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 on 11/25/2025 and 02/10/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/27/2024.
Claims 1-5, and 7-20 are pending. Claim 6 are canceled and claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, and 14 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 8, 11-20 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or pre-AIA U.S.C 112, 2nd paragraph, is rendered moot in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed on 03/27/2026, with respect to Wu have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-7, 11-12, 14, 18-19 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) being anticipated in view of Wu (WO2021116306A1) are withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, and 14. Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection in view of Wu are made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites the use of a modifying compound comprising of an a,ß unsaturated compound (see lines 9-10). Claim 5, which is dependent from claim 1, fails to further limit the a,ß unsaturated modifying compound. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et. al (US20230001373A1) hereinafter Wu.
With regards to claims 1-2, Wu teaches a fabric softener composition in Example 2 comprising of 8.88 wt% Stepantex VL 90A, which is a treatment adjunct (see [0184]), and a 0.20 wt% microcapsule slurry (see Table 13). The core of the microcapsule comprises of a perfume oil (benefit agent) and the polymeric shell comprises of cross-linked chitosan particles (see claim 8). Microcapsule I is a core-shell microcapsule where the shell is reaction product of chitosan, trimethylol propone-adduct of xylylene diisocynate (an electrophile), 1,4-butanediol methacrylate and butyl methacrylate (nonionic group α,ß unsaturated compounds), among others, and the core comprises of a perfume oil (see Table 10; see also [0230]).
With regards to claim 3, Wu does not explicitly teach the use of an anionic group containing modifying compound in Example 2. However, Wu does teach the optional use of acrylic co-polymers containing a sulfonate group (an anionic group) to emulsify the oil phase with the chitosan in a functionally similar manner to the modified compound (see [0126]). The instant specification also teaches 3-sulfopropyl acrylate (an acrylic co-polymer containing a sulfonate group) as a suitable a,ß unsaturated modifying compound. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date to use a sulfonate group acrylic co-polymer as the modifying compound in Microcapsule I for the benefit of stabilizing the oil droplets in the presence of chitosan (see [0126]).
With regards to claim 4, the modifying compounds taught in Table 10, 1,4-butanediol methacrylate and butyl methacrylate, comprise of hydroxyl groups. The sulfonate group acrylic co-polymer which can cross-link chitosan (see [0126]) are comprised of a strong acidic anionic SO3- groups.
With regards to claim 5, butyl methacrylate is an a,ß unsaturated ester. The sulfonate group acrylic co-polymer which can cross-link chitosan (see [0126]) is also an a,ß unsaturated compound. Please note, claim 5 currently fails to further limit the scope of claim 1 from which it depends and has been rejected under 112d.
With regards to claim 7, butyl methacrylate is a derivative of methacrylic acid.
With regards to claim 8, Wu teaches the use to chitosan in the Microcapsule I (see Table 10). Chitosan necessarily has free amine moieties due to the C-N bond in its structure.
With regards to claim 9, Wu teaches a microcapsule with a polymeric shell comprising less than 20% by weight of the cross-linked chitosan polymeric material (see [0055]). Therefore, Wu teaches 18% and 19% modified chitosan by weight of the shell. 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).
With regard to claims 11-12, Wu teaches a fabric softener composition in Example 2 comprising of 8.88 wt% Stepantex VL 90A, which is a treatment adjunct (see [0184]), and a 0.20 wt% microcapsule slurry (see Table 13). The core of the microcapsule comprises of a perfume oil (benefit agent) and the polymeric shell comprises of cross-linked chitosan particles (see claim 8). Cross-linked chitosan particles are necessarily from covalent bonds between the chitosan and the modifying compound. Microcapsule I is a core-shell microcapsule where the shell is reaction product of chitosan, trimethylol propone-adduct of xylylene diisocynate (an electrophile), 1,4-butanediol methacrylate and butyl methacrylate (nonionic group α,ß unsaturated compounds), among others, and the core comprises of a perfume oil (see Table 10; see also [0230]). Wu additionally teaches the preparation of microcapsules by dissolving of chitosan into an aqueous phase at a pH of 4, then mixing an oil phase comprising of polyisocyanate (an electrophile) and a polyfunctional monomer with the aqueous phase into a Pickering emulsion where the interfacial reaction is carried out at 80 °C under stirring for 3 hours (see [0230]). Once the Pickering emulsion is formed, the pH value is preferably maintained at 5-6 (see [0140]). The oil phase is preferably a perfume or flavor oil to which polyisocyanate is added (see [0144]). Wu further teaches the mixing of the oil and water phase to form an emulsion via ultrasonic agitation (see [0138]).
It would be obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reasonably expect Microcapsule I to have been prepared by the steps recited above because Wu teaches all the microcapsules to have been prepared with the same general protocol (see [0230]). Please note, claims 11-12 contain product by process limitations. Any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
With regards to claim 13, Wu teaches the use of peroxide as an oxidative dye precursor to develop hair color molecules which is functionally equivalent to a redox initiator (see [0204]-[0207]). Please note, claim 13 is also a product by process claim. Hence, product by process limitation recited in the instant claim are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps, especially since the redox initiator is not part of the overall chemical reaction. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).
With regards to claim 14, Wu does not explicitly teach the use of an anionic group containing modifying compound in Example 2. However, Wu does teach the optional use of acrylic co-polymers containing a sulfonate group (an anionic group) to emulsify the oil phase with the chitosan in a functionally similar manner to the modified compound (see [0126]).
With regard to claim 15, Wu teaches a microcapsule with a polymeric shell comprising less than
20% by weight of the cross-linked chitosan polymeric material (see [0055]). This overlaps with the instantly claimed amount of 1-25%. 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, USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claim 16, Wu does not specifically disclose the microcapsule shell degrading at least 50% after 60 days. However, Wu teaches the oil leakage from the microcapsules in the fabric softener composition where capsule C has degraded 42% at 30 days (see Table 14). 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 microcapsule shells to have degraded at least 50% after 60 days because one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a linear progression from 30 days to 60 days.
With regard to claim 17, Wu does not specifically disclose the delivery particles characterized by zeta potential of 150 mV or less at pH 4.5. However, Wu teaches the microcapsule zeta potentials, all of which are less than 150mV (see Table 12), and the dissolving of chitosan into the water phase at a pH from 3 to 5 (see [0134]). 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 zeta potentials to be less than 150 mV at a pH of 4.5.
With regards to claim 18, Wu teaches the addition of polyisocyanate to the cross-linked chitosan (see [0005]).
With regard to claim 19, Wu specifies a perfume oil in the core of the microcapsule (see [0010]).
With regards to claim 20, Wu teaches the optional use of isopropyl myristrate, a partitioning modifier, as one of the suitable solvents for dissolving perfuming ingredients (see [0055]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US20230001373A1) in view of Tefenhart (WO2023006234).
With regards to claim 10, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Wu fails to specifically disclose the modified chitosan characterized by a weight average molecular weight from 100kDa to 600kDa.
Tefenhart teaches a core-shell microcapsule where the shell contains chitosan coating preferably ranging from 30000 g/mol (30kDa) to 30000 g/mol (300 kDa) [0013]. This overlaps with the 100kDa-600kDa range recited in the claim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a modified chitosan taught by Tefenhart in the shell of the microcapsule taught by Wu. The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a microcapsule with improved biodegradability [0012]. Furthermore, Tefenhart teaches a molecular weight that overlaps with the instantly claimed range. 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights