DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The Applicants submitted a response with declaration on 6/12/2026 in response to the final action mailed on 2/12/2026. The declaration has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. Claim 13 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0231658 A1) to Lei et al. (hereinafter Lei).
The above noted rejection is maintained.
Declaration Under 132
5. The Applicant Benjamin Rost, named inventor of the present invention, has submitted a declaration signed May 29, 2025 directed toward claim 13 of the present application. Mr. Rost attests that the invention is non-obvious in view of the evidence provided in the Examples of the specification over the rejection of (US 2019/0231658) to Lei et al. Mr. Rost attests that the prior art used a high amount of polyisocyanates providing high stability, but preventing the ready release of the core encapsulant. Mr. Rost attests that the microcapsules of the instant inventions no longer act as the main material, but serves exclusively as crosslinkers of the other capsule materials. Lei discloses at paragraph [0009] that “the microcapsule wall can be formed of an encapsulating polymer selected from the group consisting of a polyacrylate, polyurea, polyurethane, polyacrylamide, polyester, polyether, polyamide, poly(acrylate-co-acrylamide), starch, silica, gelatin and gum Arabic, alginate, chitosan, polylactide, poly(melamine-formaldehyde), poly(urea-formaldehyde), and combinations thereof. Lei discloses at paragraph [0012] that the polyfunctional amine is guanidine, arginine, lysine, ornithine, histidine. Lei discloses at paragraph [0023] that the colloid of charged clay acts as a shell stabilizer. Lei discloses at paragraph [0067] that the polyfunctional alcohol of glycerol is reacted with the shell, which is a hydroxyl donor group. Lei discloses each and every element for use in a shell containing a fragrance. The declaration of Mr. Rost is persuasive for previously indicated claim 14, but claim 13, which according to proper claim interpretation, does not require a specific order of reaction, which is required in dependent claim 14. Furthermore the alleged unexpected results would not be present in claim 13 as they are not present in any limitations. The Office takes the position that claim 13 is obvious in view of Lei and the declaration is directed toward limitations present in claim 14. The declaration is therefore not persuasive to overcome the obviousness rejection of claim 13.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office takes the position that no order is required in claim 13 because it is added to claim 14. Lei teaches all the claimed reaction components and therefore would be prime facie obvious. Applicants discuss many portions of the specification, which are not part of claim 13, and limitations of the specification can not be read into the claims. Applicants assert that the features and reaction ratios not present in claim 13. Therefore the Office takes the position that claim 13 is NOT commensurate in scope with the 132 declaration arguments NOR the unexpected results, which appears to be dependent on ratios of the components. Therefore the rejection of claim 13 is maintained. Office suggests adding additional limitations directed toward the components that give the unexpected results to overcome Lei.
Conclusion
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the order of shell polymerization layers claimed.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights