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 with traverse of Group I, clams 1-13 and 20 in the reply filed on March 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the nominal ratio of amino groups/quaternary ammonium groups to the carboxylic acid groups of 0.44 in Example 4 of WO 2019/121736 (see Comparative Example 1.1 in Table 1 of the present application) is outside the claimed range. This is not found persuasive because the reference is not limited to the working example, hence, the lack unity of invention is maintained; and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions require a different field of search and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 23, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
4.1. in claim 2, line 6, the comma (,) after “polyisocyanate (B)” should be deleted;
4.2. in claim 9:
a) line 12, “poly(ethylmethycralate…” should be replaced with “poly(ethylmethacrylate…”
b) line 14, “poly(ethylmethycralate…” should be replaced with “poly(ethylmethacrylate…”
c) line 19, the comma (,) after “polyquaternium-17” should be deleted
d) line 24, “…co-methacylamidopropyltrimethyl” should be replaced with “…co-methacrylamidopropyltrimethyl”
e) line 42, the comma (,) after “polyquaternium-45” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is 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 and 9 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.
In claim 2, the phrase “the anionically modified isocyanurate …” in line 5, and “the isocyanurate of hexamethylene diisocyanate” in line 8 lacks support in the claim. It is suggested that the terms “the” (two occurrences) above be deleted.
In claim 9, 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 9 recites the broad recitation of cationic polymers . . . selected from . . . polyquaternium-2 . . . in lines 2-46, and the claim also recites “preferably polyquaternium-22 . . . polyquaternium-39” in lines 47-49 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2019/121736, already cited in IDS dated 01/30/2024), hereinafter “Zhang.”
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 8-9, Zhang teaches an encapsulated perfume composition comprising at least one core-shell microcapsule, wherein said at least one core-shell microcapsule comprises a core containing at least one perfume ingredient, and a shell surrounding the core, wherein the shell comprises a thermosetting resin formed by the reaction of a poly-functional amine and at least one isocyanate, like polyfunctional isocyanate, and wherein the encapsulated perfume composition comprises a polymeric stabilizer that is the reaction product of an aminosilane, and a co-polymer of an ethylenically unsubstituted compound and maleic anhydride (see claims 1-2 and 6; page 21, lines 17-20), and wherein the shell further comprises a cationic polymer comprising quaternary ammonium groups (see page 28, lines 1-7). It is preferred to use polyethyleneimine and isocyanate compounds in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:5, or in a dry weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:10 which provide resins having the higher encapsulation efficiency and therefore the most suitable for encapsulation (see page 26, lines 9-12). The at least one polyfunctional isocyanate comprises anionically modified polyisocyanate (A) selected from anionically modified hexamethylene diisocyanate, anionically modified isophorone diisocyanate, anionically modified dicyclohexylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate, the anionically modified isocyanurate of hexamethylene diisocyanate and mixtures thereof and non-ionic polyisocyanate (B) selected from hexamethylene diisocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate, dicyclohexylmethane-4,4' diisocyanate, the isocyanurate of hexamethylene diisocyanate and mixtures thereof (see page 24, lines 4-10). Zhang also teaches that the polymeric stabilizers are so effective in stabilizing the oil-water interface that they help to provide a particularly stable platform on which to deposit not only existing shell chemistries, but also new shell chemistries, around perfume oil droplets to form novel encapsulated perfume compositions (see page 3, lines 24-29; see also page 8, lines 15-19). Zhang also teaches that the use of the polymeric stabilizer controls the polydispersity of the core-shell microcapsules, such that the polydispersity of the microcapsules is less than 1.2 (see page 4, lines 21-24). In Example 4, Zhang teaches polyurea-based microcapsules comprising a fragrance core and shell prepared by the reaction of polyfunctional polyisocyanates, i.e., (A) anionically modified hexamethylene diisocyanate (Bayhydur® XP2547) and (B) nonionic polyisocyante, i.e., diisocyanate 4,4 dicyclohexylmethanediyle (Desmodur® W1) with polyfunctional amine, i.e., polyethylenimine; polymeric stabilizer, which is formed in situ from 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane and ZeMac E400, i.e., poly (ethylene-co-maleic anhydride) copolymer (see page 8, line 31 to page 9, line 1), and copolymer of acrylic acid and diallyldimethylammonium chloride (Merquat 281, i.e., cationic polymer comprising quaternary ammonium groups) in amounts shown in the example (see page 37, lines 13-21). Zhang, however, fails to specifically disclose the nominal molar ratio of the amino groups and the quaternary ammonium groups to the carboxylic acid groups from 0.9 to 1.1.
While Zhang does not explicitly disclose the proportions of each of the polyfunctional amines, rather its weight ratio with isocyanate compounds, i.e., 1:1 to 1:10, which provides resins having the higher encapsulation efficiency, the cationic polymer and polymeric stabilizer, and considering that Zhang teaches that the polymeric stabilizer, which provides the carboxylic acid groups, are effective in stabilizing the dispersed perfume oil droplets and provide low polydispersity, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the polyfunctional amines, the cationic polymer and polymeric stabilizer being used in their effective amounts. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions each of the polyfunctional amines, the cationic polymer and polymeric stabilizer through routine experimentation for best results.
The showing in Table 1 of the specification has been carefully considered, however, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present claim 1. The showing is only true for the polymeric stabilizer comprising 3-aminopropyl-triethoxysilane and poly (ethylene-co-maleic anhydride) copolymer (ZeMac E400), polyethyleneimine as the specific polyfunctional amine, the polyfunctional isocyanate comprising anionically modified polyisocyanate and nonionic polyisocyanate and the specific cationic polymer (i.e., Merquat 281, MW 45,000 g/mol). It is noted that Comparative 1.5 showed an amine/ammonium to carboxylic acid molar ratio of 0.95 which is within the recited claimed range, however, the results indicated “not determined,” hence, the nominal molar ratio of amine/ammonium to carboxylic acid, may not be the only contributing factor for the colloidal stability of the microcapsules.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further teaches that the weight ratio of anionically modified polyisocyanate (A) to non-ionic polyisocyanate (B) can be in the range from 10:1 to 1:10, more preferably in the range from 1:1 to 1:5 and in particular in the range from 1:2 to 1:4 (which is equivalent to 0.5:1 to 0.25:1, or 0.25 to 0.5) (see page 24, lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further teaches that it is preferred to use polyethyleneimine and isocyanate compounds in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:5, especially 1:2 to 1:3, or in a dry weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:10 (equivalent 1:1 to 0.1:1, or 0.1 to 1) (see page 26, lines 9-12)
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Zhang teaches that that the polymeric stabilizers are so effective in stabilizing the oil-water interface that they help to provide a particularly stable platform on which to deposit not only existing shell chemistries, but also new shell chemistries, around perfume oil droplets to form novel encapsulated perfume compositions (see page 3, lines 24-29; see also page 8, lines 15-19). Zhang also teaches that the use of the polymeric stabilizer controls the polydispersity of the core-shell microcapsules, such that the polydispersity of the microcapsules is less than 1.2 (see page 4, lines 21-24). Zhang, however, fails to specifically disclose the weight ratio of the polymeric stabilizer to the thermosetting resin from 0.4 to 0.9 (or 1:2.5 to 1:1.1).
While Zhang does not explicitly disclose the weight ratio of the polymeric stabilizer to the thermosetting resin, considering that Zhang teaches that the polymeric stabilizers are so effective in stabilizing the oil-water interface that they help to provide a particularly stable platform on which to deposit around perfume oil droplets to form encapsulated perfume compositions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized its proportions in relation to the thermosetting resin through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang further teaches the features as discussed above. Zhang, however, fails to specifically disclose the level of shell material in the at least core-shell microcapsules from 2 to 25 wt% based on the total weight of the core-shell microcapsules.
Considering the amounts of the thermosetting resin shown in Example 4 in relation to the amount of the microcapsules, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang further teaches that the microcapsules have an average particle size Dv(50) of 30 microns or less, more particularly 20 microns or less (see page 7, lines 16-17).
Regarding claims 12-13, Zhang further teaches that the encapsulated perfume composition consists of a slurry of core-shell capsules suspended in an aqueous suspending medium, which may contain a level of core-shell capsules on a weight/weight basis within an interval of between 20 and 50% of the slurry (see page 29, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang further teaches that the polymeric stabilizer is a reaction product of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, and at least one of i) a poly (ethylene-co-maleic anhydride) and ii) a poly (styrene-co-maleic anhydride) (see claim 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights