DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 6 and 7 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.
Claims 6 and 7, recite (on the last line) the term “preferably” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant is required to clarify these 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burakowski-Meise et al. (US 2019/0231659 A1) in view of Tabor et al. US 2017/0029561 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Meise teaches a benefit agent(s) delivery spherical particles for textile and laundry (instant claim 10) purposes; [185-193], wherein particles comprise a core-shell structure with sizes in the range of 10-600 µm; [abstract, 18, claim 16], wherein the particles are made of aliphatic-aromatic, aliphatic-aliphatic and polylactic polyesters; [22-26, 29, 52].
Regarding claims 1-4, Meise does not teach the polymers of delivery particle are made from waste polymers of post-consumer recycled material. However, the related art of Tabor teaches making the instantly claimed delivery particles’ polymer from previously used and waste polyester polymers as explained: (“The term "recycled polymer" as used herein refers to a polymer that has little value after its original lifespan has ended, and is recovered in an economically viable fashion from the original spent application for use in other applications”; 156), wherein it includes the same type of particles shell material; [168-169, 186, 212]. Tabor and Meuse are related arts that of polyester delivery particle and their usage in different applications such as laundry active agent’s delivery means. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Tabor’s recycled polyester for Meise’s benefit agent delivery particles with the motivation of making the same product with the same quality and lower cost as explained by Tobar above.
Regarding claims 5-6, Meise teaches deposition aids such as polysaccharide delivered by the particles on the laundry fabrics or textile; [73].
Claims 7-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burakowski-Meise et al. (US 2019/0231659 A1), Tabor et al. US 2017/0029561 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ferguson et al. US 2017/0154328 A1).
Regarding claims 7-9, Meise does not teach the specific type(s) of polysaccharide deposition aid material. However, the analogous art of Ferguson teaches polymer shell delivery capsules as deposition aid delivery mean for laundry, comprising the instantly claimed 1-4 linked ẞ-glycan such as hydroxypropyl cellulose, xyloglucan and galactomannan; [19, 25-28]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use polysaccharides of Ferguson (by substitution) for Meise laundry application as a complete functional equivalent material.
Regarding claim 11, Meise teaches application of benefit delivery agent for laundry applications; [188, 193]. This, as construed, does indeed include introducing the benefit agents (e.g. fragrance) on to fabric surfaces in an aqueous medium wherein the dilution of laundry liquor with active ingredient is an obvious practice with the motivation of enhancing the washing results. However, Ferguson, also, teaches the dilution of the washing liquor as a preferred step of washing fabrics with for enhancing the fragrance deposition on the substrates; [70].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burakowski-Meise et al. (US 2019/0231659 A1) in view of Tabor et al. US 2017/00 29561 A1).
Regarding claims 12-14, Meise teaches a method of making the instantly claimed benefit agent particles from the very claimed materials, aliphatic-aromatic, aliphatic-aliphatic and polylactic polyesters; [22-26, 29, 52], particles comprise a core-shell structure with sizes in the range of 10-600 µm; [abstract, 18, claim 16]. Meise does not teach the polymers of delivery particle are made from waste polymers of post-consumer recycled material. However, the related art of Tabor teaches making the instantly claimed delivery particles’ polymer from previously used and waste polyester polymers as explained: (“The term "recycled polymer" as used herein refers to a polymer that has little value after its original lifespan has ended, and is recovered in an economically viable fashion from the original spent application for use in other applications”; 11; e.g. packaging, 156), wherein it includes the same type of particles shell material; [168-169, 186, 212]. Tabor and Meuse are related arts that of polyester delivery particle and their usage in different applications such as laundry active agent’s delivery means. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Tabor’s recycled polyester for Meise’s benefit agent’s delivery particles with the motivation of making the same product with the same quality and lower cost as explained by Tobar above. Note that (instant claim 14) both Meise teaches a solvent in preparation of polyester particle material; [13, 31, 35], and by the same token Tabor a using a solvent for recycling of the claimed polymer material; [295].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM- 6 PM.
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2025/11/15
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767