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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-26, drawn to capsules, in the reply filed on July 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
The portions of claims 1-3 and 5-26 drawn to solid particles and claims 27-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 8, 2026.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2008/0317795 A1 (herein “Traynor”) as evidenced by US 2024/0041751 A1 (herein “Thomas”).
As to claims 1 and 12-13: Traynor describes highly positively charged microcapsules (see the abstract). Traynor discloses that in order to form highly charged microcapsules, a cationic agent may be incorporated into the microcapsule or become associated with the microcapsule. The cationic agent can, for example, be a cationic surfactant, a cationic polymer, or a both a cationic surfactant and a cationic polymer. The cationic polymer, such as polyquaternium-4 can bind to the microcapsules, and/or become partially incorporated into the microcapsules, increasing the charge on the microcapsules (see ¶ [0225]). (As evidenced by Thomas, polyquaternium-4 is a cationic surfactant (see Thomas ¶ [0183])). Traynor discloses that it is believed that the presence of the cationic agent or addition of the cationic agent during formation of the capsule can result in incorporation of the cationic agent into the wall of the capsule (see ¶ [0241]). The oil phase constitutes generally spheroidal liquid particles or droplets dispersed in the continuous aqueous phase (see Traynor ¶ [0226]).
Traynor discloses an example (see Example 5 in ¶ [0305]) of making a polymeric (sol-gel) microcapsules in the presence of polyquaternium-4.
Because Traynor discloses that the oil phase constitutes generally spheroidal liquid particles or droplets dispersed in the continuous aqueous phase, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the shells of the example’s microcapsules are produced in the form of spheroidal particles and thus define a spherical space, as is presently recited. Because Traynor discloses that the cationic polymer such as polyquaternium-4 can bind to the microcapsules, and/or become partially incorporated into the microcapsules, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the polyquaternium-4 is at least partially disposed in the polymer that forms the shell of the microcapsules.
Because Traynor discloses that the microcapsules are highly charged and are made in the presence of the positively charged polyquaternium-4, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that at least a portion of an outer surface of the microcapsules are positively charged, as is presently recited.
As to claim 2: Traynor does not disclose a crosslinking agent in the cited example.
As to claim 5: The polymer of Traynor’s microcapsules (silica) is a nonhydrolyzable polymer.
As to claims 6-7 and 9: The present claims recite limitations regarding hydrolyzable polymers but do not actually require the presence of such hydrolyzable polymers. The claims are therefore anticipated by Traynor on the basis set forth above with respect to claim 5.
As to claim 11: The cited example of Traynor includes 0.03-0.5 parts of the surfactant polyquaternium-4 and 15-25 parts of TEOS, corresponding to about 0.1 to 3.3 wt% of the surfactant based on the weight of the resulting particle made from TEOS.
As to claims 15-16: The present claims recite limitations regarding anionic and nonionic surfactants but do not actually require the presence of such anionic or nonionic surfactants. The claims are therefore anticipated by Traynor on the basis set forth above with respect to claim 12.
As to claim 17: The present claims recite limitations regarding surfactant precursors but do not actually require the presence of such surfactant precursors. The claims are therefore anticipated by Traynor on the basis set forth above with respect to claim 1.
As to claim 19: As set forth above, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that at least a portion of an outer surface of the cited microcapsules of Traynor’s example are positively charged. Such a charge is necessarily either static or non-static.
As to claims 24 and 26: Traynor’s microcapsules are present in an oil-in-water emulsion, corresponding to a composition in which water is a carrier.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Traynor.
The discussion set forth above regarding Traynor with respect to claim 1 is incorporated here by reference. As set forth above, Traynor discloses particles according to base claim 1. Traynor further discloses that the zeta potential of the microcapsules may be between 10 and 70 mV, between 20 and 65 mV, between 25 and 65 mV, between 30 and 60 mV, between 30 and 100 mV, between 40 and 80 mV, between 70 and 100 mV or between 40 and 55 mV (see ¶ [0142]).
Traynor does not disclose the zeta potential of the microcapsules of the cited Example 5.
In light of Traynor’s disclosure of suitable zeta potentials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make Traynor’s microcapsules of the cited Example 5 having any zeta potential within the disclosed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made Traynor’s microcapsules of the cited Example 5 having any zeta potential within the disclosed ranges of between 10 and 70 mV.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 8, 10, 14, 18, 21-23, and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if written in independent form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights