim 23 is objected to. No claims are allowed.
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 MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights