DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/5/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the office action mailed on 9/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
3. The Applicants submitted claim amendments on 12/19/2025 in response to the office action mailed 9/23/2025. The status of the claims is as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The rejection of claims 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US 2019/0184364 A1) to Brahms et al. (hereinafter Brahms).
The above noted rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0184364 A1) to Brahms et al. (hereinafter Brahms).
The above noted rejection is hereby withdrawn.
NEW Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0184364 A1) to Brahms et al. (hereinafter Brahms) in view of the teachings of (US 2021/0207317 A1) to Sasaki et al. (hereinafter Sasaki).
Brahms is directed toward fragrance containing microcapsules. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0131] that the core has a fragrance benefit agent. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0084] that the shell may be made with the reaction of an isocyanate of TDI, which reads on Applicants election. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0017] that the microcapsule wall polymer is a polyurethane, polyurea, poly(acrylate-co-acrylamide), starch, gelatin, chitosan and combinations thereof, which reads on Applicants unsaturated compound and amine containing natural materials. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0087] that the polyisocyanate concentration is from 0.1% to 10%. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0118] that 2% to 50% may be dispersants. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0120] that chitosan is a natural dispersant, which reads on Applicants ratios for the shell. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0473] that the capsule is made with an anionic acrylic polymer. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0152] that the shell may include cationic charged polymers. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0106] that the shell may include a polyethylene glycol diacrylate monomer. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0025] that the fragrance has a CloP of 2.5 or greater, which reads on Applicants range of 2.5 to about 4.5. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0372] that the core solvent may be an isopropyl myristate. Brahms discloses at paragraph [0078] that the microcapsule has a size of 2 to 50 microns in diameter, which reads on Applicants range of 15 to 50 microns. Brahms discloses each and every element, but is silent regarding the desired zeta potential of the shell and Michaels addition reactions.
Sasaki is directed toward fragrance containing microcapsules. Brahms and Sasaki are both directed toward fragrance containing microcapsules. Sasaki teaches at paragraph [0007] that the microcapsule core contains a fragrance. Sasaki teaches at paragraph [0014] that the shell contains N-C bonds. Sasaki teaches at paragraph [0028] that the microcapsule surfaces have a charged zeta potential of at least 10 mV, or 40 mV or higher, which reads on Applicants rage of zeta potential, and provides motivation of providing a strong surface affinity for the microcapsules for surfaces. Sasaki teaches at paragraph [0035] that the amine reactant in the shell in the natural polymer chitosan. Sasaki teaches at paragraph [0071] that the microcapsule wall may contain reactions of acrylics and isocyanate monomers. Sasaki teaches at paragraph [0334] that the acrylic acid is modified with the amino groups by a Michael addition reaction.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Brahms in view of the teaching of Sasaki to select each and every element as arranged in claims to form a prime facia case of obviousness for claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16 and 18.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 1/5/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766