DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions and Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 10/21/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/21/2025.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 as filed 12/6/2023 are under current examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3556780A1 (Mishiro et al., hereafter “Mishiro”).
The claims are drawn to a composition comprising (1) a polymer substrate comprising the reaction product of an acrylate monomer and an oligomer crosslinker having at least two arms; and (2) a fragrance, as further specified in the dependent claims.
Mishiro teaches the production of microcapsules including a core-shell structure wherein the core portion comprises a functional compound and wherein the shell portion is made by a polymerization process further detailed in Mishiro’s disclosure (see abstract, in particular). The polymer shell is made from what Mishiro calls “Monomer (A)”, which may be methyl acrylate (see [0030])(“methyl acrylate” meets limitations of “acrylate monomer” as in claim 1 as well as limitations of claims 2-4). Mishiro includes as well monomer (B) and a crosslinker component wherein said crosslinker component may include trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate (see [0035])(“oligomer crosslinker having at least two arms” as in claim 1 and limitations of claims 5-7). A polymer comprising a reaction product of “Monomer (A)” crosslinked forms a desirable 3-D bond to efficiently form a shell of a microcapsule so that encapsulation properties of the functional compound of the microcapsule are improved (see [0032]). The functional compound may be a fragrance material (see [0050]).
Accordingly, Mishiro teaches each and every limitation of claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3556780A1 (Mishiro et al., hereafter “Mishiro”) in view of EP3006547B1 (Shoji et al., hereafter “Shoji”).
The claims are drawn to a composition comprising (1) a polymer substrate comprising the reaction product of an acrylate monomer and an oligomer crosslinker having at least two arms; and (2) a fragrance, as further specified in the dependent claims.
Mishiro teaches the production of microcapsules including a core-shell structure wherein the core portion comprises a functional compound and wherein the shell portion is made by a polymerization process further detailed in Mishiro’s disclosure (see abstract, in particular). The polymer shell is made from what Mishiro calls “Monomer (A)”, which may be methyl acrylate (see [0030])(“methyl acrylate” meets limitations of “acrylate monomer” as in claim 1 as well as limitations of claims 2-4). Mishiro includes as well monomer (B) and a crosslinker component wherein said crosslinker component may include trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate (see [0035])(“oligomer crosslinker having at least two arms” as in claim 1 and limitations of claims 5-7). A polymer comprising a reaction product of “Monomer (A)” crosslinked forms a desirable 3-D bond to efficiently form a shell of a microcapsule so that encapsulation properties of the functional compound of the microcapsule are improved (see [0032]). The functional compound may be a fragrance material (see [0050]).
As to claims 1-7, it is established that when a reference anticipates an invention, it necessarily renders such invention obvious as well. Anticipation is the “epitome of Obviousness”, In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Mishiro does not specify the concentration of fragrance relative to the concentration of the composition as a whole . Regarding claim 13, Mishiro does not specify the polymer substrate in a concentration relative to the composition as a whole.
Shoji cures this deficiency. Shoji teaches a fragrance-containing capsule product (see abstract and [0001] in particular). The fragrance-containing capsule comprises a core substance including a fragrance oil component and a wall material formed of one or more polymers (see [0024]). The polymer may be made of poly(alkyl methacrylates), for example, poly methyl methacrylate (see [0033]) or poly (methyl acrylate) itself as embodied in Example 2 for instance and preferably is crosslinked (page 27, line 16). As to claims 12-14, Shoji specifies that the fragrance amount may be 1 to 60% by mass (see [0018]) and the blending quantity of the wall material may be 10 to 30% by mass of the total formulation (see [0018]), ranges overlapping the instantly claimed composition ranges of fragrance (“at least about 45%” as in claim 12 and “about 40% to about 75%” as in claim 14) and polymer substrate materials (“at most about 60% by weight” as in claim 13) instantly recited.
Mishiro and Shoji are both directed to polymer shell capsules containing a core structure of a functional component which may be a fragrance component. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust Mishiro’s core-shell components to relative weight amounts overlapping those suggested by Shoji, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to ascertain amounts suitable for forming a stable product having enough polymer shell to protect a functional fragrance component in the core as well as enough functional fragrance component to store and delivery efficacy with regard to desired fragrance effects, based on Shoji’s teachings that the fragrance-containing capsules are stable and provide fragrance-scent upon use (see Shoji [0022] in particular).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3556780A1 (Mishiro et al., hereafter “Mishiro”) in view of US2021/0371567A1 (Vanderhoof et al., hereafter “Vanderhoof”).
The claims are drawn to a composition comprising (1) a polymer substrate comprising the reaction product of an acrylate monomer and an oligomer crosslinker having at least two arms; and (2) a fragrance, as further specified in the dependent claims.
Mishiro teaches the production of microcapsules including a core-shell structure wherein the core portion comprises a functional compound and wherein the shell portion is made by a polymerization process further detailed in Mishiro’s disclosure (see abstract, in particular). The polymer shell is made from what Mishiro calls “Monomer (A)”, which may be methyl acrylate (see [0030])(“methyl acrylate” meets limitations of “acrylate monomer” as in claim 1 as well as limitations of claims 2-4). Mishiro includes as well monomer (B) and a crosslinker component wherein said crosslinker component may include trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate (see [0035])(“oligomer crosslinker having at least two arms” as in claim 1 and limitations of claims 5-7). A polymer comprising a reaction product of “Monomer (A)” crosslinked forms a desirable 3-D bond to efficiently form a shell of a microcapsule so that encapsulation properties of the functional compound of the microcapsule are improved (see [0032]). The functional compound may be a fragrance material (see [0050]).
As to claims 1-7, it is established that when a reference anticipates an invention, it necessarily renders such invention obvious as well. Anticipation is the “epitome of Obviousness”, In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
Regarding claims 8-11, it is not apparent that Mishiro necessarily teaches the mass and mole ratios of oligomer crosslinker to acrylate monomer as instantly claimed.
Vanderhoof cures this deficiency. Vanderhoof teaches rheology modifier formulations comprising a core-shell polymer wherein said shell copolymer is at least partially crosslinked (see abstract, in particular). Personal care formulations, healthcare formulations, laundry and fabric care formulations and similar represent the field of Vanderhoof’s teaching (see abstract, in particular). Vanderhoof names methyl acrylate among preferred monomer components (see [0060]) which are to be utilized in an amount ranging from about 10 to 90 mol% or at least 50 mol%, for instance (see [0062]). Vanderhoof names trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate among exemplary crosslinking monomers (see [0077]) wherein the amount of crosslinking agent is to be selected based on the desired properties of the core shell polymer (see [0080]) with a mol range being about 0.01 to about 20% of instance and most preferably from about 0.05 mol% to about 7 mol% (see [0081]). Vanderhoof further mentions that the core polymer comprises greater than 60% by weight with the crosslinking agent being present greater than 3 mol% (see Vanderhoof claim 1).
Wherein the molecular mass of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate is 338.40 grams per mole and methyl acrylate has a molecular mass of 86.09 grams/mole, and in view of Vanderhoof’s teachings considered as a whole, Vanderhoof reasonably suggests oligomer crosslinker and monomer molar ratios and mass ratios overlapping the ranges recited in claims 8-11. Moreover, one reasonably would have expected success from optimizing these ratios in order to achieve the desired end result of polymer stability resulting from directly proportional amounts of crosslinker presence as specifically taught by Vanderhoof. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Vanderhoof’s mass and/or molar ratios of monomer and oligomer crosslinker components, such as methyl acrylate and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate in particular, in the generally disclosed materials of Mishiro, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in an effort of routine optimization procedure as is customary in the art and based on Vanderhoof’s explicit suggestion to vary crosslinking agent to control desired properties of the core shell polymer (see [0080]).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617