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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed December 7, 2023, has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-17, 19, and 20, drawn to an agent.
Group II, claim(s) 18, drawn to a method for washing textiles or cleaning hard surface.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an agent, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of
During a telephone conversation with Hussein Akhavannik on March 31, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-17, 19, and 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 5-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2021/116365. Note that, Bauer et al (US2023/0021818) is a 371 application of WO2021/116365 and has been used as an English language translation of WO2021/116365.
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Bauer et al teach washing and cleaning agents comprising microcapsules comprising a core material, the core material comprising at least one fragrance, and a shell, the shell consisting of at least one first layer and one second layer, the chemical compositions of which differ from one another, and wherein the shell having a biodegradability, measured in accordance with OECD 301 F, of at least 40%; and, optionally, b) at least one other ingredient selected from surfactants, builders, enzymes and agents that enhance absorption. The washing and cleaning agents may be used in a method for conditioning textiles or for cleaning textiles and/or hard surfaces. See para. 8. Microcapsules can be produced which are essentially biodegradable and nevertheless have sufficient stability and tightness to be able to be used in washing and cleaning agents due to a multilayer structure of shells. This is achieved in that a first layer that imparts stability and structure makes up the main part of the capsule shell, which consists of naturally occurring and easily biodegradable materials such as gelatin or alginate or of materials that are ubiquitously present in nature. This first layer is combined with a second impervious layer, which can consist of known materials used for microencapsulation, such as melamine-formaldehyde or meth(acrylate). The second layer can be arranged both on the outside of the first layer and on the inside of the first layer. The second layer is preferably arranged on the inside of the first layer. See para. 7.
Biodegradable components suitable as wall formers for the first layer are proteins such as gelatin; polysaccharides such as alginate, gum arabic, chitin, or starch; phenolic macromolecules such as lignin; polyglucosamines such as chitosan, polyvinyl esters such as polyvinyl acetate and polyvinyl alcohols, in particular highly hydrolyzed and fully hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohols; phosphazenes and polyesters such as polylactide or polyhydroxyalkanoate. See para. 28. According to one embodiment, the first layer contains one or more curing agents. Curing agents are aldehydes such as glutaraldehyde, glyoxal and formaldehyde, as well as tannins, enzymes such as transglutaminase and organic anhydrides such as maleic anhydride. See para. 33. The second layer preferably contains, as a wall former, one or more components selected from the group consisting of an aldehyde component, an aromatic alcohol, an amine component, an acrylate component. Preparation processes for preparing microcapsules with these wall materials are known to the person skilled in the art. A polymer selected from a polycondensation product of an aldehyde component with one or more aromatic alcohols and/or amine components can be used to prepare the second layer. See para. 37. The proportion of the aldehyde component for wall formation based on the total weight of the second shell should be in the range of 5 to 50 wt. %. Outside these limits, it is considered that a sufficiently stable and dense thin film cannot be obtained. The concentration of the aldehyde component in the second layer is preferably in the range from 10 to 30 wt. %. The concentration of the aldehyde component in the second layer is particularly preferably in the range from 15 to 20 wt. %. n particular, melamine, melamine derivatives and urea or combinations thereof come into consideration as the amine component in the second layer. Suitable melamine derivatives are etherified melamine derivatives and methylolated melamine derivatives. Melamine in the methylolated form is preferred. In one embodiment, the proportion of the amine components (e.g. melamine and/or urea) in the second layer is in the range from 20 wt. % to 85 wt. %, based on the total weight of the second layer. For example, the proportion of the amine component can be 20 wt. %, 25 wt. %, 30 wt. %, 35 wt. %, 40 wt. %, 45 wt. %, 50 wt. %, 55 wt. %, 60 wt. %, 65 wt. %, 70 wt. %, 75 wt. %, 80 wt. % or 85 wt. %. In a preferred embodiment, the proportion of the amine component in the second layer is in the range from 40 wt. % to 80 wt. %, based on the total weight of the second layer. The proportion of the amine component is particularly preferably in the range from 55 wt. % to 70 wt. %. See paras. 37-44. In one embodiment, the proportion of the aromatic alcohol in the second layer is in the range of 1.0 wt. % to 20 wt. % based on the total weight of the second layer. For example, the proportion of the aromatic alcohol may be 1.5 wt. %, 2.0 wt. %, 2.5 wt. %, 3.0 wt. %, 4.0 wt. %, 5.0 wt. %, 6 wt. %, 7 wt. %, 8 wt. %, 9 wt. %, 10 wt. %, 11 wt. %, 12 wt. %, 13 wt. %, 14 wt. %, 15 wt. %, 16 wt. %, 17 wt. %, 18 wt. %, 19 wt. % or 20 wt. %. See para. 46. In one embodiment, the second layer of the microcapsules contains melamine, formaldehyde and resorcinol. In one embodiment, the second layer of the microcapsules contains melamine, urea, formaldehyde and resorcinol. In a preferred embodiment, the second layer of the microcapsules contains melamine in the range from 25 to 40 wt. %, formaldehyde in the range from 15 to 20 wt. % and resorcinol in the range from 0.1 to 12 wt. % and optionally urea in the range 15 to 20 wt. %.
A protective colloid can also be used to prepare the second layer from an aldehyde component, an amine component and an aromatic alcohol. A suitable protective colloid is 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS, commercially available as Lupasol®PA 140, BASF) or salts thereof. Note that, AMPS is the same as the preferred emulsion stabilizer as recited by instant claim 20 and disclosed in para. 21 of the instant specification. The proportion of the protective colloid in the components used to prepare the second layer can be in the range from 10 to 30 wt. %, based on the total dry weight of the components used. According to one embodiment, the proportion of the protective colloid in the components used to prepare the second layer is in the range from 15 to 25 wt. %. A certain low percentage of the protective colloid can also be contained in the finished microcapsule shell. See para. 49. The (meth)acrylate polymers optionally used for forming the thin second layer (diffusion barrier) can be homo- or copolymers of methacrylate monomers and/or acrylate monomers. The (meth)acrylate polymers are, for example, homo- or copolymers, preferably copolymers, of one or more polar functionalized (meth)acrylate monomers, such as those (meth)acrylate monomers containing sulfonic acid groups, carboxylic acid groups, phosphoric acid groups, nitrile groups, phosphonic acid, ammonium groups, amine groups or nitrate groups. The polar groups can also be present in salt form. (Meth)acrylate copolymers can consist, for example, of two or more (meth)acrylate monomers (e.g. acrylate+2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid) or of one or more (meth)acrylate monomers and one or more monomers (e.g. methacrylate+styrene) different from (meth)acrylate monomers. See para. 50.
At least one fragrance is used as the core material. Fragrance or perfume oils optimized for microencapsulation for the washing and cleaning agent sector, such as the fragrance formulation Weiroclean (Kurt Kitzing GmbH), are particularly preferred. The fragrances can be used in the form of a solid or liquid formulation, but especially in liquid form. Fragrances that can be used as the core material are not particularly limited. Thus, individual fragrance compounds of natural or synthetic origin, for example of the ester, ether, aldehyde, ketone, alcohol and hydrocarbon type, can be used. Fragrance compounds of the ester type are e.g., benzyl acetate, phenoxyethyl isobutyrate, p-tert-butylcyclohexyl acetate, linalyl acetate, dimethylbenzylcarbinyl acetate (DMBCA), phenylethyl acetate, benzyl acetate, ethylmethylphenyl glycinate, allylcyclohexyl propionate, styrallyl propionate, benzyl salicylate, cyclohexyl salicylate, floramate, melusate, and jasmacyclate. The ethers include, for example, benzyl ethyl ether and ambroxan, the aldehydes include the ones mentioned above, for example the linear alkanals having 8 to 18 carbon atoms, citral, citronellal, citronellyloxyacetaldehyde, cyclamenaldehyde (3-(4-propan-2-ylphenyl)butanal), filial and bourgeonal, the ketones include, for example, the ionones, [alpha]-isomethylionone and methylcedrylketone, the alcohols include anethole, citronellol, eugenol, geraniol, linalool, phenylethyl alcohol and terpineol, the hydrocarbons mainly include terpenes such as limonene and pinene. Preferably, mixtures of different fragrances are used, which together produce an appealing fragrance note. See paras. 55-56. According to one embodiment, the microcapsule has a third layer which is arranged on the outside of the first layer. The third layer also binds residual aldehyde quantities, thereby reducing the content of free aldehydes in the capsule dispersion. Furthermore, it can provide additional (mechanical) stability or further increase the tightness. Depending on the application, the third layer can contain a component selected from amines, organic salts, inorganic salts, alcohols, ethers, polyphosphazenes, and precious metals. See para. 63. Due to the low wall thicknesses, the proportion of the second layer in the shell based on the total weight of the shell is at most 30%. For high biodegradability, the proportion is at most 25 wt. % based on the total weight of the shell. The proportion of the second layer is particularly preferably not more than 20 wt. %. The proportion of the first layer on the shell based on the total weight of the shell is at least 40 wt. %, preferably at least 50 wt. %, particularly preferably at least 60 wt. %. The proportion of the third layer on the shell, based on the total weight of the shell, is at most 25%, preferably at most 20 wt. %, particularly preferably at most 15 wt. See para. 65. Bauer et al (i.e., ‘365) disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of Bauer et al (i.e., ‘365) anticipate the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/116365. Note that, Bauer et al (US2023/0021818) is a 371 application of WO2021/116365 and has been used as an English language translation of WO2021/116365.
Bauer et al are relied upon as set forth above. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of Bauer et al would suggest perfumes and mixtures of perfumes having the same properties as recited by the instant claims because Bauer et al teach the same perfumes as specifically listed in the instant specification as suitable perfumes.
Bauer et al (i.e., ‘365) do not teach, with sufficient specificity, an agent comprising biodegradable microcapsules, wherein the microcapsules contain specific perfumes as defined by their specific properties in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate an agent comprising biodegradable microcapsules, wherein the microcapsules contain specific perfumes as defined by their specific properties in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Bauer et al (i.e., ‘365) suggest an agent comprising biodegradable microcapsules, wherein the microcapsules contain specific perfumes as defined by their specific properties in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights