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 1-8 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed September 11, 2025, have been entered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 11, 2025, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 6/11/25 have been withdrawn:
None.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/535101, filed on 9/20/19.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant et al (US 2016/0319228) in view of Johnson et al (US2017/0015949) or EP 3,293,248 and Beckholt et al (US 2018/0362892), Song et al (US 2018/0265826), Smets et al (US 2018/0265818), Lintula et al (US 2018/0265816), Frensch et al (US 4,244,836), and Smets et al (US 2008/0305982).
Lant et al teach a cleaning composition comprising a nuclease enzyme, and a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant and a nonionic surfactant. See para. 3. The total level of surfactant in the cleaning composition is preferably from 5 to 80% by weight. See paras. 41-44. The composition may contain an encapsulate comprising a core, a shell having an inner and outer surface, said shell encapsulating the core. The core may comprise any laundry care adjunct such as perfume, etc. The shell may comprise a material selected from the group consisting polyvinyl alcohols, polyesters, polyacrylates, silicones, water insoluble organics, etc., and mixtures thereof. See para. 87. Additionally, the composition may contain optical brighteners including disodium 4,4’-bis(2-sulfostyryl)biphenyl, disodium 4,4’bis[(4-anilino-6-morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]stilbene-2,2’-disulfonate (same as recited by the instant claims), etc., which may be present in amounts from 0.01 to 1% by weight. See paras. 142-145. Note that, Lant et al exemplify compositions containing perfume encapsulates in amounts of 0.1%, 0.05%, etc., and would suggest a weight ratio of brightener to benefit agent capsule that falls within the scope of instant claim 1. The cleaning and/or treatment composition in the form of a liquid may be aqueous and contain from 5 to about 90% by weight of water. See paras. 185-187.
Lant et al do not teach the use of silica (i.e., silicone dioxide) or sodium silicate in the shell material, the specific amount of polyvinyl alcohol in the shell, or a composition containing benefit agent capsules comprising a perfume core and shell comprising polyvinyl alcohol; and silica or sodium silicate, a diaminostilbene brightener, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
‘248 teaches a detergent composition comprising cellulose fibers to improve the deposition and/or retention of encapsulated benefit agent onto fabrics. See Abstract. The laundry composition may contain from 0.05% to 10% by weight of an encapsulated benefit agent. The benefit agent is selected from a perfume composition, etc. The capsules have a wall, wherein the wall material may be selected from the group consisting of silicones, silica (i.e., silicone dioxide), polyvinyl alcohol, etc., and mixtures thereof. See paras. 37-40.
Johnson et al teach a cleaning composition comprises 1-70 wt.% surfactant, 0.001-20 wt.% perfume encapsulate and 0.1-10 wt.% cyclic amine (I) based on the composition. See Abstract. The wall of the encapsulate may contain silicones, silica, polyvinyl alcohol, etc. See para. 53-58.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use silica in the shell material of the encapsulate taught by Lant et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘248 or Johnson et al teach the equivalence of silica to polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material and further, Lant et al teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material.
Beckholt et al teach a multicomposition system that includes a first composition having a bleaching system, and a second composition having a core-in-shell encapsulate. See Abstract. The encapsulates may include a polyvinyl alcohol polymer, wherein the polyvinyl alcohol may be present in the encapsulates at a level of from about 0.5% to about 40% of the encapsulates, and wherein the polyvinyl alcohol may have a hydrolysis degree from about 55% to about 99% and a viscosity of from about 40 cps to about 80 cps in 4% water solution at 20 degrees Celsius. See paras. 83-85.
Song et al teach making product compositions that include encapsulates and borate compounds, where the encapsulates include polyvinyl alcohol polymer. See Abstract. The encapsulate may comprise from 0.1% to 1.1% by weight of the encapsulates of polyvinyl alcohol, wherein the polyvinyl alcohol may have at least one of the following properties: 55% to 99% degree of hydrolysis, a viscosity of from 40 mPas to 120 mPas in 4% water solution, etc. See Abstract and para. 40.
Smets et al teach compositions of benefit agent containing delivery particles and slurry comprising benefit agent containing delivery particles, compositions comprising said particles, etc. See Abstract. The encapsulate may comprise from 0.1% to 1.1% by weight of the encapsulates of polyvinyl alcohol, wherein the polyvinyl alcohol may have at least one of the following properties: 55% to 99% degree of hydrolysis, a viscosity of from 40 mPas to 120 mPas in 4% water solution, etc. See Abstract and paras 21-27.
Lintula et al teach liquid laundry detergent compositions containing core/shell encapsulates. See Abstract. The encapsulate may comprise from 0.1% to 1.1% by weight of the encapsulates of polyvinyl alcohol, wherein the polyvinyl alcohol may have at least one of the following properties: 55% to 99% degree of hydrolysis, a viscosity of from 40 mPas to 120 mPas in 4% water solution, etc. See Abstract and paras 27-38.
Frensch et al teach microcapsules having a shell consisting of water-soluble polyvinyl alochol and containing a liquid, water-insoluble material. See Abstract. The polyvinyl alcohol has a degree of hydrolysis of 72 to 99 mole and a viscosity of 2 to 18 centipoise measured in a 4% aqueous solution at 20 degrees Celsius. See column 3, lines 1-40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polyvinyl alcohol having the same viscosity as recited by the instant claims in the benefit agent taught by Lant et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Beckholt et al, Song et al, Smets et al, Lintula et al, or Frensch et al teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol having the same viscosity as recited by the instant claims in a similar composition and further, Lant et al teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol in general.
‘982 teach benefit agent containing delivery particles and compositions comprising said particles. See Abstract. In one aspect, the benefit agent delivery particles may contain from 20 to about 95% by weight of the benefit agent. See para. 51. Polyvinyl alcohol, fatty acids, sodium silicates, etc., and mixtures thereof, may be used to coat the particles. See para. 103. The compositions may contain from 0.1 to 10% by weight of the particles. See para. 112.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use sodium silicate in the shell material of the encapsulate taught by Lant et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘982 teaches the equivalence of sodium silicate to polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material and further, Lant et al teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polyvinyl alcohol in the capsules taught by Lant et al in the specific amount as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Beckholt et al, Song et al, Smets et al, Lintula et al, and ‘982 teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims in similar core/shell particles and further, Lant et al teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material in a core/shell particle in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing benefit agent capsules comprising a perfume core and shell comprising polyvinyl alcohol; and silica or sodium silicate, a diaminostilbene brightener, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts 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 Lant et al in view of Johnson et al or EP 3,293,248; and Beckholt et al, Song et al, Smets et al, Lintula et al, Frensch et al, and ‘982 suggest a composition containing benefit agent capsules comprising a perfume core and shell comprising polyvinyl alcohol; and silica or sodium silicate, a diaminostilbene brightener, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017/004343 in view of Johnson et al (US2017/0015949) or EP 3,293,248; and Beckholt et al (US 2018/0362892), Song et al (US 2018/0265826), Smets et al (US 2018/0265818), Lintula et al (US 2018/0265816), Frensch et al (US 4,244,836), and Smets et al (US 2008/0305982).
‘343 teaches laundry detergents in the form of a liquid which contain from 0.01% to about 20% by weight of the composition as microcapsules. See page 36. The composition may contain additional ingredients such as brighteners, surfactants, etc. See page 37. Surfactants may be used in amounts from 0.01% to about 30% by weight and include anionic, nonionic, zwitterionic, cationic, etc. See page 38. The microcapsules include a core material and a shell surrounding the core material, wherein the shell comprises synthetic polymeric materials or naturally-occurring polymers such as vinyl polymers, polyacrylates, gelatin, cellulose, etc. The core material of the microcapsules may include one or more perfume oils. See pages 9 and 10. ‘343 specifically teaches a laundry composition containing 0.18% of fluorescent brightener 1 which is Tinopal AMS and the same as recited by instant claim 1, 0.5% by weight of microcapsules which have 90% by weight of a core which is perfume, and 10% of a wall wherein Celvol 540 polyvinyl alcohol is used to make the wall material along with tert butyl amino ethyl methacrylate monomers which are then polymerized. See pages 55-80, specifically pages 78-81. Note that Celvol 540 as taught by ‘343 is the same as Celvol 540 listed on page 13, line 13 of the instant specification. Additionally, ‘343 exemplifies heavy duty liquid laundry detergent compositions containing, for example, 19% by weight of linear alkyl benzene sulfonate, 0.8% perfume microcapsules, etc. See Example 30, pages 80-83.
‘343 does not teach the use of silica (i.e., silicone dioxide) or sodium silicate in the shell material or a composition containing benefit agent capsules comprising a perfume core and shell comprising polyvinyl alcohol; and silica or sodium silicate, a diaminostilbene brightener, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Johnson et al, EP 3,293,248, Beckholt et al, Song et al, Smets et al, Lintula et al, Frensch et al, and ‘982 are relied upon as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use silica in the shell material of the encapsulate taught by ‘343, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘248 or Johnson et al teach the equivalence of silica to polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material and further, ‘343 teaches the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use sodium silicate in the shell material of the encapsulate taught by ‘343, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘982 teaches the equivalence of sodium silicate to polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material and further, ‘343 teaches the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polyvinyl alcohol having the same viscosity as recited by the instant claims in the benefit agent taught by ‘343, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Beckholt et al, Song et al, Smets et al, Lintula et al, or Frensch et al teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol having the same viscosity as recited by the instant claims in a similar composition and further, ‘343 teaches the use of polyvinyl alcohol in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polyvinyl alcohol in the capsules taught by ‘343 in the specific amount as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Beckholt et al, Song et al, Smets et al, Lintula et al, or ‘982 teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims in similar core/shell particles and further, ‘343 teaches the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material in a core/shell particle in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing benefit agent capsules comprising a perfume core and shell comprising polyvinyl alcohol; and silica or sodium silicate, a diaminostilbene brightener, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts 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 ‘343 in view of Johnson et al or EP 3,293,248; and Beckholt et al, Song et al, Smets et al, Lintula et al, Frensch et al, and ‘982 suggest a composition containing benefit agent capsules comprising a perfume core and shell comprising polyvinyl alcohol; and silica or sodium silicate, a diaminostilbene brightener, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using 1) Lant et al (US 2016/0319228) in view of Johnson et al (US2017/0015949) or EP 3,293,248; and Beckholt et al (US 2018/0362892), Song et al (US 2018/0265826), Smets et al (US 2018/0265818), Lintula et al (US 2018/0265816), Frensch et al (US 4,244,836), and Smets et al (US 2008/0305982); or 2) WO2017/004343 in view of Johnson et al (US2017/0015949) or EP 3,293,248; and Beckholt et al (US 2018/0362892), Song et al (US 2018/0265826), Smets et al (US 2018/0265818), Lintula et al (US 2018/0265816), Frensch et al (US 4,244,836), and Smets et al (US 2008/0305982), Applicant states that any rationale to combine uses the hindsight bias afforded by Applicant's present disclosure to prepare the presently claimed formulation and in order to establish a prima facie case for obviousness, it is incumbent on the Office to demonstrate predictability. Additionally, Applicant states that while the secondary references of ‘248 and Johnson et al allegedly provide a teaching that the shell material of Lant and/or '343 is interchangeable with the claimed combination of polyvinylalcohol and a shell component wherein said shell component is selected from the group consisting of silicone dioxide, sodium silicate, and mixtures thereof, this teaching does not provide a worthwhile degree of certainty of a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, Applicant states that '248 provides over 500,000 possible combinations of formulations of the shell (specifically 524,287 combinations) generated from 19 constituents and further directs one skilled in the art to melamine and/or polyacrylate based materials.
In response, note that, both the primary references of Lant et al and ‘343 clearly teach perfume capsules in which a variety of compounds such as polyvinyl alcohols, polyesters, polyacrylates, silicones, water insoluble organics, etc., may be used as shell materials to encapsulate the perfume (See, for example, para. 87 of Lant et al). Additionally, Johnson et al (US2017/0015949) or EP 3,293,248 are secondary references relied upon for their teaching of silica (i.e., silicone dioxide) in the shell material; and Smets et al (‘982) is a secondary reference which teaches the use sodium silicate in the shell material. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use silica in the shell material of the encapsulate taught by Lant et al or ‘343, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘248 or Johnson et al teach the equivalence of silica to polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material and further, Lant et al or ‘343 teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use sodium silicate in the shell material of the encapsulate taught by ‘343 or Lant et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘982 teaches the equivalence of sodium silicate to polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material and further, ‘343 teaches the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a shell material.
Note that, the prior art clearly recognizes the equivalence of polyvinyl alcohol, sodium silicate, and silica as shell materials for encapsulating perfumes, and it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not do more than yield predictable results. When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” See KSR, 550 US at 416. Obviousness does not require certainty of success; it requires only a reasonable expectation of success. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWE Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The reasonable expectation of success requirement for obviousness does not necessitate an absolute certainty for success.”). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (in making an obviousness determination, one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of 1) Lant et al (US 2016/0319228) in view of Johnson et al (US2017/0015949) or EP 3,293,248; and Beckholt et al (US 2018/0362892), Song et al (US 2018/0265826), Smets et al (US 2018/0265818), Lintula et al (US 2018/0265816), Frensch et al (US 4,244,836), and Smets et al (US 2008/0305982); or 2) WO2017/004343 in view of Johnson et al (US2017/0015949) or EP 3,293,248; and Beckholt et al (US 2018/0362892), Song et al (US 2018/0265826), Smets et al (US 2018/0265818), Lintula et al (US 2018/0265816), Frensch et al (US 4,244,836), and Smets et al (US 2008/0305982), are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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 on 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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/September 22, 2025