FINAL 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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to papers filed 01/16/2026 in which claims 12-13 were canceled; claim 17 was withdrawn; and claims 1, 8, 11 and 15 were amended. All the amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and entered.
Claims 1-11 and 14-16 are under examination.
Withdrawn Rejection
The Examiner has re-weighted all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
New Rejection
Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
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 1-11 and 14-16 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 claim 1, the recitation of the “carrier material” renders the claim indefinite because there is lack of antecedent basis for “carrier material” in claim 1. It is unclear what “carrier material,” as claim 1 recites “a carrier” and not “a carrier material.” Clarification in claim 1 is required. Claims 2-11 and 14-16 are also rejected as they depend directly or indirectly from indefinite claim 1.
As a result, claims 1-11 and 14-16 do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of patent protection desired.
Maintained-Modified Rejections
Modification Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pauly (US 6,500,470 B1; previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Pauly teaches a composition comprising at least one protein extract of Moringa Oleifera, wherein the protein extract of Moringa Oleifera is incorporated in liposomes, micelles, microparticles, nanoparticles, microcapsules, or nanocapsules (Abstract; columns 2-4 and 8-10). It is noted that the microparticles, nanoparticles, microcapsules, or nanocapsules as taught by Pauly meets the claimed “the carrier … is a solid carrier material.” Pauly teaches the composition further contains one or more active principles including perfume (column 9; Examples 1-4), thereby meeting the claimed “hydrophobic formulation comprises …a perfume.”
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Pauly teaches microcapsules containing the protein extract of Moringa Oleifera.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Pauly teaches microcapsules containing the protein extract of Moringa Oleifera.
Regarding claim 9, Pauly teaches the composition further contains a preservatives (column 9; Example 2), thereby meeting the claimed “antimicrobial agents.”
Regarding claim 11, Pauly teaches the composition contains 1%, 1.5%, or about 2% by weight of protein extract of Moringa Oleifera (column 8, lines 1-30; Examples 1-4).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Pauly teaches the composition is a cosmetic product containing a perfume (Examples 1-4).
As a result, the aforementioned teachings from Pauly are anticipatory to claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-15 of the instant invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Pauly fails to disclose at least the claimed solid carrier (Remarks, page 5, 1st 2nd paragraph).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above in the pending 102 rejection, Pauly teaches a composition comprising at least one protein extract of Moringa Oleifera, wherein the protein extract of Moringa Oleifera is incorporated in liposomes, micelles, microparticles, nanoparticles, microcapsules, or nanocapsules (Abstract; columns 2-4 and 8-10). The microparticles, nanoparticles, microcapsules, or nanocapsules as taught by Pauly meets the claimed “the carrier … is a solid carrier material.”
As a result, for at least the reason discussed above, claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-15 remain anticipated by the teachings from Pauly.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumalaninsih et al (International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science, September 2011, 1(7): 273-277).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 14, Kumalaninsih teaches a food supplement comprising a capsule containing lactobacillus and a protein extract of Moringa Oleifera (Abstract; Introduction; pages 274-277). Kumalaninsih teaches the food supplement is a spray-dried product (pages 274 and 276-277), thereby meeting the claimed “the carrier … is a solid carrier material.” It is also noted that the lactobacillus as taught by Kumalaninsih meets the claimed “hydrophobic formulation comprises … a food ingredient.”
Regarding claim 7, Kumalaninsih teaches the capsule further contains maltodextrin (Abstract; pages 274-277).
Regarding claim 11, Kumalaninsih teaches the capsule contains 27.37% by weight of protein extract of Moringa Oleifera (Abstract; page 276 and Table 2).
As a result, the aforementioned teachings from Kumalaninsih are anticipatory to claims 1, 2, 7, 11, and 14 of the instant invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kumalaninsih fails to disclose the claimed solid carrier (Remarks, page 5, 6th and 7th paragraphs).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, Kumalaninsih teaches a food supplement comprising a capsule containing lactobacillus and a protein extract of Moringa Oleifera (Abstract; Introduction; pages 274-277). Kumalaninsih teaches the food supplement is a spray-dried product (pages 274 and 276-277), thereby meeting the claimed “the carrier … is a solid carrier material.”
As a result, for at least the reason discussed above, claims 1, 2, 7, 11, and 14 remain anticipated by the teachings from Pauly.
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) 1-5, 9, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauly (US 6,500,470 B1), and further in view of Nouhi et al (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 2018, 168: 68-75).
The delivery systems of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-15 are discussed above by Pauly, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claim 4, Nouhi teaches silica particles coated with a protein extract of Moringa Oleifera to form sticky particles that has improved deposition on solid surfaces (Abstract; Introduction; pages 70-73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a coating of a protein extract of Moringa Oleifera to the particles (e.g., nanoparticles, microparticles) disclosed in Pauly, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Nouhi indicated that protein extract of Moringa Oleifera is known a natural flocculating agent for many particles, and the use of the protein extract of Moringa Oleifera as a coating on particles improve the particles ability to deposit onto solid surfaces (Nouhi: Abstract; pages 73-74). Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to improve deposition of the particles of Pauly would have looked to coating of a protein extract of Moringa Oleifera to the particles, so as to improve deposition of particles onto solid surfaces such as skin, to which is the surface the composition of Pauly is applied to (Pauly: Abstract; columns 2 and 8), and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
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 in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauly (US 6,500,470 B1), and further in view of Sasaki (US 2018/0250204 A1).
The delivery systems of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-15 are discussed above by Pauly, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki teaches a composition comprising microcapsules having a polymeric wall composed of polyurea or polyurethane (Abstract; [0007]-[0012] [0039]-[0069], [0206]-[0231]; claims 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polyurea or polyurethane as the polymeric shell material of the microcapsule of Pauly, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Sasaki indicated that for consumer products such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, suitable polymeric wall material used for forming the microcapsule include polyurea and polyurethane (Sasaki: Abstract; [0007]-[0012] [0039]-[0069], [0206]-[0231]; claims 1-14). Given that Pauly is also drawn to consumer products such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals (Pauly: Abstract; columns 2 and 8), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to known polymeric wall material in the art including polyurea and polyurethane to be used as the polymeric shell material of the microcapsule of Pauly, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
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 in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauly (US 6,500,470 B1), and further in view of Pagano et al (International Journal of Pharmaceutics, July 2020, 587 (119700): 1-15).
The delivery systems of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-15 are discussed above by Pauly, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claim 7, Pagano teaches a formulation containing a polymeric microparticles loaded with an extract of Moringa Oleifera, wherein the polymeric microparticles contains chitosan (a polysaccharide) as a matrix material (Abstract; Introduction; pages 2-9 and 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate chitosan as the matrix material of the microparticle of Pauly, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Pagano teaches chitosan is suitable as a matrix polymer for microparticles, as chitosan biocompatible, as well as, promote sustained release of active ingredients, thereby reducing the frequency of application (Pagano: Abstract; page 2, left column, pages 9, 12 and 14). Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to provide microparticles that are biocompatible and provide sustained release of the loaded active ingredient(s) would have looked to incorporate chitosan as the matrix material of the microparticle of Pauly, per guidance from Pagano, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Pagano teaches the formulation containing the microparticles is spray-dried so as to prepare a dry powder, which provides for a stable formulation (Pagano: Abstract; page 2, left column; pages 4 and 13-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to spray-dry the composition containing the microparticles of Pauly, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Pagano provided the guidance to do so by teaching that microparticles formulation can be spray-dried to prepare a dry powder that provides for a stable formulation. Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to provide a stable formulation would have looked to spray-drying the composition comprising the microparticles of Pauly so as to provide a stable dry powder, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Pagano teaches that the extract of Moringa Oleifera is known to have antimicrobial properties (Introduction; pages 2, 4, and 6-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composition containing the extract of Moringa Oleifera of Pauly as a antimicrobial product, as Pagano established that the extract of Moringa Oleifera are known to have antimicrobial properties, and achieve Applicant’s claimed antimicrobial agent with reasonable expectation of success.
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 in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauly (US 6,500,470 B1), and further in view of Lei et al (US 2018/0042825 A1).
The delivery systems of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 14-15 are discussed above by Pauly, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claim 8, Lei teaches a composition comprising polyurea or polyurethane microcapsules dispersed in a polymer matrix such as a starch matrix so as to produce a hybrid encapsulate formulation (Abstract; [0009]-[0028], [0030]-[0085], [0254]-[0442]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the composition of Pauly such that it is a polyurea or polyurethane microcapsule dispersed in a polymer matrix such as a starch matrix, and produce the claimed “a polymer carrier matrix comprising the polymeric shell.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lei indicated that for consumer products such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, suitable delivery system include polyurea or polyurethane microcapsule dispersed in a polymer matrix such as a starch matrix (Abstract; [0009]-[0028], [0030]-[0085], [0254]-[0442]; claims 15-16). Given that Pauly is also drawn to consumer products such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals (Pauly: Abstract; columns 2 and 8), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to known delivery system in the art including the polyurea or polyurethane microcapsule dispersed in a polymer matrix such as a starch matrix to be used as the composition for delivering the protein extract of Moringa Oleifera of Pauly, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
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 in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Pauly does not disclose at least a solid carrier comprising Moringa oleifera coagulation protein (MOCP)as required by claim 1, nor does it disclose the claimed solid carrier material for hydrophobic formulations.” Applicant further alleges that none of Nouhi, Pagano, Sasaki and Lei cure the deficiencies of Pauly. (Remarks, page 6).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above in the pending 102 rejection, Pauly teaches a composition comprising at least one protein extract of Moringa Oleifera, wherein the protein extract of Moringa Oleifera is incorporated in liposomes, micelles, microparticles, nanoparticles, microcapsules, or nanocapsules (Abstract; columns 2-4 and 8-10). It is noted that the microparticles, nanoparticles, microcapsules, or nanocapsules as taught by Pauly meets the claimed “the carrier … is a solid carrier material.” Pauly teaches the composition further contains one or more active principles including perfume (column 9; Examples 1-4), thereby meeting the claimed “hydrophobic formulation comprises …a perfume.” Thus, the teachings from Pauly remained to anticipate claim 1 of the instant invention.
As a result, for at least the reason discussed above, dependent claims 4, 6-8, 10, and 16 remained obvious and unpatentable over the combined teachings of the cited prior arts in the standing 103 rejections as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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