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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no motivation from Iwasaki to place the particulate within the guide groove of the tubular body. However, Iwasaki explicitly states “locating a liquid droplet in a container in which the composite particles are densely laid… rolling the liquid droplet, in order to coat the entire surface of the liquid droplet with the composite particles.” As the guide groove and tubular member are already disclosed by Natale, the combination of Natale and Iwasaki would provide all the claimed steps. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the combination of Natale and Iwasaki would suggest a 2nd container subsequent to the tubular container of Natale (which would add additional processing time, expense, maintenance, etc) this would still just be a change in sequence of adding ingredients, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, see MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Applicant further argues that that the composite particles of Iwasaki meet the requirement of powders of solid particulates because the composite particles of Iwasaki comprise 2 different solid particles. There is nothing in the claim that requires that the solid particles not be composites. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the particles being noncomposite) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues that the particulate is not in a powder form, but powder is just a collection of solid particles. If applicant intends a narrower definition, then they should amend the claim to reflect it.
In regards to applicant’s arguments in regards to Perignon, the examiner reiterates: applicant is correct that the examiner has used Perignon as an evidentiary reference to clarify the meaning of interfacial polymerization. As Perignon does not make a modification to Natale and merely explains the mechanism of interfacial polymerization already present in Natale, the rejection cannot be said to be improper. Furthermore, applicant points to Natale's description of interfacial polymerization, but does not point out how this description would be mutually exclusive of the features described in Perignon. Indeed, both references emphasize that interfacial polymerization was a widely known and utilized technique. As applicant has not asserted any modification to Natale allegedly required by the rejection, the rejection cannot be said to be improper. Furthermore, as to the allegedly missing feature of the simultaneous deposition of the wall precursor material and the inclusion substance. “The principles of the present invention may also be used for manufacture of microspheres by interfacial polymerization. In such a situation, a biphasic suspension is introduced as shown in the drawings at the inlet end 211 of the drum 201, with the suspended droplets[the inclusion material] containing one of the chemical reactants for polymer formation. At the same time [in other words simultaneous], additional suspension fluid containing additional chemical reactants [wall material precursor] for polymer formation, is similarly introduced into the groove 202 at the inlet end 211 (e.g. by means of a nozzle, not shown, of configuration similar to tubing 114 as shown). Thus, the rotation of the drum mixes the two fluids, initiating the reaction for polymeric formation at the surface of the suspended droplets. Polymer formation continues at the interface of the droplets while the segmented aliquot is in residence through the drum.” Given this disclosure it is unclear as to what feature applicant is alleging would be missing. Applicant points to the stream of suspension fluid, but a stream is not precluded by the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., deposition without a stream) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim 1-3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natale (US 4379682) and evidenced by Perignon (Microencapsulation by interfacial polymerisation: membrane formation and structure) in view of Iwasaki (US 2021/0032414).
As to claim 1, Natale teaches a capsule production method [Abstract, Title] to be performed by utilizing a tubular body (201) having a shape of tube surrounding a virtual center line including a guide groove that is helical or circles about the virtual center line, the guide groove (202) being provided in an inner surface of the tubular body [Fig 1], the method comprising: dropping (211), on the inner surface of the tubular body within a guide groove, an inclusion substance and a wall material precursor liquid simultaneously [Col 5 line 30-55, Fig 1] that is a precursor of a wall material covering the inclusion substance so that a liquid droplet is formed in which the liquid inclusion substance is covered by the wall material precursor liquid; progressing an encapsulation of the inclusion substance and the wall material precursor liquid by a liquid droplet dropped [Col 5 line 30-55], the tubular body rotating around the virtual center line; and rejecting, from the tubular body, a capsule obtained by a progress of the encapsulation [Fig 1].
Natale notes in the title as well as [col 2 line 33-40] that microcapsules were produced by the process disclosed. Natale notes an interfacial polymerization embodiment of the process [col 5 line 30-55] which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a disclosure of production of microcapsules as interfacial polymerization was well known as a microcapsule production method. Evidentiary reference Perignon which states “Interfacial polymerisation was mainly developed toward the end of the 1960s, leading to applications in microcapsule production by the mid-1970s. The process consists in the dispersion of one phase containing a reactive monomer, into a second immiscible phase to which is added a second monomer. Both monomers react at the droplet surface (interface), forming a polymeric membrane” [Abstract].
Placing powders of solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body.
Iwasaki teaches method of making encapsulated liquid [Abstract] wherein a liquid marble is coated ie dusted with particles in order to provide a capsule with excellent durability [0024, 0025, 0021, 0153, 0154, 0287]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Natale and powders of solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body in advance, the solid particulates being each smaller than the liquid droplet, wherein in the progressing, a liquid marble is formed by the liquid droplet rolling together with the solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body rotating, and the liquid droplet rolls in the guide groove in a form of the liquid marble, the liquid marble being the liquid droplet having a surface that is dusted with the solid particulates, as suggested by Iwasaki, in order to produce a capsule with improved durability.
As to claim 2, Natale teaches liquid droplet rolling with the guide groove as explained above but does not teach placing, prior to the dropping, powders of solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body in advance, the solid particulates being each smaller than the liquid droplet, wherein in the progressing, a liquid marble is formed by the liquid droplet rolling together with the solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body rotating, and the liquid droplet rolls in the guide groove in a form of the liquid marble, the liquid marble being the liquid droplet having a surface that is dusted with the solid particulates.
Iwasaki teaches method of making encapsulated liquid [Abstract] wherein a liquid marble is coated ie dusted with particles in order to provide a capsule with excellent durability [0024, 0025, 0021, 0153, 0154, 0287]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Natale and powders of solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body in advance, the solid particulates being each smaller than the liquid droplet, wherein in the progressing, a liquid marble is formed by the liquid droplet rolling together with the solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body rotating, and the liquid droplet rolls in the guide groove in a form of the liquid marble, the liquid marble being the liquid droplet having a surface that is dusted with the solid particulates, as suggested by Iwasaki, in order to produce a capsule with improved durability.
As to claim 3, Natale teaches a surface of the guide groove of the tubular body is liquid-repellent to the liquid droplet [col 5 line 5-30].
As to claim 11, Natale does not explicitly state the solid particles are smaller than the droplet.
Iwasaki teaches method of making encapsulated liquid [Abstract] wherein a liquid marble is coated ie dusted with particles in order to provide a capsule with excellent durability, the particles would necessarily be smaller than the droplets they coat otherwise they’d be unable to coat them [0024, 0025, 0021, 0153, 0154, 0287]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Natale and powders of solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body in advance, the solid particulates being each smaller than the liquid droplet, wherein in the progressing, a liquid marble is formed by the liquid droplet rolling together with the solid particulates in the guide groove of the tubular body rotating, and the liquid droplet rolls in the guide groove in a form of the liquid marble, the liquid marble being the liquid droplet having a surface that is dusted with the solid particulates, as suggested by Iwasaki, in order to produce a capsule with improved durability.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natale (US 4379682) and evidenced by Perignon (Microencapsulation by interfacial polymerisation: membrane formation and structure) in view of Iwasaki (US 2021/0032414), as applied to claims 1-3, 11 above, and in further view of Fulwyler (US 4162282).
As to claim 4, Natale does not explicitly state that an amount of the liquid droplet to be dropped at a time in the dropping is equal to or less than 15 uL,
Fulwyler notes a method of making uniform particles [abstract] wherein around 25,000 particles/droplets are produced per second and also notes a flow rate of 5-10 ml/minute [Col 3 line 23-37]. Calculating for an individual droplet this would amount to less than .01 ul per droplet. This had proven successful at create microcapsules phrased as “particle within a particle [col 5 line 7-25, Fig 4] and produced uniform droplets/particles [col 1 line 59-68]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Natale and an amount of the liquid droplet to be dropped at a time in the dropping is equal to or less than 15 uL, as suggested by Fulwyler, as this had been a proven method to produce uniform particle/capsules quickly.
While Natale does not explicitly state that a circumferential velocity of the inner surface of the tubular body in the dropping and in the progressing is equal to or faster than 0.08 m/s and equal to or slower than 0.24 m/s. Natale notes that selection of the rotation speed of the tubular body is a within the skill of one ordinary skill of the art and was selected in order to aid the particular character of the chemical reaction within the drum, in other words, is a results effective variable. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variables within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the tubular body in the dropping and in the progressing is equal to or faster than 0.08 m/s and equal to or slower than 0.24 m/s, as suggested by Natale, in order to aid the reaction conditions for producing microspheres of the particular materials being used.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natale (US 4379682) and evidenced by Perignon (Microencapsulation by interfacial polymerisation: membrane formation and structure) in view of Iwasaki (US 2021/0032414), as applied to claims 1-3, 11 above, and in further view of Whiffen (US 2014/0295077).
As to claim 5, Natale does not state the wall material precursor liquid has a characteristic of gelation, and the encapsulation progresses by the gelation of the wall material precursor liquid.
Whiffen teaches a method of encapsulation wherein the wall material precursor liquid has a characteristic of gelation, and the encapsulation progresses by the gelation of the wall material precursor liquid [0056]. This substance easily coats the core material and provides a solid but frangible shell [0056, 0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Natale and utilized the wall material precursor liquid has a characteristic of gelation, and the encapsulation progresses by the gelation of the wall material precursor liquid, as suggested by Whiffen, in order to form a solid but frangible shell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759