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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on June 25th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13, 16, 19-22, and 25-29 are pending in the application. Claims 3, 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 23-24 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 21, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Piorkowski (US 20190300823 A1), Bauer (DE 102012201424 A1), and Bauer (US 20140323375 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Piorkowski (US 20190300823 A1), Bauer (DE 102012201424 A1), Bauer (US 20140323375 A1), Mole (US 20190382690 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Piorkowski (US 20190300823 A1), Bauer (DE 102012201424 A1), Bauer (US 20140323375 A1), Mole (US 20190382690 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Piorkowski (US 20190300823 A1), Bauer (DE 102012201424 A1), Bauer (US 20140323375 A1), Last (US 20160222328 A1) is withdrawn.
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.
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 1-2, 4-11, 16, 19-22, and 26-29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, and in view of Harrison (WO 2016207180 A1), Bauer (DE 102012201424 A1), Bauer (US 20140323375 A1), Piorkowski (US 20190300823 A1), and Uchiyama (US 20030215417 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 7-11, 21, and 26-29, Harrison discloses a liquid detergent composition (see page 84 paragraph 2). Harrison further discloses an encapsulated perfume composition comprising at least one perfume-containing aminoplast core-shell microcapsule dispersed in an aqueous suspending medium (see Abstract). Harrison further discloses slurry may comprise 20-60% of solids content (see page 16 paragraph 8) and the slurry may be present in the composition at 0.03-1wt% (see page 85 paragraph 2). Harrison further discloses the composition may comprise from about 1wt% to about 80wt% of a surfactant (see page 90 paragraph 2). Harrison further discloses the particle size distribution as having a d50 value of 5-50 microns (see page 17 paragraph 2) and a core:shell ratio of 9:1 (see page 17 paragraph 1).
However, Harrison fails to disclose a d90 value of less than 70 microns.
Piorkowski discloses a liquid detergent composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Piorkowski further discloses microcapsules which may include a perfume as one or more active ingredients (see [0038]). Piorkowski further discloses the particulate component may have a d90 average particle size of 150 microns or less, preferably 50 microns or less (see [0042]).
Piorkowski discloses the above d90 value as sufficient to maintain a stable suspension of the particulate component (see [0042]). As such, routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt a d90 value of less than 70 microns in order to maintain a stable suspension of the particulate component. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the d90 value of Piorkowski for the microcapsules of Harrison for the purpose of maintaining a stable suspension of the particulate component, as disclosed by Piorkowski.
However, Harrison fails to disclose at least one odor neutralizing agent selected from a 2-amino-1,3-propanediol compound and 1-aza-3,7-dioxabicyclo[3.3.0]octane compound.
Bauer, (DE 102012201424 A1), hereafter referred to as Bauer 424, discloses a 1-aza-3,7-dioxabicyclo[3.3.0]octane compound with silicic esters as perfume precursors for detergents, cleaners, fabric softeners, and cosmetics, an analogous art (see Abstract). Bauer 424 further discloses a 1-aza-3,7-dioxabicyclo[3.3.0]octane compound wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each independently of the formula R1 —C(═O)—R2 or R3 —C(═O)—R4 and yield a scent aldehyde having at least six carbon atoms or a scent ketone having at least six carbon atoms (see [0011]). Further, Bauer 424 discloses R5, R6, and R7 as independently hydrogen or an acyclic or cyclic, substituted or unsubstituted, branched or unbranched hydrocarbon group (see [0011]). Bauer further discloses the preferred radicals of R6 are methyl, ethyl, and hydroxymethyl and the preferred radicals of R5 and R7 are C1-C3 alkyl radicals and hydrogen (see [0014]). Bauer 424 further teaches a preferred embodiment in which R1 and R3 are C5-C24 hydrocarbon radicals and R2 and R4-R7 are hydrogen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 1-aza-3,7-dioxabicyclo[3.3.0]octane compound, as disclosed by Bauer 424, in the liquid detergent composition, as disclosed by Harrison, as 1-aza-3,7-dioxabicyclo[3.3.0]octane compound is a perfume and Harrison discloses an encapsulated perfume composition comprising at least one perfume-containing aminoplast core-shell microcapsule.
Bauer, (US 20140323375 A1), hereafter referred to as Bauer 375, discloses a 2-amino-1,3-propanediol, see Formula (I) below (see [0009]).
PNG
media_image1.png
83
141
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bauer 375 further discloses R5, R6, and R7 as hydrogen or a hydrocarbon radical (see [0009]). Bauer 375 further teaches that R6 may be a C1-C16 alkyl radical (see [0037]). Bauer 375 further discloses Formula (I) may be used in combination with a scent aldehyde or a scent ketone to prolong the perception of a scent (see [0015]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the amino-1,3-propanediol of Bauer 375 in the liquid detergent composition, as disclosed by Harrison, for the purpose of prolonging the perception of a scent, as disclosed by Bauer 375.
Harrison further fails to disclose the at least two odor-neutralizing agents in an amount of from 60 wt% to 90 wt%, based on the total weight of the microcapsule.
Uchiyama discloses malodor-controlling compositions comprising microcapsules containing an active material and/or an optional odor control agent, an odor control agent outside of the microcapsules, and an aqueous carrier, an analogous art (see Abstract). Uchiyama further discloses the active material of the microcapsule as a perfume (see [0026]) and further discloses the active material contained in the microcapsule at a level of from about 1% to about 99% (see [0027]). Uchiyama further discloses the microcapsule as formulated to reduce or remove malodor from the surface and to provide a controlled-release of the active material onto the surface or into the environment surrounding the surface (see [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, the active material level of Uchiyama in the microcapsules of Harrison for the purpose of reducing or removing malodor from the surface and to provide a controlled-release of the active material onto the surface or into the environment surrounding the surface, as disclosed by Uchiyama.
With regard to claim 2, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bauer 424 further discloses the composition which utilizes the disclosed compound can contain additional fragrances (see [0050]). Bauer teaches the composition “can” contain additional fragrances. This is optional.
With regard to claim 4, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama 375 disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bauer 424 further discloses at least one fragrance aldehyde and further states ethyl vanillin as suitable (see [0016]). The instant claims specify helional as suitable.
With regard to claim 5, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bauer 424 further discloses a silicic acid ester wherein all R are independently hydrogen, strait or branched, saturated or unsaturated, substituted or unsubstituted C1-6 hydrocarbon residues and n assumes values in the range of 2 to 100 (see [0011]).
With regard to claim 6, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bauer424 further discloses a silicic acid ester wherein at least 10 mol% of the R residues are scent alcohols (see [0017]). Bauer 424 further discloses heptanol as suitable (see [0017]). The instant claims disclose heptanol as suitable.
With regard to claim 16, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bauer 424 further discloses R1 and R3 as C5-C24 hydrocarbon residues (see [0015]).
With regard to claim 19, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bauer 424 further discloses silicic acid esters in which more than 40mol% of the residues R are scent alcohol residues (see [0017]). Bauer 424 further discloses 2-methylpentanol as a suitable scent alcohol residue (see [0017]). The instant claims disclose 2-methylpentanol as a suitable fragrance alcohol.
With regard to claim 20, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bauer 424 further discloses n values in the range of 2 to 100 (see [0011]).
With regard to claim 22, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bauer 424 further discloses at least one fragrance ketone and further states carvone as suitable (see [0030]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 2016207180 A1), Bauer (DE 102012201424 A1), Bauer (US 20140323375 A1), Piorkowski (US 20190300823 A1), and Uchiyama (US 20030215417 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mole (US 20190382690 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama fail to disclose a method of treating a surface, room air, or a textile, the method comprising applying the composition of claim 1 to the surface, the room air, or the textile.
Mole discloses a liquid laundry detergent composition (see Abstract). Mole further discloses the composition as comprising microcapsules of ingredients such as perfume (see [0094]). Mole further discloses a method of contacting the detergent with a textile to be washed (see [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of Mole with the composition of Harrison. Mole discloses a liquid laundry detergent and a method of utilizing a liquid laundry detergent comprising contacting the detergent with a textile to be washed. Harrison discloses a liquid detergent. A method which may be used with one liquid laundry detergent may be used with a similar liquid laundry detergent.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 2016207180 A1), Bauer (DE 102012201424 A1), Bauer (US 20140323375 A1), Piorkowski (US 20190300823 A1), and Uchiyama (US 20030215417 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Last (US 20160222328 A1).
With regard to claim 25, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Harrison, Bauer 424, Bauer 375, Piorkowski, and Uchiyama fail to disclose the microcapsules further comprising melamine-urea-formaldehyde.
Last discloses a microcapsule comprising a shell and a core, an analogous art (see Abstract). Last further discloses the core comprises at least one active ingredient and at least one surface-modified disintegrant (see Abstract). Last further teaches microcapsules comprising melamine-urea-formaldehyde (see [0022]). Last further teaches such microcapsules exhibit high chemical and physical resistance and form the most stable and tight microcapsules (see [0022]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the melamine-urea-formaldehyde of Last in the microcapsules of Harrison for the purpose of increasing the chemical and physical resistance of microcapsules and forming the most stable and tight microcapsules.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-11, 13, 16, 19-22, and 25-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Piorkowski does not disclose at least two odor-neutralizing agents comprising a 2-amino-1,3-propanediol compound of general formula (I) and a 1-aza-3,7-dioxabicyclol[3.3.0]octane compound of the general formula (II) with their R groups at the descriptive weight amounts in the microcapsule of claim 1.
Piorkowski is no longer utilized as a primary reference. Further, as stated above, Harrison discloses one or more perfume components and Bauer 424 and Bauer 375 disclose the two odor-neutralizing agents.
Applicant further argues that Mole, Bone, and Last do not cure the deficiencies of Piorkowski, Bauer 424, and Bauer 375.
As stated above, Piorkowski is no longer utilized as a primary reference. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding Piorkowski are moot. Further, Harrison discloses one or more perfume components and Bauer 424 and Bauer 375 disclose the two odor-neutralizing agents.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights