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 .
Status of the Claims
Acknowledgement is made of the response filed on February 3, 2026. In that response, claim 15 was amended. Claims 15-17 and 20-25 are treated on the merits in this action. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 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 15-17 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (GB 2414666A) in view of Yeung (US 2019/0174749) and Al-Niaimi (Al-Niaimi, F., et al., Topical Vitamin C and the Skin: Mechanisms of Action and Clinical Applications, J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2017 Jul 1;10(7):14–17).
Brown teaches a sanitizing composition in the form of a viscous liquid or gel suitable for use in handwashing, comprising alcohol, water, and a thickener wherein the viscous liquid or gel has particles suspended therein (abstract). The particles may deliver one or more agents to the skin, e.g., antimicrobial, antibacterial or antiviral agents, emollients and/or moisturizers among others (p.9 lines 14-20). The particles may be made of natural or synthetic polymers (p.9 lines 7-9; claim 11). Brown teaches the stabilizing agents in claim 17 (p.5 line 30-p.7 line 29). The particles deliver various active agents directly to skin such as antimicrobials and emollients, including those in instant claim 16 (p.9 lines 14-p.14 line 8). Brown teaches tocopheryl acetate or vitamin E, an emollient and moisturizer, as a suitable active agent for the particles, and claims combining particles that contain an emollient and/or moisturizer with those containing antimicrobial agents (p.11 line 28, claims 17, 34).
Brown does not specifically teach the disinfecting capsules comprising the polymer shell defining a hollow core and comprising an antimicrobial material in the shell as recited in claims 15 and 20-25, or a skin care agent comprising vitamin C now in claim 15.
Yeung teaches antimicrobial and anti-biofouling coatings comprising: a hollow round colloidal structure, comprising: an active polymer shell; and an active or inert core; wherein the active polymer shell comprises one or more polymers with antimicrobial and anti-biofouling activities selected from the group consisting of polyethylenimine (PEI), functionalized chitosan (CHI), polyquaternium, poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDDA) and polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMD); wherein the active or inert core contains one and more disinfectants, biocides, fragrances or inert solvent; and wherein the hollow round colloidal structure is stable for at least 3 months (title; abstract; para.0008; claim 1). The concentration of antimicrobial material such as PEI can be 10%, 20%, etc. (paras.0071, 0079, 0085-86). The core may comprise active agents such as those in claims 16 and 23-25 (paras. 0074, 0112-21; claims 11-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to combine the teachings of Brown and Yeung and use Yeung’s particles in Brown’s composition as recited in the instant claims. The skilled person would have been motivated to do so because both references are drawn to cleansing compositions that comprise active agent-containing polymeric particles, and Yeung also teaches polymeric particles that are “designed for a variety of applications…and other surfaces in contact with water,…solid …surfaces exposed to air” and are “capable of storing and releasing disinfectants, biocides, and fragrances” (para.0007).
Regarding the vitamin C, Al-Niaimi teaches “antioxidative, photoprotective, antiaging, and antipigmentary effects of topical vitamin C on the skin (title; abstract; p.15 middle col.-p.16 left col.). “[V]itamin C is also known to be the primary replenisher of vitamin E”, producing a “synergistic antioxidant effect of vitamins C and E in photoprotection” (p.16 left col.). “[A]scorbyl-6-palmitate and magnesium ascorbyl phosphate (maP) are lipophilic, esterified forms of vitamin C, which are stable at neutral pH” (p.15 left col.).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Brown and Al-Niaimi and include vitamin C as a skin care agent as recited in the instant claim(s). The skilled person would have been motivated to do so because Brown teaches tocopheryl acetate or vitamin E, an emollient and moisturizer, as a suitable active agent for the particles, and claims combining particles that contain an emollient and/or moisturizer with those containing antimicrobial agents (p.11 line 28, claims 17, 34), and Al-Niaimi teaches that vitamin C confers “antioxidative, photoprotective, antiaging, and antipigmentary effects” when applied topically (title; abstract; p.15 middle col.-p.16 left col.), as well as producing a synergistic antioxidant or photoprotective effect when combined with vitamin E (p.16 left col.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-17 and 20-25 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.
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 H. S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-5258. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/H. SARAH PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614