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. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/IB2021/056420 filed 07/15/2021. PCT/IB2021/056420 has PRO of 63051997 filed 07/15/2020. However, at least the subject matters of a polymer or a crosslinked polymer of a poly-β-amino-ester or a poly-β- thio -ester or their copolymers or terpolymers or mixtures thereof” as recited in independent claim 1 are not present in the provisional application of 63051997 . Accordingly, claim 1 and all claims ( claims 2-94) dependent directly or indirectly therefrom will not receive priority filing benefit of provisional application of 63051997 . Accordingly, claims 1-94 are afforded the effective filing date of 07/15/2021 . Information Disclosure Statement The i nformation disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2023 and 09/09/202 5 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing of this office action. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-41, drawn to a microcapsule, in the reply filed on 09/09/2025 is acknowledged. In addition, Applicant’s election without traverse of species “a poly-β-amino-ester or a poly-β- thio -ester, ” in the reply filed on 09/09/2025 is also acknowledged. Applicant indicated that all claims 1-41 read on the elected species. However, the Examiner disagrees. Claims 2-10 are drawn to aliphatic polyester and thus, do not read on the elected species of “a poly-β-amino-ester or a poly-β- thio -ester.” In addition, claims 14, 18, 24, and 26 are drawn to copolymers of β-amino-ester and β- thio -ester and thus, do not read on the elected species of “a poly-β-amino-ester or a poly-β- thio -ester.” It is noted that only claims 1, 11-13, 15-17, 19-23, 25, and 27-41 read on the elected species. Applicant is noted that two (2) telephone calls were made on 12/08/2025 and 12/10/2025, as well as, two (2) voicemail s were left for Applicant’s representative, Nathalie Tietcheu , to inquire a telephone conservation to discuss the issue above regarding the claims that were indicated by Applicant as readable on the elected species. However, Ms. Tietcheu failed to return the Examiner’s inquiry. Accordingly, for the reason above, claims 2-10, 14, 18, 24, and 26 do not read on the elected species of “a poly-β-amino-ester or a poly-β- thio -ester,” and thereby, are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected species. As a result, c laim s 2-10, 14, 18, 24, 26, and 42-94 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/group , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/09/2025 . Status of the Claims Claims 1- 94 are pending in this instant application, of which claim s 2-10, 14, 18, 24, 26, and 42-94 are withdrawn at this time as being drawn to non-elected species/group . Claims 1, 11-13, 15-17, 19-23, 25, and 27-41 are examined herein on the merits for patentability. Drawings The drawings filed 01/11/2023 are objected to because it is noted that brief descriptions that are presented in the Drawings for all the Figures (FIG(s). 1-18 are not permissible . Brief descriptions of the Drawings should be in the Specification, which are already presented in the originally filed Specification, on pages 7-8. Please remove the brief descriptions for all the Figures in the Drawings. Furthermore, the labels for the x and y axis in FIG.17 are not legible. Please provide a legible FIG. 17. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language clarity, please amend “a polymer or a crosslinked polymer of an aliphatic polyester or a poly-β-amino-ester or a poly-β- thio -ester or their co-polymers or terpolymers or mixtures thereof” to “a polymer or a crosslinked polymer of an aliphatic polyester, a poly-β-amino-ester, a poly-β- thio -ester, co-polymers thereof, terpolymers thereof, or mixtures thereof . ” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of the acceptor is selected from the group consisting of …” followed by multiple “or,” is an improper Markush language. When materials recited in a claim are so related as to constitute a proper Markush groups, they may be recited in the conventional manner, or alternatively. For example, if “wherein R is a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D” is a proper limitation, then “wherein R is A, B, C or D” shall also be considered proper. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “ the lipophilic core is selected from the group comprising … and combinations thereof” is an improper Markush language. See above for proper Markush language . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: please remove the “s” in “compositions” in line 2 of claim 29. Also, the recitation of “a consumer care compositions selected from the group comprising …and cleaning composition” is an improper Markush language. See above for proper Markush language . Appropriate correction s are required. Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of the formulation is selected from the group consisting of …hair or skin protectant ... dishwashing washing fluid or tablet, washing powder or tablet, and cosmetic formulation ” is an improper Markush language due to the multiple recitation of “or” followed by “and” . See above for proper Markush language. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: for language clarity purpose, please amend “the double layered or multilayered or an overcoated microcapsule also comprises a hydrogel or a crosslinked alginate” to “the double layered microcapsule, the multilayered microcapsule, or the overcoated microcapsule comprises a hydrogel or a crosslinked alginate” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 16-17 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 16, the recitation of “wherein the amine comprises” renders claim 16 indefinite because it appeared that said recitation is an incomplete limitation, and thus, the metes and bounds of “wherein the amine comprises” is unclear. Clarification by amendment in claim 16 is required. Regarding claim 17, the limitation of “the difunctional amine or multi - functional amine” renders claim 17 indefinite because t here is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 13. It is unclear what “the difunctional amine or multi-functional amine” is claim 17 referencing to because claim 13 does not recite anything pertaining to “difunctional amine” or “multifunctional amine.” Clarification by amendment in claim 17 is required. Regarding claim 37, the limitation of “the formulation” renders claim 37 indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 35. It is unclear what “the formulation” is claim 37 referencing to because claim 35 recites two type of formulations “a water-based formulation” and “a solvent-based formulation”. Clarification by amendment in claim 37 is required. Regarding claim 38, the limitation of “the formulation” renders claim 38 indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 35. It is unclear what “the formulation” claim 38 is referencing to because claim 35 recites two type of formulations “a water-based formulation” and “a solvent-based formulation”. Clarification by amendment in claim 38 is required. As a result, claims 16-17 and 37-38 do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of patent protection desired. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 11-13, 15-17, 19-22, 25, 27-39 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ortais et al (US 2020/0360889 A1). Regarding claim 1, Ortais teaches biodegradable microcapsules containing an oil core and a shell wall comprising poly( beta-amino ester) ( Abstract; [0015]-[0104]; Examples 1-18; claims 1-21 ). Ortais teaches the biodegradable microcapsules are storage stable ( [0020], [0022], [0064], [0109] ). Regarding claims 11-13, Ortais teaches the poly( beta-amino ester) is formed by Michael addition (conjugate addition) reaction between a multi-acrylate (a donor) and an amine (an acceptor) ( Abstract; [0015]-[0104]; Examples 1-18; claims 1-21 ). Ortais teaches the muti-acrylate is selected from the group consisting of diacrylates, triacrylates , and mixtures thereof ( [0034] -[ 0037]; claims 3, 10, and 11) . Ortais teaches diamines, tetraethylene pentamine , and polyethyleneimine as suitable amines ( [0039] -[ 0048], [0078]-[0082]; claims 5, 12, and 13 ). Regarding claims 15-17, Ortais teaches diamines such as piperazine , tetraethylene pentamine , and polyethyleneimine as suitable amines ([0039] -[ 0048], [0078]-[0082]; claims 5, 12, and 13). Regarding claim 19, as discussed above, Ortais teaches the poly( beta-amino ester) is formed by Michael addition (conjugate addition) reaction between a multi-acrylate (a donor) and an amine (an acceptor), thereby is a crosslinked polymer. Regarding claims 20-22, Ortais teaches the multi-acrylate is diacrylate, triacrylate such as trimethylol propane triacrylate , tetracrylate , pentacrylate , hexaacrylate and mixtures thereof ([0034] -[ 0037]; claims 3, 10, and 11) . Regarding claim 25, as discussed above, Ortais teaches the multi-acrylate is a diacrylate. Regarding claims 27 and 28, Ortais teaches the oil core contains an active substance selected from the group consisting of essential oils and fragrances; inks, paints, thermochromic and/or photochromic substances, dyes, and glues, biocidal effect products, fungicidal effect products, antiviral effect products, phytosanitary effect products, cosmetic effect products, pharmaceutical active ingredients; and natural and edible oils, vegetable and edible oils, liquid alkanes, esters and fatty acids ( [0088]; claim 8 ). Regarding claims 29 and 30, it is noted that the limitation of “t he microcapsule is used in a consumer care compositions selected from the group comprising laundry care compositions, oral care compositions, hair care compositions, skin care compositions, cosmetic care compositions, home care and cleaning compositions ” as recited in claim 29 and “t he microcapsule is used in a fabric conditioner composition or a laundry detergent composition ” as recited in claim 30 are recitations of intended use. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is further noted that Ortais teaches the microcapsule is useful in cosmetic formulations ( [0012] and [0088] ). As discussed above, Ortais teaches structural the same microcapsule of claim 1 and thus, the microcapsule of Ortais is capable of performing the intended uses as recited in claims 29 and 30. Regarding claims 31 and 32, Ortais teaches the microcapsule is biodegradable ( [0015] -[ 0022] and [0103]-[0104]; Examples 1-18; claims 18-21 ). Regarding claim 33, Ortais teaches the microcapsule shows a biodegradation of at least 90%, measured by a manometric respirometry test, according to the method 301 F of the “OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals: Ready Biodegradability” after an incubation of 28 days ([0015] -[ 0022] and [0103]-[0104]; Examples 1-18; claims 18-21) . Regarding claim 34, as discussed above, Ortais teaches the microcapsule shows a biodegradation of at least 90%, measured by a manometric respirometry test, according to the method 301 F of the “OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals: Ready Biodegradability” after an incubation of 28 days . Regarding claim 35, Ortais teaches the microcapsule is stable in a medium at neutral pH ( [0020] ). It is noted that " [p] roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Regarding claims 36-38, Ortais teaches the microcapsule is storage stable in cosmetic formulations ([0012], [0020], [0022], [0064], [0088], [0109]) . It is noted that " [p] roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Regarding claim 39, Ortais teaches the microcapsule further contains a coating deposited onto the surface of the microcapsule ( [0052] -[ 0053], [0093]; claim 17 ). Regarding claim 41, Ortais teaches the microcapsule has an average diameter of about 100 nm to 100 µm, preferably between 1 μm and 50 μm , and even more preferably between 10 μm and 40 μm ( [0101]; claim 16 ). As a result, the aforementioned teachings from Ortais are anticipatory to claims 1, 11-13, 15-17, 19-22, 25, 27-39 and 41 of the instant invention. Claim(s) 1, 11-13, 19-23, 27-3 8 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abedin ( "Effect of process mixing on the size distribution and mean diameter of the thioltriacrylate microcapsules" (2014). LSU Master's Theses . 3767 ) , and as evidenced by Wang et al ( Material Horizons , 2014, 1: 535-539). Regarding claim 1, Abedin teaches microcapsules formed from Michael addition reaction between trithiol and triacrylate to form thiol- triacrylate (poly-β- thio -ester) microcapsules ( Abstract; pages 21-31 ). Abedin teaches the microcapsules contain an oil core ( pages 5-8 and 21-31 ). As evidenced by Wang, the microcapsules formed from Michael addition reaction between trithiol and triacrylate to form thiol- triacrylate (poly-β- thio -ester) are known to be stable and biodegradable ( Wang: pages 535-530 ). Regarding claims 11-13, as discussed above, Abedin teaches microcapsules formed from Michael addition reaction between trithiol (donor) and triacrylate (acceptor) to form thiol- triacrylate (poly-β- thio -ester) microcapsules ( Abstract; pages 21-31 ). Regarding claim s 19-23, as discussed above, Abedin teaches microcapsules formed from Michael addition reaction between trithiol and triacrylate to form thiol- triacrylate (poly-β- thio -ester) microcapsules. Abedin teaches the triacrylate is trimethylolpropane triacrylate ( pages 21-31 ). Regarding claims 27 and 28, Abedin teaches the oil core contains an active ingredient selected from vitamin, fats and oils, aroma compounds, pesticides, essential oils, and perfumes ( pages 5-8 and 21-31 ). Regarding claims 29 and 30, it is noted that the limitation of “t he microcapsule is used in a consumer care compositions selected from the group comprising laundry care compositions, oral care compositions, hair care compositions, skin care compositions, cosmetic care compositions, home care and cleaning compositions ” as recited in claim 29 and “t he microcapsule is used in a fabric conditioner composition or a laundry detergent composition ” as recited in claim 30 are recitations of intended use. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is further noted that Abedin teaches the microcapsule is useful in cosmetic formulations ( Abstract; page 5 ). As discussed above, Abedin teaches structural the same microcapsule of claim 1 and thus, the microcapsule of Abedin is capable of performing the intended uses as recited in claims 29 and 30. Regarding claims 31-34, as discussed above, as evidenced by Wang, the microcapsules formed from Michael addition reaction between trithiol and triacrylate to form thiol- triacrylate (poly-β- thio -ester) are known to be stable and biodegradable ( Wang: pages 535-530 ). As discussed above, Abedin teaches structural the same microcapsule of claim 1 ( see page 12 of this office action ), and thus, the biodegradation properties as recited in claims 31-34 are inherent to the structurally same microcapsule of Abedin. It is noted that " [p] roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Regarding claims 35-38, as discussed above, as evidenced by Wang, the microcapsules formed from Michael addition reaction between trithiol and triacrylate to form thiol- triacrylate (poly-β- thio -ester) are known to be stable and biodegradable ( Wang: pages 535-530 ). As discussed above, Abedin teaches structural the same microcapsule of claim 1 ( see page 12 of this office action ), and thus, the stability properties as recited in claims 35-38 are inherent to the structurally same microcapsule of Abedin. It is noted that " [p] roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Regarding claim 41, Abedin teaches the microcapsules have a particle size from 57 microns to 70 microns ( page 31 ). As a result, the aforementioned teachings from Abedin (and as evidenced by Wang) are anticipatory to claims 1, 11-13, 19-23, 27-38 and 41 of the instant invention. 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. 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 . Claim(s) 1, 11-13, 15-17, 19-22, 25, and 27-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortais et al (US 2020/0360889 A1), and further in view of Mistry et al (US 2013/0302392 A1). The microcapsule of claims 1, 11-13, 15-17, 19-22, 25, 27-39 and 41 are discussed above from Ortais , said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety. Regarding claim 40, Mistry teaches a polymeric microcapsule coated with a cationic hydrogel to improve the deposition of the polymeric microcapsule onto different substrates such as skin, hair, and textiles ( Abstract; [0027] -[ 0083], [0104]-[0112] and [0121]-[0123] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a hydrogel coating on the microcapsule of Ortais , and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Mistry provided the guidance to do by teaching that a cationic hydrogel coating can be applied on polymeric microcapsules so to improve deposition of the polymeric microcapsule onto different substrates such as skin, hair, and textiles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success because Ortais and Mistry are commonly drawn to using the polymeric microcapsules in cosmetic formulations ( Ortais : ([0012] and [0088]; Mistry: Abstract; [0082] and [0104] ), and Ortais indicated that a coating can be further applied on the microcapsules ( Ortais : [0052] -[ 0053], [0093]; claim 17 ). Thus, an ordinary artisan would have looked to modifying the microcapsule of Ortais with a hydrogel coating so as to improve deposition of the microcapsules on substrate such as skin to which the cosmetic formulation are applied, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Claim(s) 1, 11-13, 19-23, 25, 27-38 and 41 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedin ( "Effect of process mixing on the size distribution and mean diameter of the thioltriacrylate microcapsules" (2014). LSU Master's Theses . 3767 ) and as evidenced by Wang et al (citation supra), and further in view of Wang et al ( Material Horizons , 2014, 1: 535-539). The microcapsule of claims 1, 11-13, 19-23, 27-38 and 41 are discussed above from Abedin (and as evidenced by Wang), said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety. Regarding claim 25, Wang teaches microcapsules formed from Michael addition reaction between multi-thiol and multi-acrylate to form thiol-acrylate (poly-β- thio -ester) microcapsules ( pages 535-530 ). Wang teaches suitable multi-acrylates include diacrylate and triacrylate ( pages 536-537 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the triacrylate with diacrylate as the acrylate component in the formation of the thiol-acrylate ( poly-β- thio -ester) microcapsule s of Abedin, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wang provided the guidance to do so by teaching that aside from triacrylates , diac rylates are also suitable acrylates for use in the Michael addition reaction with thiol to form the thiol-acrylate microcapsules . Thus, an ordinary artisan would have looked to other known acrylates including diacrylates as guided by Wang and use said diacrylate as the acrylate in the Michael addition reaction with thiol and achieve Applicant’s claimed poly-β- thio -ester microcapsule with reasonable expectation of success. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Claim(s) 1, 11-13, 19-23, and 27-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedin ( "Effect of process mixing on the size distribution and mean diameter of the thioltriacrylate microcapsules" (2014). LSU Master's Theses . 3767 ) and as evidenced by Wang et al (citation supra) , and further in view of Mistry et al (US 2013/0302392 A1) . The microcapsule of claims 1, 11-13, 19-23, 27-38 and 41 are discussed above from Abedin (and as evidenced by Wang), said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety. Regarding claims 39 and 40, Mistry teaches a polymeric microcapsule coated with a cationic hydrogel to improve the deposition of the polymeric microcapsule onto different substrates such as skin, hair, and textiles ( Abstract; [0027] -[ 0083], [0104]-[0112] and [0121]-[0123] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a hydrogel coating on the microcapsule of Abedin, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Mistry provided the guidance to do by teaching that a cationic hydrogel coating can be applied on polymeric microcapsules so to improve deposition of the polymeric microcapsule onto different substrates such as skin, hair, and textiles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success because Abedin and Mistry are commonly drawn to using the polymeric microcapsules in cosmetic formulations ( Abedin: Abstract; page 5; Mistry: Abstract; [0082] and [0104 ] ) . Thus, an ordinary artisan would have looked to modifying the microcapsule of Abedin with a hydrogel coating so as to improve deposition of the microcapsules on substrate such as skin to which the cosmetic formulation are applied, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1, 11-13, 15-17, 19-23, 25, and 27-41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-86 of copending Application No. 18729490 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in copending application ‘ 490 significantly overlap with the subject matter of the instant claims i.e., a microcapsule comprising a polymeric microcapsule shell; and a lipophilic core, wherein the polymeric microcapsule shell comprises a poly- β -amino-ester polymer, a co-polymer of poly- β -amino-ester, a terpolymer of poly- β -amino-ester, a crosslinked polymer of poly- β -amino-ester, or mixtures thereof , and wherein the microcapsule is storage stable and biodegradable. Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instant claimed subject matter over copending Application No. 18729490 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection . Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DOAN THI-THUC PHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3288 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8-5 EST Monday-Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Brian Kwon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0581 . 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. /DOAN T PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613