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 .
Claims 1-16 and 18, 21, 22 and 24 are presented for examination.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of sio2 as a hydrophobic metal oxide, polyacrylate as a hydrophobic polymer and vegetable oil as a major phase in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18, 21, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fassih et al. (US 20140170195 submitted by the applicant) in view of Gao et al. (submitted by the applicant) and further in view of Hemminghaus et al. (US 20220079148).
The claims are drawn to an emulsion comprising a major phase and a plurality of core-shell particles, wherein:
a. each core-shell particle comprises a core and a shell stabilizing the core;
b. said shell comprises hydrophobic metal oxide nanoparticles and a hydrophilic polymer in contact with said hydrophobic metal oxide nanoparticles;
c. said major phase and said core comprise immiscible liquids selected from an aqueous solution, or an oil respectively;
d. a weight per weight (w/w) concentration of said hydrophobic metal oxide nanoparticles within said emulsion is between 0.001 and 10%;
e. a w/w ratio between the aqueous solution and the oil within the emulsion is between 10:1 and 1:10.
Regarding claims 1-3, Fassih teaches a powder comprising core/shell particles having an average particle size of less than 1000 microns, each particle comprising: 1) a liquid core that is substantially free of water and comprises a polar liquid having a percent surface polarity of at least 24%, and 2) a shell comprising hydrophobic particles. See the abstract. and Para [0008]. Fassih teaches that The liquid core may be a single phase (one-phase). Alternatively, the liquid core may comprise multiple phases, for example the liquid core may be an emulsion or a suspension. See Para [0031]. Fassih teaches the liquid core is an emulsion comprising at least two phases. Such an emulsion comprises a continuous (external) phase comprising the polar liquid, and one or more dispersed (internal) phases comprising a hydrophobic component, such as an oil. See para [0033]. Fassih teaches that the polar liquid comprises a glycerol, polyglycerol, or a mixture thereof. The amount of glycerol, polyglycerol, or mixture thereof may be about 50% to about 100%, or more than about 70%, or more than about 80%, or 85% or more, by weight of the polar liquid of the liquid core. The remainder of the liquid core may be one or more organic liquids such as non-glycerol polyols, alcohols, or isosorbides See Para [0050]. Fassih teaches that The amount of solid particles in the liquid core may be less than about 70%, or less than about 50%, or less than about 20%, or preferably less than about 10%, by weight of the liquid core. See Para [0071]. Fassih teaches that the solid particles may alternatively comprise pharmaceutically or cosmetically acceptable fine powders of hydrophilic silica (e.g., fumed silica or precipitated silica), talc, chalk, or clays (e.g., Bentonite, Kaolin, or green clay). Other solid particles include pigments, and metal oxides (e.g., titanium oxide, zinc oxide, or iron oxide). See Para [0073]. Fassih teaches that the liquid core comprises an emulsion in which an active agent is dissolved in the hydrophobic component of the emulsion. In another embodiment, an active agent that is hydrophobic may comprise the hydrophobic component of the emulsion. See para [0076]. Fassih teaches the use of the claimed polymers, such as PVA, polyacrylic, cellulosic polymers (e.g., hydroxymethylcellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxy methyl cellulose, carboxy ethyl cellulose), polyurethanes, starch and its derivatives, and synthetic and natural gums (e.g., gum arabic or xanthan gum). Preferred hydrophilic polymers are acrylate polymers and copolymers, particularly polyacrylate neutralized by anhydrous neutralizers.as claimed in the instant application. See Para [0051]. The water dispersity is the inherent property of Fassih polymers, which is the same as the claimed polymers. Fassih teaches that The powder comprising core/shell particles can be incorporated onto fibers, nonwovens, hydrocolloids, adhesives, films, polymers, and other substrates. In one embodiment, the powder is in contact with a tissue interface. Methods of applying the powder on substrates include electrostatic spray coating, mechanical sieving, co-extrusion, adhesive spraying. See Para [0118] The use of fumed silica as a metal oxide is taught in claim 34 of Fassih. Fassih does not specifically teach Sio2. However, Gao et al. teach a core-shell structure of silica nanoparticles, surfactant and polymer such as polyacrylate See the abstract. Fassih does not specifically teach the concentration of metal oxide and the ratio between the aqueous solution and oil. However, the determination of optimum proportions or amounts are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein the court states “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Furthermore, Fassih teaches that the polar liquid comprises a glycerol, polyglycerol, or a mixture thereof. The amount of glycerol, polyglycerol, or mixture thereof may be about 50% to about 100%, or more than about 70%, or more than about 80%, or 85% or more, by weight of the polar liquid of the liquid core. The remainder of the liquid core may be one or more organic liquids such as non-glycerol polyols, alcohols, or isosorbides See Para [0050]. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to select polyacrylate/Sio2 emulsion, motivated by the teachings of Gao, which teaches such combination in coated emulsion as old and well known.
Regarding claim 4, Fassih teaches the claimed polymer, such as PVA, polyacrylic, cellulosic polymers (e.g., hydroxymethylcellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxy methyl cellulose, carboxy ethyl cellulose), polyurethanes, starch and its derivatives, and synthetic and natural gums (e.g., gum arabic or xanthan gum). Preferred hydrophilic polymers are acrylate polymers and copolymers, particularly polyacrylate neutralized by anhydrous neutralizers.as claimed in the instant application. See Para [0051]. The water dispersity is the inherent property of Fassih polymers, which is the same as the claimed polymers.
Regarding claim 5, the determination of optimum proportions or amounts are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein the court states “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
Regarding claim 6, Fassih teaches the claimed polymer, such as PVA, polyacrylic, cellulosic polymers (e.g., hydroxymethylcellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxy methyl cellulose, carboxy ethyl cellulose), polyurethanes, starch and its derivatives, and synthetic and natural gums (e.g., gum arabic or xanthan gum). Preferred hydrophilic polymers are acrylate polymers and copolymers, particularly polyacrylate neutralized by anhydrous neutralizers as claimed in the instant application. See Para [0051].
claim 7. Fassih teaches the hydrophobic particles comprise hydrophobic fumed metal oxide. See claim 33.
Regarding claim 8, Fassih teaches The solid particles may alternatively comprise pharmaceutically or cosmetically acceptable fine powders of hydrophilic silica (e.g., fumed silica or precipitated silica), talc, chalk, or clays (e.g., Bentonite, Kaolin, or green clay). Other solid particles include pigments, and metal oxides (e.g., titanium oxide, zinc oxide, or iron oxide). See Para [0073]. The use acrylate/Sio2 is taught by Gao. Gao teaches the use Sio2 in combination with a polymer.
Regarding claim 9, Fassih teaches solid particles include pigments, and metal oxides (e.g., titanium oxide, zinc oxide, or iron oxide). See Para [0073]. Gao teaches the use Sio2 in combination with a polymer.
Regarding claim 10, Fassih teaches core/shell particles having an average particle size of less than 1000 microns. See the abstract.
Regarding claim 11, the determination of shell thickness is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 12, Fassih teaches the claimed polymer, such as PVA, polyacrylic, cellulosic polymers (e.g., hydroxymethylcellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxy methyl cellulose, carboxy ethyl cellulose), polyurethanes, starch and its derivatives, and synthetic and natural gums (e.g., gum arabic or xanthan gum). Preferred hydrophilic polymers are acrylate polymers and copolymers, particularly polyacrylate neutralized by anhydrous neutralizers as claimed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 13, the determination of optimum proportions and amounts are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, the determination of ratio between different phases are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 15, Fassih teaches the use of vegetable oils in Para [0067]. The use of animal oils is taught in Para [0068].
Regarding claim 16, Fassih and Gao teach the hydrophilic polymers which are claimed in the instant application in an emulsion comprising oil.. See Para [0051].
Regarding claim 18, Fassih teaches the use of an active ingredient in the core, but does not teach the use of a pesticide, herbicide and an insecticide. However, Hemminghaus et al. teach Herbicidal microcapsules containing a combination of herbicides are described. In particular, the herbicidal microcapsules include a core material comprising an acetamide herbicide and a second herbicide and a shell wall encapsulating the core material. See the abstract. Hamminghaus teaches that The core material may also further comprise a diluent. A diluent, such as a solvent, may be added to change the solubility parameter characteristics of the core material to increase or decrease the release rate of the herbicides from the microcapsule once release has been initiated. In some embodiments, the diluent is a water-insoluble organic solvent having a solubility of less than 10, 5, 1, 0.5 or even 0.1 gram per liter at 25° C. See Para [0039]. The use of oil in the core is taught in Para [0040]. The use of an emulsion is taught in Para [0044]. The use of polymers in the shell is taught in Para [0054]. The use of a metal oxides, such as iron oxides is taught in Para [0105]. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to place an herbicide in the core of Fassih in place of other active ingredients, motivated by the teachings of Hemminghaus, which teaches the use of pesticide in the core of an emulsion having a shell.
Regarding claim 21, Fassih teaches that The powder comprising core/shell particles can be incorporated onto fibers, nonwovens, hydrocolloids, adhesives, films, polymers, and other substrates. See Para [0118]. Such composition is expected to have adhesiveness to anything that is applied to
Regarding claim 22, Hemminghaus et al. teach Herbicidal microcapsules containing a combination of herbicides are described. In particular, the herbicidal microcapsules include a core material comprising an acetamide herbicide and a second herbicide and a shell wall encapsulating the core material. See the abstract. Hamminghaus teaches that the core material may also further comprise a diluent. A diluent, such as a solvent, may be added to change the solubility parameter characteristics of the core material to increase or decrease the release rate of the herbicides from the microcapsule once release has been initiated. In some embodiments, the diluent is a water-insoluble organic solvent having a solubility of less than 10, 5, 1, 0.5 or even 0.1 gram per liter at 25° C. See Para [0039]. The use of oil in the core is taught in Para [0040]. The use of an emulsion is taught in Para [0044]. The use of polymers in the shell is taught in Para [0054]. The use of a metal oxides, such as iron oxides is taught in Para [0105]. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to place an herbicide in the core of Fassih in place of other active ingredients, motivated by the teachings of Hemminghaus, which teaches the use of pesticide in the core of an emulsion having a shell.
Regarding claim 24, Fassih teaches the use of an active ingredient, but does not teach the use of a pesticide or herbicide and an insecticide. However, Hemminghaus et al. teach Herbicidal microcapsules containing a combination of herbicides are described. In particular, the herbicidal microcapsules include a core material comprising an acetamide herbicide and a second herbicide and a shell wall encapsulating the core material. See the abstract. Hamminghaus teaches that The core material may also further comprise a diluent. A diluent, such as a solvent, may be added to change the solubility parameter characteristics of the core material to increase or decrease the release rate of the herbicides from the microcapsule once release has been initiated. In some embodiments, the diluent is a water-insoluble organic solvent having a solubility of less than 10, 5, 1, 0.5 or even 0.1 gram per liter at 25° C. See Para [0039]. The use of oil in the core is taught in Para [0040]. The use of an emulsion is taught in Para [0044]. The use of polymers in the shell is taught in Para [0054]. The use of a metal oxides, such as iron oxides is taught in Para [0105]. Hemminghaus does not teach the use of (C1-C20) alkylsilyl modified silica. However, Fassih teaches The solid particles may alternatively comprise pharmaceutically or cosmetically acceptable fine powders of hydrophilic silica (e.g., fumed silica or precipitated silica), talc, chalk, or clays (e.g., Bentonite, Kaolin, or green clay). The use of a plant oil is taught in para [0067]. The use of polyacrylate polymer is taught in Para [0051]. Gao teaches the use of acrylate/Sio2O in an emulsion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
