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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 05 March 2024, 05 December 2025, 07 March 2025, 07 September 2025, 10 November 2025, and 06 May 2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 4, 5, 6, and 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veronique (US-20120128747-A1, located in Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Traynor (US-20120107499-A1, located in Information Disclosure Statement).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12, Veronique teaches particles comprising a continuous shell confining at least one oil phase (representing an oil-based core comprising a benefit agent) (Abstract), and the shell consists of at least silicon oxide (representing the shell comprising metal oxide surrounding a core) (para [0016]). Veronique further teaches that the shell may comprise mineral or organic content, preferably mineral particles (para [0032). Specifically, Example 1 demonstrates a shell composition with 1.7% organic content (Example 1). This falls within the scope of the claimed limitation, which permits up to 5 wt.% of organic content and meets the requirement of being substantially free of organic material, as such content is entirely optional and can be omitted.
[Specifically, regarding the organic content calculation: Based on Example 1, 24mg of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB, as an organic content) is combined with 1.38g of silica; resulting in a total mass of 1.404g (0.024g + 1.38g = 1.404g). Thus, the organic content is calculated as (0.024g/ 1.404g x 100= 1.7%, (thereby satisfying the claimed organic content)].
Furthermore, Veronique teaches that the particles have a diameter of 10 to 200 micrometers (thereby reading on the claimed diameter) (para [0014]), and shell thickness of 0.1 to 2µm which corresponds to 100 to 2,000nm (thereby reading on the claimed shell thickness) (para [0015]).
Veronique does not explicitly teach the shell permeability.
In the same field of endeavor, Traynor teaches an encapsulate comprising core-shell particles, wherein the core is an active material (e.g. oil, para [0041]) and shell is silica-based (para [0050]), thereby reading on the same capsule structure of oil-based core and silica shell.
Traynor further teaches that the silica-based shell can be engineered to be permeable, semi-permeable or impermeable. Permeable and semi-permeable shells can be used for release applications. A permeable shell includes one or more passageways extending from an inner surface to the outer surface of the shell. Semi-permeable shells can be impermeable to the core material while permitting the transport of low molecular-weight liquids, thereby enabling absorption of environmental substances and subsequent release upon transfer to another medium. An impermeable shell completely encloses the core. To release the core content, the shell must be ruptured (para [0050]).
With regard to the shell permeability, Traynor offers the motivation to optimize the permeability of the shell due to its ability to be permeable, semi-permeable, or impermeable (para [0050]). Therefore, the amounts of shell permeability can be optimized to reach the desired retention of the liquid contents via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date, to adjust the shell permeability as disclosed by Traynor in the particles of Veronique to arrive at the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 2, Veronique teaches the shell is silica oxide (para [0016]).
With regard to claims 6 and 13, Veronique teaches the core comprises triglycerides, fatty acids, rosins, waxes, plant oils, synthetic bitumens, and mixtures thereof (thereby reading on the claimed benefit agent) (para [0012]).
With regard to claims 7 and 14, Veronique teaches the core comprises fragrance (thereby reading on the claimed limitation) (para [0020]).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veronique (US-20120128747-A1, located in Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Traynor (US-20120107499-A1, located in Information Disclosure Statement) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-14 above, and further in view of Scholin (US-20190290762-A1).
With regard to claims 3 and 10, Veronique and Traynor does not teach the nominal rupture stress.
In the same field of endeavor, Scholin teaches a colloidosome comprising a porous shell (e.g. silica, para [0085]) and a core (e.g. active agent, para [0088]) encapsulated within (Abstract). Scholin teaches that the colloidosome yields a strength in the range of 1 kPa to 1 MPa measured by tensile testing (thereby can read on the rupture stress due to the overlapping range, paras. [0009 and 0083]). The term “strength” as utilized in Scholin, can be interpretated to relate to fracture strength which can functionally satisfy the structural limitation of “rupture stress” as recited in the instant claims. Additionally, tensile testing is a standard methodology for directly measuring rupture stress, thus the metrics are fundamentally directed to assessing the failure points of the material, thereby establishing equivalency to the claimed limitation. Scholin further teaches that the colloidosome exhibits excellent mechanical properties, such as strength, tensile strength, toughness and fracture toughness, stiffness, strain hardening, uniform and non-uniform elongation, creep resistance, elongation at fracture, Young's modulus, loss and storage modulus, and strain energy (para [0083]).
With regard to the fracture strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that Veronique’s particle could logically obtain the rupture stress established in the teachings of Scholin. The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that since the cited references collectively teach overlapping blends of capsule components (e.g. core-shell, silica, agents), Veronique’s particles would exhibit comparable rupture stress. Veronique teaches that the silica shell must have a certain thickness that is sufficient to have a mechanical strength while being thin enough to be able to break (para [0015]). Therefore, Veronique’s particles could be optimized to retain the full suite of mechanical properties while obtaining the rupture stress established in Scholin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights