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. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/28/2023 was filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 1/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is improper because the inventions do not lack unity. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature of the microcapsule is taught.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 16-26 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US 2010/0055281 A1) to Barrow et al. (hereinafter Barrow).
Barrow is directed toward microcapsules having a core and a shell. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0023] that the core material is an oil based material dissolved in a polyunsaturated fatty acid, which is non-aqueous and immiscible with water. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0007] that the core has one or more shells. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0031] that the shell can be a protein such as a soy combined with a chitosan and that it would be at 1:1 ratio. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0089] that any cross-linker can be used, but “when the microcapsules are to be used to deliver a biologically active substance to an organism, the cross-linkers are preferably non-toxic or of sufficiently low toxicity”, such as a tannic acid or a plant extract and not an aldehyde. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0062] that the diameter of 0.1 to 5 microns that reads on 0.1 to 20 microns. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0064] that the payload may be 20% to 90% of the capsule, which reads on 1 to 95% of active substance. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0056] that a nonionic surfactant may be used. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0031] that the shell may contain a polyphosphate. Barrow discloses each and every element as arranged in the claims of 1-6 and 8-14
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2010/0055281 A1) to Barrow et al. (hereinafter Barrow).
Barrow is directed toward microcapsules having a core and a shell. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0023] that the core material is an oil based material dissolved in a polyunsaturated fatty acid, which is non-aqueous and immiscible with water. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0007] that the core has one or more shells. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0031] that the shell can be a protein such as a soy combined with a chitosan and that it would be at 1:1 ratio. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0089] that any cross-linker can be used, but “when the microcapsules are to be used to deliver a biologically active substance to an organism, the cross-linkers are preferably non-toxic or of sufficiently low toxicity”, such as a tannic acid or a plant extract and not an aldehyde. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0062] that the diameter of 0.1 to 5 microns that reads on 0.1 to 20 microns. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0064] that the payload may be 20% to 90% of the capsule, which reads on 1 to 95% of active substance. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0056] that a nonionic surfactant may be used. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0031] that the shell may contain a polyphosphate.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Barrow to select each and every element as arranged in the claims the forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-6 and 8-14
9. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2010/0055281 A1) to Barrow et al. (hereinafter Barrow) in view of the teachings of (US 2008/0131695 A1) to Aouad et al. (hereinafter Aouad).
Barrow is directed toward microcapsules having a hydrophobic core and a shell. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0023] that the core material is an oil based material dissolved in a polyunsaturated fatty acid, which is non-aqueous and immiscible with water. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0007] that the core has one or more shells. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0031] that the shell can be a protein such as a soy combined with a chitosan and that it would be at 1:1 ratio. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0089] that any cross-linker can be used, but “when the microcapsules are to be used to deliver a biologically active substance to an organism, the cross-linkers are preferably non-toxic or of sufficiently low toxicity”, such as a tannic acid or a plant extract and not an aldehyde. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0062] that the diameter of 0.1 to 5 microns that reads on 0.1 to 20 microns. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0064] that the payload may be 20% to 90% of the capsule, which reads on 1 to 95% of active substance. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0056] that a nonionic surfactant may be used. Barrow discloses at paragraph [0031] that the shell may contain a polyphosphate.
Aouad is directed toward microcapsules having a hydrophobic core and a shell. Barrow and Aouad are both directed toward microcapsules having a hydrophobic core and a shell and therefore are analogous art. Aouad teaches at paragraph [0048] that the hydrophobic core includes perfumes or other oil based compounds. Aouad teaches at paragraph [0020] that the shell can be a polysaccharide. Aouad teaches at paragraph [0009] that perfume loading can be 1% to 95%. Aouad teaches at paragraph [0075] that the shell may include a chitosan. Aouad teaches at paragraph [0076] that the chitosan may be 0.01% to 18% of the shell weight, which reads on Applicants ratio to polysaccharides. Aouad teaches at paragraph [0102] that the shell may contain an amino-aceylated polysaccharide as a solubility modifier.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Barrow in view of the teachings of Aouad to select each and every element as arranged in the claims the forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-15.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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