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 May 27th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-9, and 13-20 are pending in the application. Claim 2 and claims 10-12 have been cancelled.
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, 3, 6-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Habnouni (US 20200290005 A1) in view of Rodrigo-Gomez (US 20200330952 A1) and Furguson (WO 2012038144 A1).
With regard to claim 1 and claims 8-9, El-Habnouni discloses an encapsulated perfume composition comprising a slurry of core-shell microcapsules, the core containing at least one perfume ingredient, a shell surrounding or at least partially surrounding a core, the shell comprising shell-forming materials selected from monomers, pre-polymers, and/or precondensates wherein the encapsulated perfume composition comprises a polymeric stabilizer (0014, 0017, 0057). El-Habnouni further discloses the encapsulated compositions may be employed as a delivery system to deliver active ingredients in consumer products (0203). El-Habnouni teaches the core-shell capsules may consist of between about 80 and about 95 wt% of encapsulated oil and about 5 to 20 wt% of shell (0194). El-Habnouni further teaches a polymeric stabilizer containing a primary, secondary, or tertiary amine (0057) and perfumes containing aldehydes, for example, floralozone, isocyclocitral, and decanal-4-trans as suitable, all of which are disclosed in the instant claims as suitable aldehyde-containing perfume raw materials (0198). El-Habnouni further discloses damascone alpha, damascone delta, and ionone beta as suitable perfumes, all of which are disclosed in the instant claims as suitable ketone-containing perfume raw materials (0198). El-Habnouni discloses both a structural monomer (0065, Example 3) and a free radical initializing group (0122) are in the shell material.
However, El-Habnouni is silent as to a core material to polymer wall weight ratio of at least 95:5.
Rodrigo-Gomez teaches a core shell mean weight ratio of at least 80:20 to 99.99:0.01 (0062). Rodrigo-Gomez further teaches a high core to shell mean weight ratio can result in highly efficient capsules having a high content of benefit agent per capsule (0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the core ratio as taught by Rodrigo-Gomez when forming the microcapsules as taught by El-Habnouni for the purpose of the capsules containing a high content of benefit agent per capsule.
El-Habnouni further fails to disclose a shielding agent selected from the group consisting of methyl anthranilate.
Furguson teaches a composition comprising a benefit agent delivery particle, an analogous art (see Abstract). Furguson further teaches fragrances as highly preferred benefit agents (see page 5 line 13). Furguson further teaches the perfume may be encapsulated alone or with other co-encapsulated carrier materials (see page 11 line 27-28), including formaldehyde scavengers, such as methyl anthranilate (see page 12 line 1-4 and line 6) as formaldehyde may be a consequence of manufacturing processes (see page 12 line 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the methyl anthranilate of Furguson, in the encapsulated particles of El-Habnouni, for the purpose of providing a formaldehyde scavenger as formaldehyde may be a consequence of the encapsulated particle manufacturing process, as disclosed by Furguson.
With regard to claim 3, El-Habnouni teaches 1.72g of divinylbenzene and 0.98g of methyl methacrylate, totaling 2.7g of structural monomers and AIBN as the initiator at 0.48g (Example 3, 0226). This corresponds to a structural monomer percentage of 85% by weight of the wall forming materials.
With regard to claim 4, El-Habnouni teaches the shell may be formed from divinyl benzene and (meth)acrylic acid or its esters, such as methyl methacrylate (0065).
With regard to claim 6, El-Habnouni teaches a free radical polymerization initiator as diazo compounds and diacyl peroxides (0122).
With regard to claim 7, El-Habnouni teaches benzoyle peroxide as a free radical initiator (0181). This corresponds to benzoyl peroxide as disclosed in the instant claims.
With regard to claim 13 and claim 14, El-Habnouni teaches 0.56g of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane as a polymeric stabilizer and 40g of fragrance. ZeMac E400 is also listed as a polymeric surfactant useful as a polymeric stabilizer (0051-0052) and added at 1.5g. This equates to the shielding agent as 5.15% by weight of the benefit agent.
With regard to claim 15, El-Habnouni teaches a composition comprising 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane and a fragrance (0226). El-Habnouni further discloses several aldehyde-containing perfume ingredients, including decanal and 2-methyldecanal (0198). Aldehyde perfume ingredients could form a hydrogen bond with the hydrogen atoms of the 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane amine group. The instant specifications disclose “capable of complexing” to mean any suitable interaction between the shielding agent and the relevant benefit agent. Hydrogen bonding is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable interaction. It would stand to reason that if the fragrance taught by El-Habnouni in Example 3 contained an aldehyde it would be capable of complexing with the amine group of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane and therefore at least some of the aldehyde-containing benefit agent would form a complex with at least a portion of the shielding agent.
With regard to claim 16, El-Habnouni teaches microcapsules capable of encompassing cosmetic active ingredients in addition to perfume (0199). El-Habnouni further teaches an example of a cosmetic active ingredient as vegetable oil (0201). This is disclosed as an example of a partitioning modifier in the instant specifications.
With regard to claim 17, El-Habnouni teaches mixing a fragrance and 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, the polymeric stabilizer, before adding divinyl benzene and methyl methacrylate, wall forming materials, to the mixture (0230).
With regard to claim 18, El-Habnouni teaches an average particle size of 30 microns or less (0042).
With regard to claim 19, El-Habnouni teaches that small particles are believed to deposit with high efficiency on surfaces (0048). El-Habnouni further teaches the small particles of the disclosed invention would be advantageous for fabric cleaning (0048). Therefore, the composition disclosed by El-Habnouni can be used as a fabric care composition.
With regard to claim 20, El-Habnouni teaches a product which is substantive on surfaces onto which it is deposited and performs well in consumer products (0015). This indicates that the product must be in contact with a surface during the method of use. Water is not mentioned as part of this method and may be optional.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Habnouni (US 20200290005 A1), in view of Rodrigo-Gomez (US 20200330952 A1) and Furguson (WO 2012038144 A1), and in further view of El-Habnouni (US 20200308513 A1) referred to herein as El-Habnouni 2.
With regard to claim 5, El-Habnouni (005), Rodrigo-Gomez, and Furguson teach all of the limitations of claim 4.
However, El-Habnouni fails to disclose (meth)acrylate monomers having at least three radical polymerizable functional groups with the proviso that at least one of the radical polymerizable groups is acylate or methacrylate.
El-Habnouni 2 teaches shell-forming monomers selected from pentaerythritol-tetraacrylate (PETA) and pentaerythritol triacrylate (0065). El-Habnouni (513) further teaches poly-functional acrylate as shell-forming monomers must be at least tri-functional in order to form cross-linked networks (0066).
Both El-Habnouni and El-Habnouni 2 disclose core-shell microcapsules containing a functional ingredient. In the case of El-Habnouni, this functional ingredient is specifically a perfume. Both El-Habnouni and El-Habnouni 2 further teach a shell composed of acrylic monomers, such as (meth)acrylate or its esters, for example methyl (meth)acrylate (El-Habnouni, 0226) and pentaerythritol-tetraacrylate (PETA) (El-Habnouni 2, 0065). Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because both references disclose a core-shell microcapsule whose shell-forming materials are composed of (meth)acrylate monomers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the multi-functional (meth)acrylate monomers of El-Habnouni 2 in the shell disclosed by El-Habnouni as shell-forming materials. El-Habnouni discloses (meth)acrylate or its esters as shell-forming materials and, as shown by El-Habnouni 2, pentaerythritol-tetraacrylate (PETA) and pentaerythritol triacrylate can function as shell-forming materials for core-shell microcapsules containing a benefit agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-9, and 13-20 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 El-Habnouni does not disclose the claimed weight ratio of core materials to polymer wall. As stated above, while El-Habnouni does not disclose the core materials to polymer wall ratio of at least 96:4, Rodrigo-Gomez teaches a core shell mean weight ratio of at least 80:20 to 99.99:0.01. Rodrigo-Gomez further teaches a high core to shell mean weight ratio can result in highly efficient capsules having a high content of benefit agent per capsule.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the core ratio as taught by Rodrigo-Gomez when forming the microcapsules as taught by El-Habnouni for the purpose of the capsules containing a high content of benefit agent per capsule.
Applicant further argues the addition of a shielding agent produces unexpected results. While Table 1 of the instant specifications discloses methyl anthranilate as a shielding agent, Table 1 further discloses 5 parts added to 100 parts of fragrance material. Claim 1 merely states methyl anthranilate as a shielding agent. There is no mention in the claim of weight percentage or parts added to 100 parts of fragrance material. Therefore, the results shown in Table 1 are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761