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
The Amendment filed June 16, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-4 were amended and support for amendments are found in the original claims and original Specification. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 16, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhen et al. (CN 111333789 A; cited in the IDS submitted on 09/18/2024; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Zhen”) in view of Tao et al. (CN 107789332A; cited in the IDS submitted on 12/29/2022; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Tao”) as evidenced by Lee et al. (Alginate: properties and biomedical applications, Prog Polym Sci. 2012 January ; 37(1): 106–126. doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.06.003).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhen teaches a microencapsulated polycarboxylate superplasticizer used in concrete applications [Claims 1-6; ¶ 0002], corresponding to the claimed microcapsule polycarboxylate superplasticizer of Claim 1. Zhen further teaches the superplasticizer is in the form of an aqueous carboxylic acid solution comprising polyether with a long-side chain [Claim 1; ¶ 0014, 0022] covered by a capsule shell [¶ 0013-0014], which corresponds to the polycarboxylic acid aqueous solution encapsulated by a closed capsule of Claim 1. Zhen also teaches that its microcapsule polycarboxylate superplasticizer can slowly release polycarboxylate molecules into concrete [¶ 0002].
However, Zhen does not specify its capsule shell as a closed capsule that is an organic/inorganic composite shell layer, wherein the shell layer is a composite shell layer made from calcium ion gel of sodium alginate or gelatin, and calcium carbonate as required by Claim 1.
Nevertheless, Tao teaches a calcium carbonate and calcium alginate composite core-shell microsphere with adjustable release rates of the encapsulated core contents [Claim 1; ¶ 0011], wherein the shell comprises a calcium alginate microsphere gel mesh [Claims 1, 5; ¶ 0032], which corresponds to the organic/inorganic composite shell layer of Claim 1. Tao teaches the shell comprises:
calcium carbonate [Claims 1-5], which corresponds with the calcium carbonate of Claim 1; and
sodium alginate [Claim 5; ¶ 0048-0049], which corresponds to the sodium alginate of Claim 1.
Lee teaches that when sodium alginate is mixed with divalent cations such as calcium ions, a gel is formed [Lee; ¶ 2], therefore the sodium alginate of Tao will be interpreted to correspond to calcium ion gel of Claim 1.
Tao offers the motivation that the shell density of the calcium carbonate/calcium alginate microspheres can be controlled to adjust their release rates in a variety of applications including chemical materials [¶ 0030-0031; 0049].
Zhen and Tao are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of preparing microspheres with a polymeric shell that solve the similar problem of controlling the release rates of the shell’s encapsulated contents over time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed particular microsphere shell taught by Tao as the capsule shell of the microencapsulated polycarboxylate superplasticizer of Zhen, with a reasonable expectation of successfully controlling the release rates of the shell contents over time.
Additionally, Zhen does not specifically mention the particular concentration of the polycarboxylic acid aqueous solution as recited in Claim 1.
Nevertheless, Zhen teaches too low a concentration of the polyether and carboxylic solution is not conducive to the formation of a two-phase aqueous system, while too high a concentration will make the system too viscous for concrete applications [¶ 0002 and 0029]. Therefore, the concentration of the solution can be optimized to reach the desired viscosity via a routine optimization. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the concentration of the polycarboxylic acid aqueous solution containing polyether and carboxylic acid for the purposes of obtaining desired viscosity levels for concrete applications as suggested by Zhen. See MPEP section 2144.05, IIB.
Regarding Claim 4, in light of Paragraph 0040 of the instant Specification, the claimed “slowly dropping” of Claim 4, Line 9 will be interpreted as including dropping at any time so long it is “within 5 hours.”
Zhen further teaches:
a method for preparing a microencapsulated polycarboxylate superplasticizer aqueous solution [Claim 1], corresponding to the claimed step (1) of preparing an aqueous solution from a polycarboxylate superplasticizer to be encapsulated;
preparing an aqueous solution by mixing the composite inorganic salt and macromolecular dispersant E [Claim 1], corresponding to the claimed step (2) of preparing an aqueous solution from a compound inorganic salt and a dispersant;
mixing the two aforementioned aqueous solutions in equal mass, shearing at high speed for half an hour, and then emulsify by ultrasonication for 15 minutes to obtain water-in-water emulsion [Claim 1; ¶ 0018], corresponding to the claimed step (3) of mixing two solutions obtained above in equal mass, conducting a high-speed shearing for half an hour, and ultrasonically emulsifying for at least 15 minutes, to obtain a water-in-water emulsion;
reacting the water-in-water emulsion for 5-10 hours to obtain the microcapsule type polycarboxylate superplasticizer [Claim 1], corresponding to the claimed step (4) of reacting the water-in-water emulsion obtained in step (3) for 2-10 hours to obtain the microcapsule type polycarboxylate superplasticizer;
2-5% mass concentration of dispersant [Claim 1], encompassed by the claimed mass concentration of the dispersant in the aqueous solution of the compound inorganic salt, i.e., 1% to 5%.
However, Zhen does not explicitly teach slowly dropping an aqueous solution of calcium salt and urea into the water-in-water emulsion, and is also silent to an amount of polycarboxylic acid is 30% to 50% of the polycarboxylic acid aqueous solution, an amount of the sodium alginate or gelatin is 2% to 10% of the polycarboxylic acid aqueous solution, an amount of urease is 0.1 to 0.3% of the polycarboxylic acid aqueous solution, an amount of the calcium salt is 0.5% to 1.5% of the water-in-water emulsion of Claim 4 and an amount of the urea is 0.25% to 1.0% of the water-in-water emulsion of Claim 4.
Regarding slowly dropping the calcium and urea salt into the emulsion, Tao teaches adding one drop every 2 seconds of a solution of sodium alginate and urease into a solution of calcium chloride and urea [Claim 6]. For the purposes of examination, adding one drop every 2 seconds will be interpreted to broadly meet the applicants’ definition of any dropping time so long as it is within 5 hours, and therefore, corresponds to the claimed step of slowly dropping. Tao further teaches adding one drop every 2 seconds allows calcium alginate microspheres to form within a few seconds [Claim 6]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to add one drop of the aqueous solution of sodium alginate and urease every 2 seconds to the water-in-water emulsion used in the method of Zhen, with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing calcium alginate microspheres.
Regarding the amount of polycarboxylic acid, while Zhen does not explicitly teach an amount of polycarboxylic acid, Zhen suggests optimizing concentration of polycarboxylic acid [¶ 0029] such that the microcapsule-type polycarboxylate superplasticizer can slowly release polycarboxylate molecules from inside the microcapsule [¶ 0002]. Therefore, the concentration of the polycarboxylic acid can be optimized to reach the desired viscosity via a routine optimization. See MPEP section 2144.05, IIB. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the concentration of the polycarboxylic acid for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding the amounts of sodium alginate and urease in the polycarboxylic acid aqueous solution, since Zhen does not explicitly teach an amount of polycarboxylic acid, Zhen in view of Tao cannot teach amounts of sodium alginate and urease with respect to polycarboxylic acid. However, Tao teaches the sodium alginate and urease are used in a ratio of 0.01-0.10 g sodium alginate [Claim 6] to 0.002-0.050 g urease [Claim 6], which is equivalent to 20-5000 wt. % (
m
i
n
.
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
s
o
d
i
u
m
a
l
g
i
n
a
t
e
t
o
u
r
e
a
s
e
=
0.01
0.05
=
20
%
;
m
a
x
.
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
s
o
d
i
u
m
a
l
g
i
n
a
t
e
t
o
u
r
e
a
s
e
=
0.10
0.002
=
5000
%
), which corresponds to the ratio of sodium alginate to urease of (2%-10%): (0.1%-0.3%) of Claim 4, which is equivalent to 670-10000 wt. % (
m
i
n
.
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
s
o
d
i
u
m
a
l
g
i
n
a
t
e
t
o
u
r
e
a
s
e
=
2
0.3
=
670
%
;
m
a
x
.
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
s
o
d
i
u
m
a
l
g
i
n
a
t
e
t
o
u
r
e
a
s
e
=
10
0.1
=
10000
%
).
Regarding the amount of calcium salt, Tao teaches 0.1-0.5 g of calcium chloride in 5-10 mL of a PEG solution, which is equivalent to 1-10 wt. % (
m
i
n
.
C
a
C
l
2
=
0.1
g
10
m
L
=
1
%
;
m
a
x
.
C
a
C
l
2
=
0.5
g
5
m
L
=
10
%
), which overlaps with an amount of the calcium salt is 0.5% to 1.5% of the water-in-water emulsion of Claim 4.
Regarding the amount of urea, Tao teaches 0.1-0.5 g of urea in 5-10 mL of a PEG solution, which is equivalent to 1-10 wt. % (
m
i
n
.
u
r
e
a
=
0.1
g
10
m
L
=
1
%
;
m
a
x
.
u
r
e
a
=
0.5
g
5
m
L
=
10
%
), which overlaps with an amount of the urea is 0.25% to 1.0% of the water-in-water emulsion of Claim 4.
Tao offers the motivation that the release rates of the calcium carbonate/calcium alginate microspheres can be modified by adjusting the shell density, urease and calcium carbonate concentration for use in a variety of applications including chemical materials [¶ 0030-0031; 0049].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optimum or workable amounts of sodium alginate, calcium chloride, urease, and urea to prepare the claimed microencapsulated polycarboxylate superplasticizer useful for controlled release applications as suggested by Zhen and Tao. See MPEP section 2144.05, IIB.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Tao for the amount of calcium chloride and urea (1-10%, and 1-10%, respectively) overlaps the instantly claimed ranges (0.5-1.5%, and 0.25-1%, respectively) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhen et al. (CN 111333789 A; cited in the IDS submitted on 09/18/2024; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Zhen”) and Tao et al. (CN 107789332A; cited in the IDS submitted on 12/29/2022; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Tao”) as applied to Claim 1 above, as evidenced by Qu et al. (Aqueous Two-Phase Droplet-Templated Colloidosomes Composed of Self-Formed Particles via Spatial Confined Biomineralization. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces (2019) 11 (39): 35613–35621).
Zhen and Tao teach the microencapsulated polycarboxylate superplasticizer, polycarboxylic acid, and shell layer made from calcium ion gel of sodium alginate and calcium carbonate of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
For the purpose of examination, “diffusion-interface reaction” recited in present Claims 2 and 3 will be interpreted to mean an interfacial reaction of an aqueous two-phase, and the aqueous two-phase comprises a polycarboxylate superplasticizer molecular aqueous solution phase and an inorganic salt aqueous solution phase, which aligns with the definition provided in the instant Specification [US PG PUB 2023/0287212; ¶ 0015].
Regarding Claim 2, Zhen further teaches:
calcium carbonate [¶ 0010], corresponding to the calcium salt; and
reaction of polycarboxylic acid superplasticizer phase with an inorganic salt solution phase to form a shell coating the polycarboxylic acid plasticizer [¶ 0034], and thereby corresponds to the composite shell layer is obtained by means of a diffusion-interface reaction.
However, Zhen does not explicitly teach urea under catalysis of urease of Claim 2.
Nevertheless, Tao teaches the microspheres comprise:
urea [Claims 5-6], corresponding to the urea of Claim 2;
urease [Claims 4-6], corresponding to the urease of Claim 2;
calcium chloride [Claim 5], corresponding to the calcium salt of Claim 2;
sodium alginate [Claims 5-6], corresponding to the sodium alginate of Claim 2;
wherein the microspheres are formed using an aqueous two-phase droplet template method comprising urea, urease, calcium chloride, and sodium alginate [Claim 5].
For the purposes of examination, the presence of urea and urease together will be interpreted to result in the catalysis of urea by urease, thereby reading on urea under catalysis of urease of Claim 2.
Qu teaches the aqueous two-phase droplet method of Tao forms calcium-alginate microsphere shells at the alginate emulsion interface with calcium carbonate [Abstract]. Urea that has been catalyzed by urease forms ammonium carbonate that reacts with calcium ions to generate calcium carbonate that result in a calcium-alginate shell [Qu; Results and Discussion Section]. Since the aqueous two-phase droplet method of Tao, as defined by Qu, is similar to the diffusion-interface reaction disclosed in the instant claims and Specification [instant Specification; ¶ 0015], the aqueous two-phase droplet method of Tao will be interpreted to read on the diffusion-interface reaction of Claim 2.
Regarding the ratios of Claim 2, Tao further teaches the sodium alginate and urease are used in a ratio of 0.01-0.10 g sodium alginate [Claim 6] to 0.002-0.050 g urease [Claim 6] (which is equivalent to 20-5000 wt. %) which corresponds to the ratio of sodium alginate to urease of (2-10): (0.1-0.3) (which is equivalent to 670-10000 wt. %) of Claim 2.
Moreover, while Zhen does not explicitly teach an amount of polycarboxylic acid, Zhen suggests optimizing concentration of polycarboxylic acid [¶ 0029] such that the microcapsule-type polycarboxylate superplasticizer can slowly release polycarboxylate molecules from inside the microcapsule into the concrete [¶ 0002].
Tao also offers the motivation that by adjusting the urease concentration, different release rates of the microsphere contents can be obtained [Claim 4; ¶ 0016].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optimum or workable amounts of the polycarboxylic acid, sodium alginate or gelatin and the urease, corresponding to the claimed ratio, for the purposes of obtaining the claimed polycarboxylate superplasticizer suitable for chemical applications required controlled release rates as suggested by Zhen and Tao. See also MPEP section 2144.05, IIB.
Regarding Claim 3, paragraph [0019] of the instant Specification discloses the polycarboxylate superplasticizer's molecular structure will form an aqueous two phase system in which the aqueous solution of superplasticizer molecules and inorganic salt solutions are insoluble to each other. In light of this disclosure, "molecular aqueous solution" of Claim 3 will be interpreted to be an aqueous solution that has two phases that are insoluble/immiscible to each other.
Consistent with this interpretation, Zhen teaches an immiscible two-phase aqueous system comprising an inorganic salt aqueous phase and the polyether aqueous solution phase [¶ 0013-0014], corresponding to the aqueous two-phase comprises a polycarboxylate superplasticizer molecular aqueous solution phase and an inorganic salt aqueous solution phase. Zhen also teaches 30-40% mass concentration of ammonium sulfate in the aqueous inorganic salt aqueous solution [Claim 1], which overlaps with the claimed 25-35% mass concentration ammonium sulfate in the inorganic salt aqueous solution; and 3-5% mass concentration of sodium chloride in the aqueous inorganic salt aqueous solution [Claim 1], inclusive of the claimed 3-6% mass concentration of sodium chloride in the inorganic salt aqueous solution. Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under Zhen in view of Soens have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhen in view of Tao.
Applicant argues (1) that the capsule shell of Zhen is formed by cross-linking of a sulfonate monomer, an unsaturated carboxylic acid, and a cross-linked monomer, while the shell layer recited in claim 1 is an organic/inorganic composite shell layer, which is a composite shell layer made from calcium ion gel of sodium alginate or gelatin, and calcium carbonate – and thus, the capsule shell of Zhen is clearly different from that of amended Claim 1. However, Zhen is not relied upon to teach the claimed closed capsule shell, Tao is. Tao also teaches that the shell density of the calcium carbonate/calcium alginate microspheres can be controlled to adjust their release rates in a variety of applications including chemical materials [¶ 0030-0031; 0049] which would motivate one of ordinary skill to use the capsule shell of Tao to modify the microcapsule of Zhen. 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). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (2) that the liquid core of Soens is a non-aqueous, water-immiscible liquid, while the liquid core of Zhen comprises an aqueous solution, (3) that the microcapsule of Zhen is used during the concrete mixing while the microcapsules of Soens is used after the concrete has been cured, (4) that since urease is absent during the preparation of the microcapsule shell of Soens, the organic/inorganic composite shell layer would not be formed, and (5) those skilled in the art have no motivation to modify Zhen with Soens. However, Soens is no longer relied upon to teach the shell comprising calcium ion gel of sodium alginate or gelatin. Thus, applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues (6) that Hu, Yang, and Li fail to describe or teach the claimed technical features. However, Hu, Yang, and Li are no longer relied upon to teach the claimed invention. Thus, applicant’s argument is moot.
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 DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
