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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Applicant’s response, filed 09 Apr 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, and 13 are amended.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention / species.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are under consideration to the extent of the elected species, i.e., that the protein is potato protein, the polymeric shell material is polyamide, and the amino acid is L-lysine.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows: in the prior-filed application, Application No. EP21205885.3 and EP21200666.2, the applicant failed to provide adequate written description support for claims 8 and 20. Accordingly, priority cannot be granted at this time, thus claims 8 and 20 are granted the filing date of PCT/EP22/76819 (27 Sep 2022).
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. EP21205885.3 and EP21200666.2, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The applications fail to provide support for the compound groups (vii) to (xi). Accordingly, claims 8 and 20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections Pursuant to 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11 Feb 2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of applicants amendment of the claims.
Rejections Maintained – in modified form
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The rejection below was previously applied and is made again below and updated as claim 3 was canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020) in view of Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020).
Berthier teaches polyamide microcapsules (title). Berthier teaches that a problem faced by the perfumery industry is the rapid loss of olfactive benefit from odoriferous compounds due to their volatility and that microcapsules help contain perfume and protect and later release the core payload when triggered (page 1 lines 10-15). Berthier teaches polyamide core-shell microcapsules comprising an oil based core comprising a hydrophobic material, preferably a perfume, and a polyamide shell comprising an acyl chloride, a first amino compound and a second amino compound (page 2 lines 19-24), and that the perfume is a “perfume oil” (page 7 lines 18-30, rendering obvious claim 18). Regarding claim 4, Berthier teaches reacting an acyl chloride with amino compounds to form the polyamide microcapsules (page 2 lines 3-4, lines 8-14). Regarding claims 6 and 9 and L-lysine, the elected species of amino compound, Berthier teaches the amino compound may be L-Lysine (page 26 lines 21-22). Berthier teaches acyl chloride compounds including benzene-1,3,5-tricarbonyl chloride (page 5 lines 5-8), rendering obvious the acyl chloride of claims 8 and 19 where X is a C6 hydrocarbon and n is 2.
Regarding claim 13, Berthier teaches a perfuming composition comprising the microcapsule comprising a perfume, a perfumery carrier and a perfumery base, and at least one perfumery adjuvant (page 2 line 28 - page 3 line 4). Regarding claims 14 and 16, Berthier teaches a consumer product comprising a personal care active base, the microcapsules or perfuming composition and the product is in the form of a personal care composition (page 3 lines 5-9). Regarding claims 15 and 17, Berthier teaches a consumer product comprising a home care or a fabric care active base and the microcapsules or perfuming composition and where the product is in the form of a home care or a fabric care composition (page 3 lines 10-15).
Berthier teaches the inclusion of a stabilizer, which is a colloidal stabilizer, which can be a molecular emulsifier and is a biopolymer that is a protein such as soy protein, rice protein, whey protein and other proteins (page 26 line 30 to page 27 line 31). Berthier teaches the biopolymer protein as part of the polyamide shell (page 32 line 26 to page 33 line 7).
Berthier does not teach the inclusion of the specific protein of potato protein (the elected species). This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Nik.
Nik teaches microencapsulation with potato proteins (title). Nik teaches that potato proteins are of use as natural and functional wall materials for the encapsulation of volatile compounds and that unhydrolyzed potato protein facilitates emulsification and encapsulation ([0014]). Nik teaches microcapsules having a plurality of oil droplets composed of an active material to be encapsulated and a solid matrix composed of a potato protein ([0014]). Nik teaches that potato protein offers a natural, sustainably produced emulsifier ([0014]). Nik teaches the active material may be a fragrance ([0016]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used potato protein as the protein in the polyamide microcapsules of Berthier. The microcapsules of Berthier encapsulate perfume oil cores which helps contain the volatile components and the microcapsule shell may contain protein as a stabilizer/emulsifier, as taught by Berthier. Potato proteins are known from Nik for use in forming wall materials for microcapsules as they facilitate emulsification and encapsulation of volatile compounds such as fragrances. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that potato protein is a suitable alternative protein to the proteins of Berthier and it would have thus been obvious to include potato protein in the polymeric shell. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as the microcapsules of Berthier are known to include proteins and the use of potato protein merely represents the use of an alternative prior art element for its known use in encapsulation of volatile compounds such as fragrances.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 Apr 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the potato protein behavior differs significantly from the animal-derived proteins of Berthier (page 8 of remarks). Applicant argues that the process used in the instant invention involves predispersing proteins such as potato protein in an inert solvent before adding to the oil phase as stabilizers whereas Berthier teaches adding to the aqueous phase (page 8 of remarks). Applicant argues that based on Nik the emulsion with potato protein should have a pH between 1 and 5 (pages 8-9 of remarks). Applicant argues that Berthier and Nik utilize fundamentally different encapsulation mechanisms where Berthier favors animal derived proteins for forming polyamide-based core-shell microcapsules through interfacial polymerization whereas Nik relies on stabilizing emulsions under strongly acidic conditions and drying to form particles and the teachings of Nik would not motivate a person to substitute potato protein for the proteins of Berthier (page 9 of remarks). Applicant argues that one would not have merely substituted one component of Nik into Berthier without further insights (page 10 or remarks). Applicant argues that Nik does not contain teaching of adding a polyfunctional acyl chloride monomer or performing a curing step and that Nik is directed to drying based encapsulation systems (page 10 of remarks). Applicant argues that Nik is primarily concerned with emulsion stability and particle integrity in an acidic environment during a drying process whereas the polymerization reaction oof Berthier is known to be sensitive to aqueous acidity (page 10 of remarks). Applicant argues that modifying Berthier to incorporate the acidic potato-protein system of Nik would interfere with the interfacial polymerization reaction required for formation of Berthier’s polyamide shell, thus requiring a change in the principle of operation (page 12 of remarks).
The examiner does not find these arguments persuasive. Except for the specific protein of potato protein, Berthier teaches each of the limitations of the claim, including the addition of proteins. While the current claims do not require process steps, the applicant points to differences in their process from Berthier by noting that their process has the proteins pre-dispersed in an inert solvent before they are added in the oil phase as stabilizers to form the emulsion whereas Berthier teaches adding proteins to the aqueous phase. The examiner notes, however, that Berthier renders obvious the same process steps described by the applicant, namely that the colloidal stabilizer protein may be added to the oil phase after it is pre-dispersed in an inert solvent (page 27 lines 16-27). The arguments against the combination of Berthier and Nik rely on the incompatibility of the acidic aqueous phase of Nik with the polymerization process of Berthier. This is not persuasive, however, as the rejection does not rely on the incorporation of an acidic media from Nik into Berthier but merely on the obviousness of using potato protein as a protein for an encapsulating shell. While the acidic media may provide benefits for the process of Nik, this process is not relied upon or needed for combining with Berthier and rendering the claims obvious. Preparing polyamide shells microcapsules incorporating emulsifier proteins is known from Berthier and potato protein is known from Nik as an emulsifier protein. Although Nik teaches different emulsification steps from Berthier, Nik is not relied upon for the emulsification process and one of ordinary skill would still recognize from the teachings of Nik that potato protein is an emulsifier protein that may be used in microencapsulation. Thus, the use of potato protein merely represents use of a known prior art protein emulsifier for microencapsulation and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in using it in an alternative encapsulation method, such as where the stabilizer protein is added to the oil phase after it is pre-dispersed in an inert solvent, as taught by Berthier.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020) in view of Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020), as applied to claims 1,2 4-9 and 13-19 above and further in view of Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The teachings of Berthier and Nik are described supra.
Berthier and Nik do not teach an acyl chloride of the structure of formula (I) where the R group is a methyl, ethyl or a hydrogen. This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Ouali.
Ouali teaches core-shell poly(amide-ester) microcapsules formed from combining an acyl chloride with amino compounds (page 5 lines 1-10) and the amino compound may be L-lysine (page 19 lines 1-4). Ouali teaches that the microcapsule has an oil based core comprising ahydrophobic material such as a perfume (page 2 line 20). Ouali teaches acyl chlorides of formula (I) (page 25 lines 20-29 to page 26 line 5)
PNG
media_image1.png
195
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The structure of formula (I) with group (iii) and R of hydrogen, methyl or ethyl renders obvious the acyl chloride of claim 20.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an acyl chloride of formula (I) and group (iii) where the R group is methyl, ethyl or hydrogen, as taught by Ouali, as the acyl chloride for in the polyamide shell of Berthier. Berthier and Ouali teach similar microcapsules comprising polyamide shell structures and containing oil cores with perfume compounds. Thus, one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the acyl chloride structure taught by Ouali as it is known as suitable for forming polyamide related structures for microcapsules containing perfume. The acyl chloride taught by Ouali thus merely represents an alternative acyl chloride known for the same purpose of forming polyamide related shells for perfume microcapsules.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
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, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,486,471 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020), Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020), and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ‘471 patent claims a core-shell microcapsule delivery system comprising a carrier and a perfume formulation (claim 1). The core is oil based and comprises the perfume (claim 6). The shell is a polyamide shell comprising an acyl chloride and an amino acid and a biopolymer such as whey protein (claim 7). The delivery system is part of a consumer product (claim 11).
The ’471 patent does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the acyl chlorides or the potato protein or the personal care, home care or fabric care products of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali.
The teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and acyl chlorides of formula (I) and potato protein with the microcapsules and to include the microcapsules in personal/home/fabric care products. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Similarly, it is known from Berthier that protein emulsifiers/staiblizers may be used and protein is a known from Nik as an emulsifier for microparticulate systems rendering it obvious to include it in the microcapsule compositions. Additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell. The microcapsules of Berthier are known for containing perfume and use in perfume/personal care/home/fabric care compositions rendering this extension of the microcapsules as obvious as this is a known use for such microcapsules.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,508,565 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020) and Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020).
The ‘565 patent claims a polyamide core-shell microcapsule comprising an oil based core comprising a hydrophobic material and a polyamide shell comprising at least one acyl chloride and an amino compound (claim 1). The acyl chloride is of formula (I) which renders obvious the acyl chloride of instant claims 8 and 20. The amino compound may be L-lysine (claim 3). The microcapsule is part of a perfuming composition and a consumer product (claims 13-15).
The ‘565 patent does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the potato protein or the personal care, home care or fabric care products of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier and Nik.
The teachings of Berthier and Nik are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and potato protein with the microcapsules and to include the microcapsules in personal/home/fabric care products. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Similarly, it is known from Berthier that protein emulsifiers/staiblizers may be used and protein is a known from Nik as an emulsifier for microparticulate systems rendering it obvious to include it in the microcapsule compositions. The microcapsules of Berthier are known for containing perfume and use in perfume/personal care/home/fabric care compositions rendering this extension of the microcapsules as obvious as this is a known use for such microcapsules.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,958,030 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020) and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ‘030 patent claims a coacervate core-shell microcapsule comprising hydrophobic material encapsulated in the core and the shell comprising a plant protein extract (claim 1). The protein is potato (claim 2). The shell comprises an additional polymeric material (claim 7) of polyamide (claim 8). The microcapsule is part of a consumer product comprising a perfume (claims 12-15).
The ‘030 patent does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the acyl chlorides or the personal care, home care or fabric care products of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier and Ouali.
The teachings of Berthier and Ouali are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and acyl chlorides of formula (I) and to include the microcapsules in personal/home/fabric care products. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell. The microcapsules of Berthier are known for containing perfume and use in perfume/personal care/home/fabric care compositions rendering this extension of the microcapsules as obvious as this is a known use for such microcapsules.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,383,881 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020), and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ‘881 patent recites a microcapsule slurry comprising a coacervate core-shell microcapsule comprising a hydrophobic material in the core and a shell comprising at least one plant protein extract and a non-protein polymer (claim 1). The protein may be potato (claim 2). The shell may comprise polyamide (claim 8). The microcapsule is part of a consumer product and the hydrophobic material is perfume (claims 12-15).
The ‘881 patent does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the acyl chlorides or the personal care, home care or fabric care products of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier and Ouali.
The teachings of Berthier and Ouali are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and acyl chlorides of formula (I) with the microcapsules and to include the microcapsules in personal/home/fabric care products. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell. The microcapsules of Berthier are known for containing perfume and use in perfume/personal care/home/fabric care compositions rendering this extension of the microcapsules as obvious as this is a known use for such microcapsules.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-18 of copending Application No. 18/290,365 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020), Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020), and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ’365 application claims a polyamide based core-shell microcapsule comprising a core with a hydrophobic material and a polyamide shell comprising an acyl chloride, an amino compound and a carbohydrate (claim 12). The microcapsule is part of a perfuming composition with a perfume, perfumery carrier and base and perfumery adjuvant (claim 14). The microcapsule is part of consumer products that are personal care compositions and home/fabric care compositions (claims 15-18).
The ‘365 application does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the acyl chlorides or the potato protein of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali.
The teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and acyl chlorides of formula (I) and potato protein with the microcapsules. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Similarly, it is known from Berthier that protein emulsifiers/staiblizers may be used and protein is a known from Nik as an emulsifier for microparticulate systems rendering it obvious to include it in the microcapsule compositions. Additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13 of copending Application No. 18/290,476 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020), Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020), and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ’476 application claims a polyamide based core-shell microcapsule comprising a core with a hydrophobic material and a polyamide based shell comprising a reaction product between a functional carbohydrate and an amino compound where the functionalized carbohydrate is a reaction product between an acyl chloride with a carbohydrate (claim 11). The microcapsule is part of consumer products with a personal care active base for personal care compositions and home/fabric care base for a home/fabric care composition (claims 12-13).
The ’476 application does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the acyl chlorides or the potato protein of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali.
The teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and acyl chlorides of formula (I) and potato protein with the microcapsules. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Similarly, it is known from Berthier that protein emulsifiers/staiblizers may be used and protein is a known from Nik as an emulsifier for microparticulate systems rendering it obvious to include it in the microcapsule compositions. Additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-17 of copending Application No. 18/578,404 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020), Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020), and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ’404 application claims a polyamide-based core-shell microcapsule comprising a core with a hydrophobic material and a polyamide shell comprising a reaction product of an acyl chloride, an amino compound and a protein (claims 10-12). The microcapsules are part of a perfuming composition with a perfumery base and perfumery adjuvant (claim 13) and a consumer product with a personal care or home/fabric care base (claim 14-17).
The ’404 application does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the acyl chlorides or the potato protein of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali.
The teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and acyl chlorides of formula (I) and potato protein with the microcapsules. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Similarly, it is known from Berthier that protein emulsifiers/staiblizers may be used and protein is a known from Nik as an emulsifier for microparticulate systems rendering it obvious to include it in the microcapsule compositions. Additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-20 of copending Application No. 18/993,185 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020) and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ‘185 application claims a core-shell microcapsule comprising a core comprising a hydrophobic material and a polymeric shell comprising a polymeric material and a coacervate comprising a plant protein (claim 1). The plant protein may be potato (claims 3, 4). The core comprises perfume oil (claim 8). The microcapsule is part of a consumer product with a consumer product base (claim 11) and fabric softener compositions (claim 12). The consumer product may be a home care or personal care product (claim 15).
The ’185 application does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the acyl chlorides of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier and Ouali.
The teachings of Berthier and Ouali are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and acyl chlorides of formula (I). Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-15 of copending Application No. 19/138,430 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020), Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020), and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ’430 application claims a polyamide based core-shell microcapsule comprising an oil based core of perfume and a polyamide based shell comprising a reaction product of an acyl chloride, an amino compound a carbohydrate and a protein (claim 11). The microcapsule is part of a perfuming composition with a perfumery base and adjuvant (claim 13) and a consumer product with a personal care active base or home/fabric care bae as part of personal care or home/fabric care compositions (claims 14, 15).
The ’430 application does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the acyl chlorides or the potato protein of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali.
The teachings of Berthier, Nik and Ouali are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and acyl chlorides of formula (I) and potato protein with the microcapsules. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Similarly, it is known from Berthier that protein emulsifiers/staiblizers may be used and protein is a known from Nik as an emulsifier for microparticulate systems rendering it obvious to include it in the microcapsule compositions. Additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 13-15 of copending Application No. 19/138,482 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020), Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020), and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ‘482 application claims a core-shell microcapsule comprising a core with perfume oil and a polymeric shell comprising a protein (claim 1). The shell comprises polyamide (claim 3) obtained from reaction between an acyl chloride and at least one amino compound (claims 5, 6). The amino compound may be L-lysine (claims 7, 9). The acyl chloride is of formula (I) (claim 8) rendering obvious the acyl chlorides of instant claims 8 and 20. The microcapsules are part of perfuming and consumer products with perfumery carriers and base (claim 13) and personal care active base (claim 14) and a home/fabric care active base (claim 15).
The ’482 application does not claim the L-lysine amino acid or the potato protein of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier and Nik.
The teachings of Berthier and Nik are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used L-lysine and potato protein with the microcapsules. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Similarly, it is known from Berthier that protein emulsifiers/staiblizers may be used and protein is a known from Nik as an emulsifier for microparticulate systems rendering it obvious to include it in the microcapsule compositions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/550,549 in view of Berthier et al. (WO 2020/127743, published 25 June 2020), Nik et al. (WO 2020/154614, published 30 Jul 2020), and Ouali et al. (WO 2021/023647, published 1 Feb 2021, filed 31 Jul 2020).
The ‘549 application claims a core-shell microcapsule slurry comprising a oil core and a polymeric shell and a coating and deposition aid (claim 1). The deposition aid is a biopolymer (claims 4 and 9) and may be a protein (claim 10). The microcapsule is part of a perfumed home/fabric care consumer product (claims 12-14).
The ‘549 application does not claim the polyamide shell with the acyl chloride group, L-lysine amino acid or the potato protein of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Berthier and Nik.
The teachings of Berthier and Nik are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shell with polyamide used an acyl chloride group of formula (I) and L-lysine and potato protein with the microcapsules. Similar microcapsules are known from Berthier which contain polyamide shells rendering this an obvious shell material and it is known from Berthier to use L-lysine as an amino compound for forming polyamides. As similar microcapsules are known from Berthier as in the reference claims one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using L-lysine in the polyamide shell. Similarly, it is known from Berthier that protein emulsifiers/staiblizers may be used and protein is a known from Nik as an emulsifier for microparticulate systems rendering it obvious to include it in the microcapsule compositions. Forming the polyamide form acyl chloride is known from Berthier and additionally, similar microcapsule compositions are known from Ouali and the acyl chlorides of formula (I), taught by Ouali, are known as suitable for forming polyamide components, rendering it obvious to use these acyl chlorides for the polyamide shell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 Apr 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant requests for reconsideration of the rejections in view of the present response (pages 13-15 of remarks). The examiner has addressed the applicants remarks in the response to arguments above and has not found the applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7007. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/E.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights