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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 02/16/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. The current office action is NON-FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struillou et al. (US2016/0346752 of record) hereinafter Struillou in view of Harrison et al. (US2018/0169603 of record) hereinafter Harrison.
Regarding claim 1, Struillou teaches:
A process for obtaining an encapsulated composition comprising at least one cationic core-shell microcapsule ([0035-0040, 0042, 0070]), wherein the at least one cationic core-shell microcapsule comprises a core comprising at least one functional material and a shell surrounding the core ([0002]), wherein the shell comprises a resin formed by reaction of at least one trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate ([0036, 00108]; Takenate® D-110N) with at least one partially alkylated amino-aldehyde pre-condensate ([0037, 0107-0109]; melamine-formaldehyde), the process comprising the steps of:
a) Providing a core composition, wherein no trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate is present in the core composition ([0036, 0108]);
b) Providing an aqueous phase comprising the at least one partially alkylated amino-aldehyde pre-condensate and a stabilizer ([0012, 0037, 0066, 0109]);
c) Emulsifying the core composition provided in step a) with the aqueous phase provided in step b) in order to obtain an emulsion of core composition droplets ([0013, 0038, 0109]) having a volume average size of 1 to 100 µm ([0043]);
d) Heating the emulsion obtained in step c) to a temperature of from 70 to 95 0C ([0109]), in order to obtain core-shell microcapsules ([0040, 0109]);
e) Optionally: Adding a formaldehyde scavenging agent ([0074, 0109]); and
f) Letting the mixture obtained in step d) or step e) cool to room temperature, in order to obtain a slurry of microcapsules ([0109]);
wherein the at least one trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate is added to the aqueous phase or the emulsion before, during or after step c) ([0108]).
Struillou does not teach a cationic stabilizing polymer.
In the same field of endeavor regarding microcapsules, Harrison teaches adding a cationic stabilizing polymer to a melamine formaldehyde pre-condensate for the motivation of producing encapsulated perfume compositions exhibiting not only good post-rub fragrance intensity, but also a good pre-rub intensity ([0037-0056, 0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stabilizer as taught by Struillou with the cationic stabilizing polymer as taught by Harrison in order to produce encapsulated perfume compositions exhibiting not only good post-rub fragrance intensity, but also a good pre-rub intensity.
Regarding claim 2, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Struillou further teaches wherein the at least one trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate is an adduct of an aliphatic triol with three araliphatic ([0056]; Takenate® D-110N).
Regarding claim 3, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Struillou further teaches herein the at least one trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate is an adduct of 2- ethylpropane-1,2,3-triol or 2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol with a compound selected from the group consisting of 1-isocyanato-2-(isocyanatomethyl)-benzene, 1- isocyanato-3-(isocyanatomethyl)benzene and 1-isocyanato-4-(isocyanatomethyl)benzene ([0056]; Takenate® D-110N).
Regarding claim 4, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Struillou further teaches wherein the at least one trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate is an adduct of 2- ethylpropane-1,2,3-triol with 1-isocyanato-3-(isocyanatomethyl)benzene ([0056]; Takenate® D-110N).
Regarding claim 7, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Struillou further teaches wherein the weight ratio of the at least one trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate to the at least one partially alkylated amino-aldehyde pre-condensate is 0.25 to 0.50 (Table 3: capsule D; Takenate vs Melamine-formaldehyde resin).
Regarding claim 8, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Harrison further teaches wherein the cationic stabilizing polymer is a copolymer obtainable by copolymerizing methacrylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride, acrylic acid or methacrylic acid and, optionally, acrylamide ([0040, 0046-0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 8.
Harrison further teaches wherein the cationic stabilizing copolymer is a copolymer of 2 to 99 mol % of methacrylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride (MAPTAC); and 1 to 98 mol % of acrylic acid, and 0 to 50 mol % of acrylamide ([0040, 0046-0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Struillou further teaches additionally comprising the step of adding, between step d) and step f), a suspending agent ([0070-0073, 0109]; applicant specification discloses that a cationic polymer can function as a suspending agent).
Regarding claim 11, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 10.
Struillou further teaches wherein the suspending agent is a cationic polymer ([0070-0073, 0109]).
Regarding claim 12, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Struillou further teaches additionally comprising the step of adding at least one preservative to the mixture obtained in step d) or to the slurry of microcapsules obtained in step f) ([0070-0073] applicant specification discloses that quaternary compounds can function as a preservative).
Regarding claim 13, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Struillou further teaches wherein the core composition comprises at least one functional material selected from group consisting of fragrance ingredients, cosmetic ingredients, biologically active ingredients, and substrate enhancers (Table 2).
Regarding claim 14, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 13.
Struillou further teaches wherein the core composition comprises at least one fragrance ingredient: decanal (Table 2).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struillou in view of Harrison as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cavin et al. (US2010/0009893 of record) hereinafter Cavin.
Regarding claim 5, Struillou in view of Harrison teaches the method of claim 1.
Struillou in view of Harrison does not teach wherein the at least one partially alkylated amino-aldehyde precondensate is selected from the group consisting of partially methylated polymethylol-1,3,5-triamino-2,4,6- triazine pre-condensates, partially methylated polymethylolurea, partially methylated polymethylol-benzoguanamine and partially methylated polymethylol-glycouril.
In the same field of endeavor regarding microcapsules, Cavin teaches partially methylated polymethylol-1,3,5-triamino-2,4,6-triazine pre-condensates as a suitable for forming microcapsules ([0014]; LURACOLL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the at least one partially alkylated amino-aldehyde precondensate as taught by Struillou in view of Harrison with the LURACOLL as taught by Cavin and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since the prior art teaches LURACOLL as suitable for use in the formation of microcapsules.
Regarding claim 6, Struillou in view of Harrison and Cavin teaches the method of claim 5.
Cavin further teaches wherein the partially methylated polymethylol-1,3,5-triamino-2,4,6-triazine precondensate is obtainable by reacting melamine, formaldehyde and methanol, and wherein the molar ratio of melamine to formaldehyde is from 1:3 to 1:6 and the molar ratio of melamine to alcohol is 1:2 to 1:4 ([0014]; applicant specification discloses that LURACOLL meets the above limitations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Struillou does not teach an aqueous phase is provided comprising at least one partially alkylated amino-aldehyde pre-condensate and a cationic stabilizing polymer. Applicant argues that Struillou instead teaches a cationic polymer is present in the aqueous phase alongside a partially alkylated amino-aldehyde pre-condensate. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As recited in the art rejection, Struillou teaches providing an aqueous phase comprising the at least one partially alkylated amino-aldehyde pre-condensate and a stabilizer ([0012, 0037, 0066, 0109]). Struillou does not teach a cationic stabilizing polymer. Harrison is relied upon for a modification of the aqueous phase to include a cationic stabilizing polymer ([0037-0056, 0075]).
Applicant argues that Struillou does not teach the at least one trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate is not present in the oil. Applicant argues that Struillou instead teaches the polyisocyanate is mixed with a perfume oil to provide an oil phase, which is subsequently mixed with the aqueous phase. First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that the claims actually recite “providing a core composition, wherein no trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate is present in the core composition”. Struillou teaches a perfume oil comprising the ingredients listed in Table 2 ([0108]) which is admixed with a polyisocyanate. The examiner notes that none of the ingredients listed in table 2 are a trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate. Therefore, the perfume oil comprising the ingredients listed in Table 2 meets the limitations of the claimed core composition. Applicant argues that admixing of the polyisocyanate with the perfume oil to provide an oil phase is somehow excluded by claim 1, but provides no basis in logic or fact for this assertion. Applicant argues that applicant experimental data shows that the embodiment of Struillou relied upon has the disadvantage of leakage when the trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate is dissolved in the perfume before emulsification. However, applicant is mischaracterizing applicant’s own analysis of the data presented in applicant specification. As recited in applicant specification, “the results show also that combining a cationic stabilizing polymer and the addition of trifunctional araliphatic isocyanate in the emulsion leads to microcapsules that show significantly less perfume leakage, compared to microcapsules obtained by using an anionic stabilizing polymer with the isocyanate added to the perfume phase (Example 1.3)”. Struillou does not contain any discussion of anionic stabilizing polymer with the isocyanate added to the perfume phase regarding the embodiment relied upon in the art rejection. It is therefore unclear how applicant experimental data has any relevance to the embodiment of Struillou relied upon in the art rejection.
Applicant argues that Harrison is improperly combined with Struillou as Harrison is directed to aminoplast microcapsules which do not comprise any trifunctional araliphati isocyanate. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Struillou is directed to a core-shell aminoplast microcapsules cross-linked with a polyisocyanate and encapsulating an oil, in particular a perfume oil with a shell possessing cationic polymers ([0001, 0069-0072]). Harrison is directed to the field of an encapsulated perfume composition comprising at least one positively charged, perfume-containing aminoplast core-shell microcapsule ([0001]). Since the prior art is directed to the same fields of endeavor regarding microcapsules and even more specifically perfume-containing aminoplast core-shell microcapsule with cationic polymers in the shell, it is entirely reasonable and within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Struillou and Harrison to arrive at the claimed invention. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights