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/US2021/059869 filed 11/18/2021.
This application also has PRO of 63116122 filed 11/19/2020.
Accordingly, claims 1-28 of this instant application are afforded the effective filing date of 11/19/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The first information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2024 has been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing of this office action.
The second information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2024 is not considered by the examiner because the second IDS filed on 03/04/2024 is a duplicate of the first IDS filed on 03/04/2024. A copy of the strike-through second IDS is included with the mailing of this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following species:
1. The partitioning modifier is isopropyl myristate
2. The water soluble polysaccharide comprising at least one amine group
is chitosan
3. The multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and/or oligomer is a
hexafunctional aromatic urethane acrylate
4. The mono- and/or di-functional monomer and/or oligomer is
tertiarybutyl aminoethyl methacrylate
5. The water soluble thermal free radical initial is potassium persulfate
6. The oil soluble thermal free radical initiator is 2,2'-azobis(2- methylbutyronitrile),
in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged.
However, upon further consideration, the Examiner hereby withdraws the election of species requirement and extends the search to all species of partitioning modifier, water soluble polysaccharide comprising at least one amine group, multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and/or oligomer, mono- and/or di-functional monomer and/or oligomer, water soluble thermal free radical initial, and oil soluble thermal free radical initiator.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-28 are pending in this instant application, and examined herein on the merits for patentability.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: please add an “and” after
PNG
media_image1.png
94
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the mono- and/or di-functional monomer and/or oligomer Markush group. Also add an “and” after “1 to 5” of the third to last line of claim 16. Appropriate corrections are 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-11, 15, 17, and 20-26 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 claims 2, 3, 5, 7-11, 15, 17, and 22-25:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a fragrance,” and the claim also recites “preferably a fragrance comprising perfume raw materials characterized by a logP of from about 2.5 to about 4.5,” which is the narrower statement of the limitation.
claim 3 recites the broad recitation “partitioning modifier is selected from the group consisting of isopropyl myristate, vegetable oil, modified vegetable oil, mono-, di-, and tri-esters of C4-C24 fatty acids, dodecanophenone, lauryl laurate, methyl behenate, methyl laurate, methyl palmitate, methyl stearate, and mixtures thereof,” and the claim also recites “preferably isopropyl myristate,” which is the narrower statement of the limitation.
claim 5 recites the broad recitation “the water soluble polysaccharide further comprises hydroxyl moieties,” and the claim also recites “preferably chitosan, chitin or mixtures thereof,” which is the narrower statement of the limitation.
claim 7 recites the broad recitation “the polymer comprising hydroxyl moieties is selected from the group consisting of pectin, carrageenan, cellulose, xanthan gum, tara gum, konjac gum, alginate, hyaluronic acid, amylose, lignin, diutan gum, gelatin, poly(vinyl alcohol) and mixtures thereof,” and the claim also recites “preferably poly(vinyl alcohol),” which is the narrower statement of the limitation.
claim 8 recites the broad recitation “the water soluble polysaccharide is at least 2%,” and the claim also recites “preferably 5%,” “preferably 5%, even more preferably 10%,” and “max 95%,” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
claim 9 recites the broad recitation “the polymer is at least 10%,” and the claim also recites “preferably 25%,” “even more preferably 50%,” and “max 93%,” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the water soluble polysaccharide and/or the polymer has a molecular weight from about 30 kDa to about 500 kDa,” and the claim also recites “preferably from about 50 kDa to about 300 kDa” and “even more preferably from about 80 kDa to about 200 kDa,” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
claim 11 recites the broad recitation “biodegradability above 30% CO2,” and the claim also recites “preferably above 40% CO2,” “more preferably above 50% CO2,” “even more preferably above 60% CO2,” and “maximum 100%,” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
claim 15 recites the broad recitation “the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and/or oligomer is at least 5%,” and the claim also recites “preferably 10%,”even more preferably 20%,” and “max 50%,” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
claim 16 recites the broad recitation “a, b, c and d are integers independently selected from 1 to 10,” and the claim also recites “preferably from 2 to 5,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 16 recites the broad recitation “h and i are integers independently selected from 0 to 10,” and the claim also recites “preferably from 1 to 5,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 22 recites the broad recitation “pH from about 3 to about 7,” and the claim also recites “preferably from about 4 to about 6” and “even more preferably at 4.5,” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
claim 23 recites the broad recitation “biodegradability above 30% CO2,” and the claim also recites “preferably above 40% CO2,” “more preferably above 50% CO2,” “even more preferably above 60% CO2,” “maximum 95%,”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
claim 24 recites the broad recitation “a coating material,” and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the coating material is selected from the group consisting of poly(meth)acrylate, poly(ethylene-maleic anhydride), polyamine …copolymers of polyvinyl amines, and mixtures thereof,” which is the narrower statement of the limitation.
claim 25 recites the broad recitation “a leakage of below about 50%,” and the claim also recites “preferably about 30%,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 7-11, 15, 17, and 22-25 are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11, 15, and 23, the parenthetical recitations of “(max 95%),” “(max 93%),” “(maximum 100%),” “(max 50%),” and “(max 95%)” in claims 8, 9, 11, 15, and 23, respectively, are indefinite because it is unclear if the text within the parenthesis are alternative limitations of the claims or merely descriptors of other elements of the claims. It is noted that [p]arenthetical expressions are not permissible which do not contribute to clearness or exactness in stating Applicant’s invention (Ex parte Cahill, 1893 C. D., 78; 63 O. G., 2125).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the recitation of “the polymer” (in line 2 of claims 20 and 21” renders said claim indefinite because there is lack of antecedent basis for “the polymer” in claim 1. Thus, it is not clear what “the polymer” in claims 20 and 21 referencing to, as the delivery particle of claim 1 does not contain a polymer.
Regarding claim 25, the recitation of “as determined by the Leakage Test described in TEST METHODS section” renders claim 25 indefinite because it is unclear what description in the test methods section is claim 25 referring to, as the metes and bounds of test methods section or the leakage test is not clearly defined in the claim. It is noted that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification and thus, it is also improper to incorporate by reference a description from the specification into the claim. Clarification by amendment of 25 is required.
Regarding claims 26, the recitation of “the microcapsules” renders said claim 26 indefinite because there is lack of antecedent basis for “the microcapsules” in claim 1. Thus, it is noted clear what “the microcapsules” in claim 26 referencing to, as claim 1 is not drawn to microcapsules, but rather a delivery particle. It is suggested that Applicant amend claim 26 to “An article of manufacture comprising the delivery particle according to claim 1” so as to obviate this indefinite rejection.
As a result, claims 2, 3, 5, 7-11, 15, 17, and 20-26 do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of patent protection desired.
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) 1-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuman et al (US 2020/0222873 A1) in view of CN109928975A (published date: 25 June 2019; citation and English translation via EPO) and Sharma et al (Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 2015, 7(6): 612-621).
Regarding claims 1 and 26-28, Neuman teaches a core-shell microcapsule comprising a core material surrounded by a wall material, wherein the core comprises a benefit agent and isopropyl myristate (a partitioning modifier), and wherein the wall is formed by a radical polymerization reaction between chitosan (a water soluble polysaccharide), multi-functional acrylate or methacrylate monomers or oligomers, monofunctional acrylates or difunctional (meth)acrylate esters, and free radical initiators including water soluble free radical initiators and oil soluble free radical initiators (Abstract; [0015]-[0090], [0101]-[0117]; Examples 1-13; claims 1-21). Neuman teaches the chitosan forms a bond with the multifunctional (meth)arcrylate monomer during radical polymerization, particularly the chitosan can be chemically crosslinked ([0020], [0024], [0068]). Neuman teaches a population the microcapsules encapsulating a pesticide (benefit agent—an agricultural active) ([0017]-[0025] and [0057]).
While Neuman does expressly teach a persulfate as the water soluble free radical initiators, it would have been obvious to include a persulfate as one of the free radical initiators in the formation of the microcapsule of Neuman in view of the guidance from CN109928975A.
CN109928975A teaches a polyacrylate microsphere formed from radical polymerization of meth(acrylate) monomers, copolymerizable monoethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer, crosslinkers, and free radical initiators including water soluble free radical initiators and oil soluble free radical initiators (pages 1-6; Examples 1 and 5; claims 1-16). CN109928975A teaches suitable oil soluble free radical initiators includes azo bis isobutyronitrile and suitable water soluble free radical initiators include a persulfate such as ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate or potassium persulfate (page 5, 5th paragraph; claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a persulfate such as ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate or potassium persulfate as the water soluble free radical initiators in Neuman and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because CN109928975A provided the guidance to do so by teaching that both water soluble free radical initiators and oil soluble free radical initiators are used during the formation of polyacrylate microsphere via radical polymerization in which suitable oil soluble free radical initiators includes azo bis isobutyronitrile and suitable water soluble free radical initiators include a persulfate such as ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate or potassium persulfate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in incorporating a persulfate such as ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate or potassium persulfate as the water soluble free radical initiators in Neuman because Neuman is also drawn to producing polyacrylate microparticles via radical polymerization in which Neuman also indicated that blends of initiators can be used water soluble free radical initiators and oil soluble free radical initiators (Neuman: [0075]). Thus, an ordinary artisan would looked to water soluble free radical initiators including ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate or potassium persulfate known to be used as initiators in the formation of polyacrylate microparticles via radical polymerization, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. As such, it is noted that [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
With respect to the claimed “the water soluble polysaccharide forms carbon/carbon, oxygen/carbon, and/or nitrogen/carbon bonds with the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and/or oligomer” as recited in claim 1, it is noted that per Sharma, the radical polymerization of between chitosan and (meth)acrylate monomer of Neuman using free radical initiators including potassium persulfate would form C-O bond (oxygen-carbon bond) and C-C bond (carbon-carbon bond) (Sharma: Abstract; Introduction; pages 612-620). Thus, it would have been reasonably obvious and implicit that oxygen/carbon bond(s) would be formed during radical polymerization of chitosan and (meth)acrylate monomer of Neuman when free radical initiators including potassium persulfate are used.
Regarding claim 2, Neuman teaches the benefit agent is a perfume raw material ([0022], [0085], [0090]; Examples 1-13; claim 20).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Neuman teaches the core contains isopropyl myristate.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as discussed above, Neuman teaches the wall contains chitosan.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Neuman teaches the wall further contains poly(vinyl) alcohol ([0078]-[0084]; Examples 1-13).
Regarding claim 8, Neuman teaches wall contains 5% to 14% by weight of chitosan ([0038]; Examples 1-13).
Regarding claim 9, Neuman teaches the poly(vinyl alcohol) is present in an amount of at least 75% by weight ([0078]-[0079], [0101]; Table 2; Examples 1-13).
Regarding claim 10, Neuman teaches the molecular weight of chitosan is 187 kDA ([0062]; Table 2).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, Neuman teaches the wall contains chitosan, which structurally meets the claimed water soluble polysaccharide. Thus, the biodegradability properties as recited in claim 11 would have been implicit in the structurally same water soluble polysaccharide. 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 12-14, Neuman teaches multi-functional acrylate or methacrylate monomers or oligomers is a hexafunctional aromatic urethane acrylate ([0042]-[0044]; [0101]; Table 1; Examples 1-13; claim 5).
Regarding claim 15, Neuman teaches the wall contains from 40% to 99.5% or from 0.5% to 8% by weight of the multi-functional acrylate or methacrylate monomers or oligomers ([0048], [0073]; Examples 1-13). It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results showing criticality from the claimed parameters, the optimization of weight percentage of the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and/or oligomer in the wall would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention. See MPEP §2144.05 (I)-(II).
Regarding claim 16, Neuman teaches the monofunctional acrylates or difunctional (meth)acrylate esters include tert-butylamino ethyl methacrylate ([0015], [0020], [0047], [0068], [0071]-[0072]; Examples 1-13).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above, CN109928975A provided the guidance for incorporating a persulfate such as ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate or potassium persulfate as the water soluble free radical initiators in Neuman.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Neuman teaches the oil soluble free radical initiators include 2,2′-azobis(2-methylbutyronitrile) ([0075]; Examples 1-13).
Regarding claim 20, Sharma teaches the potassium persulfate (KPS) undergo dissociation in water to give SO4- radicals which general radical sites on chitosan and acrylic acid for graft copolymerization (Sharma: pages 615-618), thereby the chitosan is fragmented by the KPS prior to forming C-O bond (oxygen-carbon bond) and C-C bond (carbon-carbon bond) with the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer.
Regarding claim 21, as discussed above, Sharma established that the radical polymerization of between chitosan and (meth)acrylate monomer of Neuman using free radical initiators including potassium persulfate forms C-C bond (carbon-carbon bond).
Regarding claim 22, Neuman teaches the microcapsule is prepared at a pH of 3.9 (Examples 1-13).
Regarding claim 23, as discussed above, chitosan is a biodegradable polysaccharide and since the structure of the polymer wall of claim 1 has been taught and rendered obvious by Neuman in view of CN109928975A and Sharma and thus, it would have been reasonably obvious that the resultant polymer wall containing chitosan of Neuman in view of CN109928975A and Sharma would have implicitly exhibited the biodegradability properties as claimed in claim 23. It is noted that [w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Regarding claim 24, Neuman teaches the microcapsule is further coated with a coating material selected from the group consisting of poly(meth)acrylate, poly(ethylene-maleic anhydride), polyamine, wax, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinylpyrrolidone co-polymers, polyvinylpyrrolidone-ethyl acrylate, polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acrylate, polyvinylpyrrolidone methylacrylate, polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acetate, polyvinyl acetal, polyvinyl butyral, polysiloxane, poly(propylene maleic anhydride), maleic anhydride derivatives, co-polymers of maleic anhydride derivatives, polyvinyl alcohol, styrene-butadiene latex, gelatin, gum Arabic, carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, other modified celluloses, sodium alginate, chitosan, casein, pectin, modified starch, polyvinyl acetal, polyvinyl butyral, polyvinyl methyl ether/maleic anhydride, polyvinyl pyrrolidone and its co polymers, poly(vinyl pyrrolidone/methacrylamidopropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride), polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate, polyvinyl pyrrolidone/dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate, polyvinyl amines, polyvinyl formamides, polyallyl amines and copolymers of polyvinyl amines, polyvinyl formamides, and polyallyl amines and mixtures thereof ([0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 25, Neuman teaches the microcapsule has high strength and low leakage ([0087]). Thus, it would have been reasonably obvious that the microcapsule of Neuman in view of CN109928975A and Sharma would have implicitly exhibited the leakage properties as claimed in claim 25. It is noted that [w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
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.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12357958 in view of Neuman et al (US 2020/0222873 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the Patent ‘958 significantly overlap with the subject matter of instant claims, i.e., compositions containing a population of delivery particles, wherein a delivery particle comprises a core and a wall encapsulating said core, wherein: the core comprises a benefit agent and a partitioning modifier; the wall is a polymer formed by a radical polymerization reaction between: a) a water-soluble polysaccharide comprising at least one amine group; b) at least one of a multifunctional (meth) acrylate monomer or oligomer; c) at least one water-soluble thermal free radical initiator; d) at least one oil soluble thermal free radical initiator; wherein at least one of the water-soluble initiators is a persulfate and the water-soluble polysaccharide forms carbon/carbon, oxygen/carbon, and/or nitrogen/carbon bonds with the multifunctional (meth) acrylate monomer and/or oligomer, and with the proviso that the polysaccharide is not an amine ester modified starch.
While the claims the Patent ‘958 are drawn to a consumer product composition containing the delivery particles, it would have been obvious to use the delivery particles of the instant claims in a consumer product composition in view of the guidance from Neuman (Abstract; [0015]-[0090], [0101]-[0117]; Examples 1-13; claims 1-21).
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instant claimed subject matter over U.S. Patent No. 12357958 in view of Neuman.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12624308.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the Patent ‘308 significantly overlap with the subject matter of instant claims, i.e., delivery particles comprising a core and a wall encapsulating said core, wherein: the core comprises a benefit agent and a partitioning modifier; the wall is formed by a radical polymerization reaction between: a) a water soluble hydroxyl containing linear carbon-chain polymer comprising 1,2-diol and/or 1,3-diol functionality such as polyvinyl alcohol; b) a multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and /or oligomer; c) a water soluble polysaccharide such as chitosan; d) optionally, a mono- and/or di-functional monomer and/or oligomer; e) at least one water soluble thermal free radical initiator; f) at least one oil soluble thermal free radical initiator; wherein at least one of the water-soluble initiators is a persulfate and the water soluble hydroxyl containing linear carbon-chain polymer forms carbon/carbon and/or oxygen/carbon bonds with the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and/or oligomer.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instant claimed subject matter over U.S. Patent No. 12624308.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19, 22, and 24-26 of copending Application No. 17529312 (reference application) in view of Neuman et al (US 2020/0222873 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the copending application ‘312 significantly overlap with the subject matter of instant claims, i.e., delivery particles comprising a core and a wall encapsulating said core, wherein: the core comprises a benefit agent and a partitioning modifier; the wall is formed by a radical polymerization reaction between: a) a water soluble hydroxyl containing linear carbon-chain polymer comprising 1,2-diol and/or 1,3-diol functionality such as polyvinyl alcohol; b) a multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and /or oligomer; c) a water soluble polysaccharide such as chitosan; d) optionally, a mono- and/or di-functional monomer and/or oligomer; e) at least one water soluble thermal free radical initiator; f) at least one oil soluble thermal free radical initiator; wherein at least one of the water-soluble initiators is a persulfate and the water soluble hydroxyl containing linear carbon-chain polymer or polysaccharide forms carbon/carbon and/or oxygen/carbon bonds with the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and/or oligomer; and wherein the wall has a biodegradability in 60 days following OECD301B test above 30% CO2.
While the claims the copending application ‘312 are drawn to a consumer product composition containing the delivery particles, it would have been obvious to use the delivery particles of the instant claims in a consumer product composition in view of the guidance from Neuman (Abstract; [0015]-[0090], [0101]-[0117]; Examples 1-13; claims 1-21).
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instant claimed subject matter over copending Application No. 17529312 in view of Neuman.
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 DOAN THI-THUC PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3288. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights