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 06 March 2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 04 August 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 18-23 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-17 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 9, 10-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 contains the trademark/trade name Dimension PA 140. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
With regard to claims 3-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15-16, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regard to claims 3, 9, and 10, the phrase “particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regard to claim 10, the phrases “such as” and “like” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regard to claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation 0.5 to 15.0 wt.%, and the claim also recites 1 to 11 wt.% and 2 to 7 wt.% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 6, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation 5 to 50 wt.% wt.%, and the claim also recites 10 to 30 wt.% and 15 to 20 wt.% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation 1.0 to 20 wt.%, and the claim also recites 6 to 16 wt.% and 10 to 14 wt.% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 8, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation 20 to 85 wt.%, and the claim also recites 40 to 80 wt.% and 55 to 70 wt.% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation the biopolymers of the stability layer are selected from the group consisting of proteins such as gelatin, whey protein, plant storage protein; polysaccharides such as alginate, gum arabic, modified gum, chitin, dextran, dextrin, pectin, cellulose, modified cellulose, hemicellulose, starch or modified starch; phenolic macromolecules such as lignin; polyglucosamines such as chitosan, polyvinyl esters, such as polyvinyl alcohols and polyvinyl acetate; phosphazenes, and polyesters such as polylactide or polyhydroxyalkanoate and the claim also recites biopolymers are particularly gelatin and/or alginate which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation the biopolymer in the stability layer is crosslinked with a curing agent and the curing agent of the stability layer is selected from the group consisting of an aldehyde, such as glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde or glyoxal, a tannin, an enzyme such as transglutaminase, and an organic anhydride like maleic anhydride, an epoxy compound, a polyvalent metal cation, an amine, a polyphenol, a maleimide, a sulfide, a phenol oxidase, a hydrazide, an isocyanate, an isothiocyanate, an N-hydroxysulfosuccinimide derivative, a carbodiimide derivative, and a polyol and the claim also recites the curing agent is particularly preferably glutaraldehyde or glyoxal which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 11, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation at most 30wt.% and the claim also recites at most 25wt.% and 20wt.% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation at least 1µm and the claim also recites at least 2µm and 3µm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 13, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation at most 35 wt.% and the claim also recites at most 30 wt.% and 25 wt.% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regard to claim 15, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation at least 40% and the claim also recites at least 50%, 60%, and 70% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-7, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US-20200093714-A1).
With regard to claim 1, Bauer teaches a microcapsule system comprising a fragrance composition (i.e., claimed core), an inner microcapsule (i.e., claimed barrier layer), and an outer microcapsule (i.e., claimed stability layer). This outer microcapsule encloses (a) at least one inner microcapsule having an inner capsule shell and (b) a fragrance composition. The outer microcapsule surrounds both the inner microcapsule and fragrance component. Furthermore, Bauer teaches that the inner capsule shell comprises a resin obtained by reacting (i) at least one aromatic alcohol, (ii.) at least one aldehydic component, and (iii) optionally in the presence of at least one (meth)acrylate polymer (i.e., claimed emulsion stabilizer) (para [0012]).
Bauer does not explicitly teach the emulsion stabilizer is arranged at the transition from barrier layer to stability layer. However, Bauer teaches that 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid—which correspond to the claimed emulsion stabilizer, a (meth)acrylate polymer, and AMPS—copolymers serve as a suitable protective colloids in the production of the inner microcapsules (para [0071]). Consequently, this teaching indicates that the emulsion stabilizer is structurally situated to surround the inner microcapsule, thus will be at the transition between both the inner and outer microcapsule.
Furthermore, Bauer does not explicitly characterize the microcapsule as biodegradable. However, Bauer teaches that the microcapsule system is applied to a surface via washing, cleaning, conditioning, or dyeing agent, with the fragrances subsequently released through diffusion and mechanical friction (para [0020]). Bauer further teaches the diffusion occurs directly into the ambient air once the capsule has been separated from the other constituents (para [0080]).
With regard to the emulsion stabilizer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to position 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) at the transition interface between the inner and outer microcapsules. Bauer would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ AMPS to establish a protective colloid over the inner microcapsule (para [0071]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize AMPS or a methacrylate polymer to achieve this protective colloid configuration. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to the biodegradability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention that Bauer’s microcapsule system is biodegradable. Bauer would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a microcapsule system that operates via the diffusion and separation of components into the air or onto a target application (paras [0020 and 0080]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize Bauer’s microcapsule system for its separation advances. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 2, Bauer does not explicitly teach a process wherein the microcapsules surface is brought into contact with the emulsion stabilizer prior to the formation of the stability layer to increase the surface’s capacity for structural attachment. However, Bauer teaches surface-active substances function as emulsifiers. Specifically, Bauer discloses that emulsifiers form water-resistant or oil-resistant adsorption layers on the phase interface, which prevent dispersed droplets from coalescing and thereby stabilize the emulsion (para [0175]). Furthermore, as stated above, AMPS copolymers are suitable protective colloids for producing the inner microcapsules (para [0071]).
Bauer further teaches that the production of these inner microcapsules—for example, in the form of microcapsule dispersions—occur by combining and reacting the core with at least one aromatic alcohol, aldehydic component, and optionally methacrylate polymer (para [0072]), which reads that the methacrylate polymer is brought into contact with the inner microcapsule before the other microcapsule is introduced. Additionally, Bauer notes that corresponding methods for surface modification and encapsulation can be readily transferred to the inner microcapsules (para [0160]).
With regard to surface’s capacity for structural attachment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to that Bauer’s surface can be modified. Specifically, Bauer’s the inner microcapsule surface. Bauer would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ emulsion stabilizers for its ability to prevent dispersed droplets from coalescing, thus stabilizing the emulsion (para [0175]). Additionally, Bauer would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface of the inner microcapsules to increase the surface capacity for structural attachment of the outer microcapsule (para 0160]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Bauer’s inner microcapsule surface for increase outer microcapsule capacity. 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. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 3, Bauer teaches the optional inclusion of at least one (meth)acrylate polymer (para [0041]). Furthermore, Bauer exemplary (meth)acrylate polymers, including 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS), N-vinylpyrrolidone (para [0057]), and styrene (para [0058]), explicitly notes that these AMPS copolymers are suitable for use as protective colloids in the production of the inner microcapsules (para [0071]). This disclosure reads on the claimed emulsion stabilizer, as AMPS functions as a stabilizer to the inner microcapsule.
With regard to claim 4, Bauer teaches that the weight ratio of components a)+b) to c)—representing the ratio of the total weight of a)+b)) to the weight of component c)—is generally in the range of 1:1 and 1:0.01 (para [0053]). This disclosure ratio overlaps on the claimed limitation as the polymer is present at 9.09 to 50wt.%.
With regard to claim 5, Bauer teaches the capsule wall of the inner microcapsule comprises an aromatic alcohol and aldehydic component (para [0041]).
With regard to claim 6, Bauer teaches the use of aldehydic components, such as glutardialdehyde, succinic dialdehyde, glyoxal (para [0052]), and furfural (para [0051]); wherein glutardialdehyde, succinic dialdehyde are preferred. Bauer further teaches that for the inner microcapsules, the molar ratio of (a) the at least one aromatic alcohol to (b) at least one aldehydic component generally ranges between 1:1 and 1:5 (para [0053]). This disclosure overlaps on the claimed limitation as the aldehydic component concentration is 50 to 83wt.% within the inner component.
With regard to claim 7, Bauer teaches the use of aromatic alcohol components, such as resorcinol, phloroglucinol, in the inner capsule (i.e., barrier layer) (para [0050]). Bauer further teaches that for the inner microcapsules, the molar ratio of (a) the at least one aromatic alcohol to (b) at least one aldehydic component generally ranges between 1:1 and 1:5 (para [0053]). This disclosure overlaps on the claimed limitation as the aromatic alcohol concentration is 16.67 to 50 wt.% within the inner component.
With regard to claim 9, Bauer teaches that the outer microcapsule comprise protein, cellulose, cellulose derivatives, gelatin, vinyl polymers, plant origin, polysaccharides, gum arabic, and polyesters (para [0030]).
With regard to claim 10, Bauer does not teach the outer microcapsule layer is crosslinked with a curing agent. However, Bauer teaches exemplifies a cross-linked glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde, epoxy included in the high-molecular compound (para [0030]). Bauer further teaches enzymes as performance/aesthetic properties improver (paras [0187-0188]). These examples read on being the curing agent.
With regard to the curing agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize a compound such as formaldehyde to crosslink Bauer’s outer microcapsule layer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention, as Bauer’s microcapsules can be provided with a high-molecular compound, formaldehyde, and mixtures thereof.
With regard to claim 11, Bauer teaches that the inner capsule, comprises a wall material proportion of greater than 10 to 20%. Bauer further teaches that a reduction in the capsule wall material of greater than 10% results in increased, accelerated, and more perceptible diffusion of the core material (paras. [0083-0084]). This disclosure reads on the inner capsule (i.e., barrier) falling within the claimed range of at most 30 wt.%.
With regard to claim 12, Bauer does not explicitly teach the claimed thickness of the stability layer. However, Bauer teaches that the shell thickness controls key functional properties, including shell permeability and diffusivity; specifically, smaller shell thicknesses provide higher diffusive permeability than greater thicknesses (para [0093]). Furthermore, Bauer explains the diffusivity of the capsules can be precisely adjusted by modifying both the wall thickness and the degree of cross-linking of the shell material (para [0034]).
With regard to the thickness, Bauer offers the motivation to optimize the shell thickness in order to regulate reaction profile and diffusion (paras. [0034 and 0162]). Bauer would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shell thickness to manipulate diffusivity and permeability (paras [0093]), achieving the permeability and diffusion characteristics 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 thickness as disclosed by Bauer to arrive at the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 13, while Bauer does not explicitly teach a third layer. Bauer teaches that the wall material of the outer microcapsules comprises melamine-urea-formaldehyde, melamine-formaldehyde, or urea-formaldehyde (para [0038]). Bauer teaches that, in various embodiments, the weight of the polymer forming the outer capsule shell constitutes 1 to 25 wt. % (para [0143]). This disclosure reads on an amine component at the claimed concentration.
Furthermore, Bauer teaches that the outer microcapsule may differ in their structure or composition, such that different release mechanisms are used or, if the same release mechanism is used, different release conditions are set (para [0033]). Bauer further teaches the outer microcapsule contains on average more than one, such as at least 2 or more inner microcapsules enclosed therein (para [0094]).
With regard to the third layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Bauer’s microcapsule to comprise an additional outer layer, specifically one of gelatin and another melamine-formaldehyde microcapsules as the wall material, as they are both provided in the outer microcapsule. Bauer would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the outer microcapsule to obtain a different release condition (para [0033]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention, as Bauer’s microcapsules can be provided with a multi-layered outer shell comprising melamine-formaldehyde microcapsules and gelatin.
With regard to claim 14, Bauer teaches the phase to be encapsulated (i.e., core) is a fragrance composition, usually in the form of a perfume oil (para [0031]). As fragrances or odorants or perfume oils, silicon oils, cosmetic active ingredients, all known substances and mixtures can be used (para [0097 and 0115]). This disclose reads on the claimed core material.
With regard to claim 15, while Bauer does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation characteristics. Bauer does teach the underlying functional principles through its disclosure of capsule shell permeability control. Specifically, Bauer teaches that the capsule shell is “substantially impermeable to the encapsulated contents,” meaning that the contents or individual ingredients cannot spontaneously penetrate the shell, and release occurs only upon opening the capsule or via a long-term diffusion process (para [0028]). Furthermore, Bauer teaches the that the diffusivity and permeability of the capsules can be adjusted by modulating the degree of cross-linking of the shell material and the shell thickness (para [0034]). Additionally, by selecting and controlling the reaction conditions during shell formations can also determine the permeability to encapsulated odorants (para [0162]). Crucially, Bauer notes that shell permeability is inversely related to thickness, where smaller shell thickness provides higher diffusive permeability than greater thickness (para [0093]).
With regard to the impermeability, Bauer offers the motivation to optimize the permeability of the microcapsules by adjusting both the reaction conditions and shell formation (paras. [0034 and 0162]). Bauer would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to regulate the microcapsule system for diffusion-based permeability properties (paras [0034 and 0093]). Therefore, the reaction can be optimized to reach the permeability 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 microcapsules for impermeability as disclosed by Bauer to arrive at the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 17, Bauer teaches that the described systems are particularly suitable for application in washing, cleaning, cosmetics, body care, and adhesive technology (para [0022]). Bauer further teaches that these microcapsule systems enable both long-lasting and targeted fragrance release—specifically for conditioning, caring for, and/or dyeing hard or soft surfaces (para [0155]). Because Bauer identifies adhesive systems, cosmetics, and body care as suitable applications, this disclosure reads on the claimed limitations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US-20200093714-A1) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17 above, and further in view of Georgi (WO-2021110273-A1, located in Information Disclosure Statement).
Please note: The paragraph citations correspond to the English language equivalent US-20230018872-A1.
The teaching of Bauer are discussed above.
With regard to claim 8, Bauer does not teach an amine within the inner microcapsule.
In the same field of endeavor, Georgi et al. discloses multilayer microcapsules comprising a core and a capsule shell (Abstract); highlighting that these multilayer microcapsules exhibit high biocompatibility due to their bio-based and biodegradable building blocks (para [0024]). Specifically, Georgi et al. describes a multilayer shell wherein a layer exhibits a hydrophobic character and functions as a “barrier layer” that impedes the diffusion of the enclosed active ingredient (para [0114]). Georgi et al. further teaches the shell utilizes a polysaccharide to impart higher stability and act as a protective colloid for emulsion “stability” (polysaccharide is a biopolymer, para [0175]), in addition to other layers. Georgi et al. notes additional emulsifying stabilizers may also be incorporated (para [0108]). Georgi et al. further teaches the use of monomers such as acrylate (para [0009]), styrene (para [0200]), and polyvinylpyrrolidone (para [0077]), which overlap some monomers of the claimed emulsion stabilizer. Collectively, these disclosures overlap the reference used within and the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Georgi teaches the inclusion of an amine component (e.g. polyurea, para [0038]) to enhance biodegradability and biocompatibility (para [0117]). Georgi further teaches that the amine—which reacts at an acidic pH—is added directly to the suspension or emulsion directly to enclose the inner first capsule shell and the hydrophobic active ingredients contained therein at a concentration of 1 to 50wt.% (para [0124 and 0158]). This disclosure reads on the claimed amine component within the inner microcapsule and concentration range.
With regard to amine component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Bauer’s inner microcapsule layer to comprise an amine component as established by Georgi. Georgi would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an amine to react with the emulsion based on pH, while simultaneously improving biodegradability and biocompatibility (paras [0117 and 0124]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Bauer’s inner microcapsule to comprise an amine for the recognized properties. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US-20200093714-A1) and Georgi (WO-2021110273-A1, located in Information Disclosure Statement) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Aussant (US-20180185808-A1).
The teachings of Bauer and Georgi are discussed above.
With regard to claim 16, Bauer and Georgi do not explicitly teach color coordinates within the L*a*b* color space having an L* value of at least 50. However, Bauer does acknowledge that a primary disadvantage of this technology is that the resorcinol and phloroglucinol-based capsules cause undesirable discoloration and sedimentation of the product formulation, rendering them commercially unviable and inadequate for storage (para [0009]). To evaluate these properties, Bauer utilizes a discoloration and sedimentation scoring system ranging from 0 to 3, noting that in high performance phloroglucinol capsules can be considerably reduced by employing a capsule-in-capsule system (paras. [0202-0203]).
In the same field of endeavor, Aussant teaches an encapsulated perfume composition comprising at least one aminoplast core-shell microcapsule (Abstract). Aussant further teaches the utilization of polymeric stabilizers (e.g. N-vinylpyrrolidone, para [0037]), hydrocolloids (e.g. gelatin, para [0067]), and resorcinol (para [0026]). Collectively, these disclosures overlap the references used within and the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Aussant teaches that utilizing resorcinol in the preparation of aminoplast microcapsules slurries can lead to an undesirable discoloration. To address this, Aussant teaches that replacing resorcinol with a diamine cross-linker yields melamine-formaldehyde microcapsules that achieve stability and performance levels at least comparable to prior art resorcinol-based microcapsules, while successfully eliminating the discoloration effect (paras [0005-0007]). This is further exemplified in Table 1, where a composition featuring microcapsule shell comprised of the terpolymer appeared white and exhibits L* value greater than 50 (Table 1, para [0190]). Conversely, a composition containing microcapsules with a shell made of melamine-formaldehyde and urea is colorless. (para [0191]).
With regard to L*a*b* color space, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the microcapsule of Bauer. Specifically, one would be motivated to reduce resorcinol concentration and replace with it with an amine crosslinker, as established in Georgi and Aussant, to optimize a desirable microcapsule color. Georgi would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an amine to react with the emulsion based on its pH, while simultaneously improving biodegradability and biocompatibility (paras [0117 and 0124]). Aussant would guide one having ordinary skill in the art that resorcinol-containing microcapsule slurries cause undesirable discoloration, establishing a clear motivation to develop microcapsule that maintain comparable stability/performance without discoloration. Therefore, substituting resorcinol with an amine cross-liner produces microcapsules that are colorless while retaining stability and performance (paras [0005-0007]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Bauer’s microcapsule to comprise an amine for the recognized properties.
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
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights