DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (2021/0339217 A1) in view of Bulgarelli et al. US 2020/0360243 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 13, Feng teaches a treatment composition for laundry cleaning detergent, dishwashing and personal cleaning; [43, 109, 115, 134], comprising delivery particles (microcapsules); [105-109], having core for containing benefit agents and shell of polyurea resin by reaction of polyisocyanide monomer (crosslinking agent, instant claim 6), oligomer and hydrolyzed chitosan; [27, 49-50] with molecular weight of 95 KDa or less; [22, 36, claim 7]. Note that, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [MPEP 2131.03, R6].
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Feng does not teach higher amounts of molecular weight. However, the analogous art of Bulgarelli teaches a consumer product composition utilized for laundry, soap bar, shampoo and household surface cleaner; [claim 14], comprising microcapsules comprising core and shell polymer similarly made from chitosan and polyisocyanate wherein the molecular weight is 100-500 KDa; [32]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a shell polymer with higher molecular weight with the motivation of optimizing its dissolution in the washing liquid and thus adjusting its delivery time for cleaning purpose, as taught by Bulgarelli above.
Regarding claims 3-5, Feng teaches a degree of acetylation of 50%; [40], and an acid treated chitosan, by strong acid such as HCl, at 85 deg. C. ; [45-46], wherein the microcapsule is naturally and expectedly cationic (i.e. cationically modified); [42].
Regarding claims 7-10, Feng teaches the ratio of chitosan/crosslinking is 21-90/79-10 which renders the instantly claimed range obvious. Feng teaches the benefit agent such as fragrance; [41, 56], a partitioning modifier; [61], and delivery particles’ size are 1-100 micron; [42, claim 23].
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, Feng teaches the particles disintegrate 50% after 20 days or 60% after 28 days (OECD method); [40, 103-104, table 2]. Treatment composition of Feng comprises adjunct ingredients such as surfactants, builders, chelating agent, dye transfer inhibiting agent, dispersant and enzyme; [171]. The amount of water is 5-95%; [255, tables 2-4].
Regarding claim 15, Feng teaches a method of washing a laundry fabric by contacting the surface with the composition of claim 1; [109, 132, 160-161].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/01/22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because,
In response to applicant’s argument (page 5) that; “Applicant submits that the combination of Feng and Bulgarelli is improper. Specifically, the mechanisms of the processes used in Feng and Bulgarelli are at odds.”, it should be noted that the submitted instant claims are related to a composition encapsulated in delivery particles without any limitation(s) or any reference to any process. The submitted arguments are not commensurate with scope of the claim(s) and have no relation to merits or limitations of the claim(s) at hand.
In response to applicant’s argument that; “Applicant submits that Bulgarelli's encapsulation procedure relies on a separate emulsifier such as (Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) or Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)) beyond the capsule wall materials to stabilize the perfume droplets and enable capsule crosslinking. The separate emulsifier is the key interfacial stabilizer; the chitosan does not perform that primary stabilizing function, but instead is part of the shell matrix formed within a emulsifier stabilized system.”, it is noted that the particulars of separate or non-separate emulsifiers (PVA or PVP) as compared between Feng and Bulgarelli not only are non-commensurate with scope of the claim(s) but additionally are, indeed, not related to the very reason of the combination of Feng and Bulgarelli. The only reason for combination of the above two prior arts of record is/was the very molecular weight of capsule’s polymeric material, along with the reason of their combinability, and no more.
Applicant’s argument (pages 5-6) that; “In Bulgarelli, a separate emulsifier (e.g. (Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) or Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP))) beyond the capsule wall materials handles the droplet stabilization, so the chitosan molecular weight is optimized in the context of a emulsifier-stabilized interface. In Feng' s system, by contrast, increasing chitosan molecular weight directly changes chitosan emulsification properties (since chitosan is the stabilizer agent), therefore requiring different optimal molecular weight properties.”, as indicated above, the instant claims are devoid of any limitation relating to emulsifying agent / material nor its presence beyond the capsule wall (for stabilization of perfume….etc) or any other place within the claimed composition. The argument is not commensurate with scope of the claim(s).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number
for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/03/29
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767