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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. No IDS filed.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-10 and 21 in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “and the like” renders the claim indefinite, which should be removed from the claim. It is improper to have a closed group open to equivalents not present in the claim, which causes confusion of what is “like” and therefore claimed range is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US 2022/0105487 A1) to Strobel et al. (hereinafter Strobel).
Strobel is directed toward the spray drying encapsulation of oil based cargos. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0005] that the field is directed toward use of cross-linked alginate microcapsules. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0014] that hydrophobically functionalized starch is included in the formulations to increase shelf life of unsaturated fats. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0016] that calcium is used to crosslink the polymer. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0019] that OSA-starch (or other hydrophobically-modified starch is good at extending shelf life. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0035] that a hydrophilic polymer of n-octenyl succinic anhydride modified starch is added to the starch mixture to form the microcapsule, which reads on Applicants structure I, II or III, having at least one group of structure Ia attached as an R group. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0049] that the structure was in a 1:1 ratio with divalent calcium ions. Strobel discloses each and every element as arranged in claims 1-6 and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2022/0105487 A1) to Strobel et al. (hereinafter Strobel) in view of the teachings of Luz et al, Synthesis and Characterization of octenyl succinic anhydride modified starches for food Applications. A review of recent literature. Food Hydrocolloids 80 (2018) 97-100 (hereinafter Luz).
Strobel is directed toward the spray drying encapsulation of oil based cargos. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0005] that the field is directed toward use of cross-linked alginate microcapsules. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0014] that hydrophobically functionalized starch is included in the formulations to increase shelf life of unsaturated fats. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0016] that calcium is used to crosslink the polymer. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0019] that OSA-starch (or other hydrophobically-modified starch is good at extending shelf life. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0035] that a hydrophilic polymer of n-octenyl succinic anhydride modified starch is added to the starch mixture to form the microcapsule, which reads on Applicants structure I, II or III, having at least one group of structure Ia attached as an R group. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0049] that the structure was in a 1:1 ratio with divalent calcium ions. Strobel discloses the amphiphilic polymer, but is silent regarding the level of OSA substitution of the starch.
Luz is directed toward OSA modified starches that are used in microencapsulation. Strobel and Luz are both directed toward OSA modified starches that are used in microencapsulation and therefore are analogous art. Luz teaches at page 99 in Fig 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
231
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Luz teaches at page 108 that OS starch can be used as an encapsulate have a degree of substitution of up to 1.5, which reads on Applicants 0.2-1.5. One skilled in the art would be motivated to use the teachings of Luz a review of the state of the art for encapsulation using the degree of substitution that was indicated to have desirable properties for encapsulation.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Strobel in view of the teachings of Luz form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 10 and 21.
14. Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2022/0105487 A1) to Strobel et al. (hereinafter Strobel) in view of the teachings of (US 2022/0211092 A1) to Arafat Arafat (hereinafter Arafat).
Strobel is directed toward the spray drying encapsulation of oil based cargos. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0005] that the field is directed toward use of cross-linked alginate microcapsules. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0014] that hydrophobically functionalized starch is included in the formulations to increase shelf life of unsaturated fats. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0016] that calcium is used to crosslink the polymer. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0019] that OSA-starch (or other hydrophobically-modified starch is good at extending shelf life. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0035] that a hydrophilic polymer of n-octenyl succinic anhydride modified starch is added to the starch mixture to form the microcapsule, which reads on Applicants structure I, II or III, having at least one group of structure Ia attached as an R group. Strobel discloses at paragraph [0049] that the structure was in a 1:1 ratio with divalent calcium ions. Strobel discloses the amphiphilic polymer, but is silent regarding the specific types of oils encapsulated.
Arafat is directed toward OSA modified starches that are used in microencapsulation of oils. Strobel and Luz are both directed toward OSA modified starches that are used in microencapsulation and therefore are analogous art. One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Strobel to use embodiments of Arafat that teaches desirable commercial embodiments for cargo encapsulate by OSA modified starches. Arafat teaches at paragraph [0031] that alginate beads encapsulates an oil. Arafat teaches at paragraph [0083] that the oil may be a fragrance oil. Arafat teaches at paragraph [0035] that the shell to oil ratio is up to 1:5, which reads on Applicants range of 1:1 to 1:5.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Strobel in view of the teachings of Arafat form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 3-9.
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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