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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 June 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6 May 2025.
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).
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 11-16 and 20-26 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.
Claims 11 and 26 recite the limitation “the water-miscible organic solvent.” The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because it is not clear what Applicant means by the term, since water is neither “water-miscible” (since it is itself water) nor organic, yet water is listed among other solvents, which are in fact organic solvents. Moreover, the specification describes essential oils as soluble in organic solvents and insoluble in water [0029], making it unclear what is required by the limitation “dissolving the polyester resin and polymeric stabilizer into the water-miscible solvent together with the essential oils to form a first fluid mixture,” for example, whether the essential oils are soluble (in the case of an ACTUAL organic solvent) in the first fluid mixture or insoluble (in the case of water, which is not in fact organic, but is listed in a list of so-called “water-miscible organic” solvents). While an Applicant can be his own lexicographer, a definition must be clear. In the present case, it is not clear whether Applicant actually intends water to be considered among water-miscible organic solvents -- i.e. whether the inclusion of water is in error or an intentional change in definitions of “organic” and “water-miscible,” especially in light of the description of differences in solubility of essential oils Examiner considers the broadest reasonable limitation to exclude water, since it is neither organic, nor water-miscible, since a substance is not considered “miscible” in itself.
Claims 12-16 and 20-26 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, 20, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwantes et al. (US 2006/0263518) in view of Morishita et al. (US 3,943,063), Zuo et al. (US 9,428,622), and Yan et al. (US 2016/0106635).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, Schwantes et al. (US’518) teaches a process for producing a composition comprising spherical microparticles containing one or more essential oils using oil in water (O/W) emulsion (Abstract). The manufacture of microcapsules by O/W emulsification was well-known in the art at the time of invention, generally including steps of a) combining core materials with a solvent, a polymer, which becomes a wall or shell, and b) adding a “non-solvent” or continuous phase material from which microcapsules precipitate. US’518 describes a common microencapsulation process (coacervation), including emulsifying or dispersing a core material in a medium, including polymer (“polymer rich”), wall material, and a polymeric stabilizer (i.e. “emulsifying agents”) followed by adding a polar solvent (“water”), and solidifying the wall material [0007,0009,0090,0062]. US’518 suggests that polyester can be a wall material [0007]. Core materials can include essential oils, which are dispersible in monomers or oligomers dispersed in an “internal phase oil” [0011,0015,0017-0018]. US’518 In the inventive process of US’518, the oil phase can include an organic solvent in addition to core material, wall material polymer precursor, and polymeric stabilizer [0059,0062]. US’518 fails to clearly teach dissolving polyester resin in a water-miscible organic solvent together with core material (e.g. essential oil of US’518). Morishita et al. (US’063) is analogous prior art, which teaches a general, well-known, and old method for microencapsulation of core materials, including dispersing or dissolving a core substance in a polymer solution including an organic solvent to form a first fluid mixture (Abstract; col. 1, lines 17-20, 49-54, and 57-58) followed by adding a polar solvent (e.g. water) to the first fluid mixture at a predetermined rate, thereby forming a second fluid mixture comprising precipitated generally spherical (“globular”) microparticles, since water is a nonsolvent for a polymer in the internal phase (col. 1, lines 55-56 and 59-62; col. 9, lines 11-19; also, col. 1, lines 17-27, which reverse the role of water as nonsolvent and organic solvent in O/W for W/O, but which is an obvious alternative in light of US’518). The organic solvent can be water-miscible (e.g. acetone or tetrahydrofuran, col. 1, lines 53 and 57-58). The invention of US’063 includes steps of combining a core material, polymer, solvent (including organic solvents), and stabilizers (surface active agents and emulsion stabilizing agents) to form a first fluid mixture (col. 7, lines 23-25, 47-49, and line 58 to col. 8, line 26), then adding a nonsolvent to the first mixture at a predetermined rate, thereby forming a second fluid mixture comprising precipitated microparticles (col. 8, line 66 to col. 9, line 10), then collecting the precipitated microcapsules (col. 9, lines 11-15). US’063 further teaches constraints on choice of polymer, solvent, vehicle, and non-solvent, including that polymer solvents should be miscible with non-solvents (col. 5, lines 9-10). Thus, Table 1 shows that when a polar nonsolvent is used (e.g. isopropanol, water, acetone, butanol) to precipitate microcapsules, a water-miscible organic solvent is used (e.g. acetone, ethanol, methanol, acetic acid, isopropanol, formic acid, dimethylformamide, dimethylsulfoxide). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of encapsulating a core of essential oils in a wall of polyester using a general process of coacervation or O/W emulsification outlined in US’518 by encapsulating the essential oils with steps, including dissolving provided polyester resin (wall-forming polymer taught in US’518), a polymeric stabilizer and a water-miscible organic solvent together with an essential oil core material to form a first fluid mixture, adding a polar solvent to the first fluid mixture at a predetermined rate to form a second fluid mixture comprising precipitated microparticles, and then collecting precipitated microparticles, because US’063 suggests that these general steps of microencapsulation for encapsulating materials have been known since 1976 and are analogous to both the inventive and the prior art processes taught in US’518.
The combination of US’518 in view of US’063 fails to teach an amorphous polyester resin. Zuo et al. (US’622) is analogous art for microencapsulation by phase inversion, analogous to coacervation and O/W emulsification and phase separation in US’518 and US’063, and suggests that a polyester resin can be used to form a shell in a process including dissolving a polyester resin, including an amorphous polyester resin produced from reacting a diol with a vinyl diacid or vinyl diester, comprising fumaric acid, maleic acid, itaconic acid, dimethyl fumarate, dimethyl maleate, and/ or dimethyl itaconate (col. 7, lines 21-52) (optionally with a catalyst, col. 6, lines 6-22 and conventional), in an organic solvent to form an emulsion to which is added water (a polar solvent) to provide a latex (Abstract), which is used to form a shell (col. 18, lines 25-41). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’518 in view of US’063 by dissolving an amorphous polyester resin into the water-miscible organic solvent to form a wall/ shell, because US’622 suggests that an amorphous polyester resin, including one formed from a diol and a vinyl diacid or vinyl diester, comprising fumaric acid, maleic acid, itaconic acid, dimethyl fumarate, dimethyl maleate, and/ or dimethyl itaconate in presence of a catalyst (also conventional), can be used in processes analogous to those taught in US’518 and US’063 to form particles, including a shell around a core.
The combination of US’518 in view of US’063 and US’622 fails to teach a nucleating agent. Yan et al. (US’635) is analogous art in the field of processes for producing microcapsules, comprising a core and a wall (Abstract), including those whose cores comprise essential oils [0139]. US’635 teaches adding nucleating agent to core materials to narrow melting and solidifying temperatures of a phase change material closer together, especially useful in specific applications, such as domestic applications or for garments [0034-0035]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’518 in view of US’063 and US’622 by adding a nucleating agent to either the first or second fluid mixtures or both; because the limitation “before, after, or during” comprehends the entire process and it would have been obvious to add a nucleating agent to either the first or second fluid mixture, it is clear that the obvious addition of nucleating agent would take place “before, after, or during” a step of the process.
As to the recited limitation “heating . . . to a temperature sufficient to dissolve.” It is well-known and conventional to heat a solution to increase solubility and rate of dissolution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of references by heating the solution in order to increase the rate of dissolution and to increase solubility of solutes, because it was both well-known and conventional to heat a solution to increase solubility and increase the rate of dissolution.
Regarding Claim 13, US’518 teaches prior art techniques, including a) adding a core material to solvent (dissolved in an organic oil phase) to which is then added a nonsolvent [0007]; b) adding core material to a dispersion medium and polymer wall material and then changing “solvent characteristics of the medium” to cause phase separation [0009]; and c) combining a polymeric emulsifier (i.e. stabilizer) and aqueous solvent; and combining core material, polymer, monomer, and the emulsifier dispersed in the water phase (Table 1; [0029]). US’063 suggests first adding polymer to a solvent to adjust viscosity (col. 7, lines 23-46) and then adding core substances to the polymer solution containing polymer and solvent. US’063 also suggests adding stabilizer (i.e. surface active agents) to a vehicle before adding it to the dispersion containing core substance, solvent, and polymer to emulsifying the solution easily and stably (col., lines 58-68). US’622 suggests generally combining a polyester resin, surfactant (stabilizer), and organic solvent together before adding water to form an emulsion, including in a “pre-blend mixture” prior to dissolution (Claim 1; col. 11, lines 5-10; col. 12, lines 29-37). US’518 fails to teach the precise order of combining ingredients in Claim 13. However, the evidence in US’518, US’063, and US622, suggests that while an order might provide certain advantages under at least some conditions, as in US’063, the order is not necessary to achieve an adequate emulsion for microencapsulation, as suggested US’518 and US’622. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by combining the polyester resin, the polymeric stabilizer, and the essential oils together before being placed in contact with the water-miscible organic solvent, because the combination of references, when taken as a whole, suggests that the order of adding ingredients is not particularly critical for forming microcapsules. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to mix components in any order or simultaneously. MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Regarding Claim 14, US’063 teach film-forming polymers, which can also be considered to be a polymeric stabilizer, since they help form a stable film, including polyacrylonitriles, polyvinyl chlorides, polyvinyl acetates, polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinyl pyrrolidones, methyl acrylate-methacrylic acid copolymers, vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers, cellulose acetate, hydroxy propyl cellulose, cellulose acetate phthalate, and gelatin (col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 20). US’622 teach surfactant stabilizers, including polyacrylic acid, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polyoxyethylene (i.e. polyethylene oxide) (col. 11, lines 51-67). US’518 teaches water (though not an organic solvent as claimed) as a solvent (also, “aqueous”) [0015,0056,0059,0066]. US’063 teaches water, acetic acid, polyethylene glycol, and dimethylformamide (col. 4, lines 44-52; col. 5, line 14 to col. 6, line 5). US’622 suggests that poly(propoxylated bisphenol co-fumarate), poly(ethoxylated bisphenol co-fumarate), poly(butyloxylated bisphenol co-fumarate), poly(co-propoxylated bisphenol co-ethoxylated bisphenol co-fumarate), poly(1,2-propylene fumarate), poly(propoxylated bisphenol co-maleate), poly(ethoxylated bisphenol co-maleate), poly(butyloxylated bisphenol co-maleate), poly(co-propoxylated bisphenol co-ethoxylated bisphenol co-maleate), poly(1,2-propylene maleate), poly(propoxylated bisphenol co-itaconate), poly(ethoxylated bisphenol co-itaconate), poly(butyloxylated bisphenol co-itaconate), poly(co-propoxylated bisphenol co-ethoxylated bisphenol co-itaconate), poly(1,2-propylene itaconate) are adequate for forming microcapsules by emulsion (col. 8, lines 11-29; col. 16, lines 61-67; col. 17, lines 8-15). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by using the claimed stabilizers, solvents, and polyester resins in combination, because the combination of references suggests their suitability as components for producing microcapsules by emulsion.
Regarding Claim 15, US’622 suggest that an amorphous polymer used for making analogous microparticles by emulsion should have a glass transition temperature (Tg) of between 30 and 80 C, including between 35 and 70 C (col. 9, lines 26-30; col. 19, lines 26-37). The claimed and taught ranges of glass transition temperature substantially overlap. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by using a polyester resin within the recited range of glass transition temperature, because US’622 suggests that amorphous polyester resins are suitable for producing analogous microparticles through analogous and conventional methods (emulsion, encapsulation), and that amorphous resins should have a glass transition temperature within the substantially overlapping range.
Regarding Claim 16, US’518 teaches a heating step to polymerize a formed wall material in the range of 90 C [0021,0079] and also heating to 70 C to achieve a desired particle size [0083]. In addition, US’622, which teaches amorphous polyester resins teaches heating within a range of 30-80 C to form a shell (col. 18, line 65 through col. 19, line 3), to a temperature of 100 C to achieve a desired particle size through aggregation (col. 18, lines 18-24, and to a temperature between 45 C and 150 C or 55-99 C to achieve a desired final shape of the particle, including a shell (col. 19, lines 25-31). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by heating the second fluid mixture to a temperature of between 70 to 100 C, because US’518 and US’622 suggest reasons for heating to within this range, including to form a wall/shell of a microcapsule, to achieve a desired particle size, and to achieve a desired shape.
Regarding Claim 25, US’622 teaches a polycondensation catalyst to make polyesters, whether crystalline or amorphous, including tetraalkyl titanates, dialkyltin oxides, aluminum alkoxide, alkyl zinc, dialkyl zinc, zinc oxide, and stannous oxide (col. 8, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by using any of tetraalkyl titanates, dialkyltin oxides, aluminum alkoxide, alkyl zinc, dialkyl zinc, zinc oxide, and stannous oxide as a catalyst for forming polyester, because US’622 suggests any of these as a catalyst for forming polyester.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwantes et al. (US 2006/0263518) in view of Morishita et al. (US 3,943,063), Zuo et al. (US 9,428,622), and Yan et al. (US 2016/0106635) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Kanda et al. (US 4,923,894).
Regarding Claim 12, US’518 teaches that microcapsules can be used with a wide variety core materials, including essential oils, and for a wide variety of applications, including in agricultural applications (e.g. fertilizer, herbicides) [0011]. The combination of US’518 in view of US’063, US’622, and US’635 fails to teach silica in combination with essential oil. Kanda et al. (US’894) is analogous art, teaching polymeric microcapsules, including a core of essential oil with pesticidal activity (col. 5, lines 47-64). US’894 also suggests including colloidal silica in microparticles with pesticidal activity (col. 10, lines 8-29). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of the combination of US’518 in view of US’063, US’622, and US’635 to include silica in microcapsules, containing essential oil, because US’894 suggests that essential oil and silica both function as pesticides which can be carried by microcapsules.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwantes et al. (US 2006/0263518) in view of Morishita et al. (US 3,943,063), Zuo et al. (US 9,428,622), and Yan et al. (US 2016/0106635) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of DeNicola et al. (CA 2,235,096).
Regarding Claims 21-22, US’635 teaches nucleating agents to minimize difference in melting and solidification temperatures. US’622 suggests adding colloidal silica as a flow aid additive (col. 20, line 4). The combination of references used to reject Claim 11 fails to teach adding colloidal silica as a nucleating agent. CA’096 (1998) teaches that nucleating agents for polymers include talc and colloidal silica (p. 24, first paragraph), and the age of the publication (1998) suggests the nucleating agents are conventional. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references with nucleating agents, including talc and colloidal silica, because CA’096 suggests these compositions as nucleating agents.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwantes et al. (US 2006/0263518) in view of Morishita et al. (US 3,943,063), Zuo et al. (US 9,428,622), and Yan et al. (US 2016/0106635) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Pastor et al. (WO 02/079182).
Regarding Claims 22-23, US’063 teaches the addition of powders, including talc and titanium dioxide (col. 8, lines 20-37). US’635 teaches nucleating agents to minimize difference in melting and solidification temperatures and also teaches optional materials, including talc, titanium oxide, and boron nitride [0301]. The combination of references used to reject Claim 11 fails to teach adding, for example, talc, titanium dioxide, or sodium benzoate as a nucleating agent. WO’182 (2002) teaches that nucleating agents for polymers (including polyesters, p. 13, item 18) include talc, titanium dioxide, aromatic carboxylic acid salts (e.g. 4-tert-butylbenzoic acid, diphenylacetic acid, sodium benzoate) (p. 25, sixth paragraph), and the age of the publication (2002) suggests the nucleating agents are conventional. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references with nucleating agents, including talc, titanium dioxide, aromatic carboxylic acid salts, and sodium benzoate, because CA’096 suggests these compositions as nucleating agents for polymers, including polyester.
Claim(s) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwantes et al. (US 2006/0263518) in view of Morishita et al. (US 3,943,063), Zuo et al. (US 9,428,622), and Yan et al. (US 2016/0106635) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Hanssen (US 2009/0054598).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of US’518 in view of US’063, US’622, and US’635 fails to teach phosphate ester salts or a “hypernucleating agent.” Hanssen (US’598) teaches both phosphate ester salts and a hypernucleating agent under the trademark HYPERFORM, which was known at the time of invention as “a very good nucleating agent” [0008]; phosphate ester salts are conventional nucleating agents, and nucleating agents sold under the trademark HYPERFORM are well-known, including for polyesters [0048]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references, because US’635 suggests adding nucleating agents, and US’598 teaches both phosphate ester salts and a hypernucleating agent as nucleating agents, including for polyesters.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of references suggests the obviousness of producing microcapsules both by oil in water emulsions and water by in water in oil emulsions; therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the polyester resin, the polymeric stabilizer, and the essential oils in the organic solvent. The order of mixing components, whether mixing the components together before adding them to the solvent, adding them sequentially to the solvent, or adding them all at the same time to the organic solvent is a prima facie obvious change in order of adding components absent evidence of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
US’635 teaches a nucleating agent (see rejection of Claim 11 above). The combination of US’518 in view of US’063, US’622, and US’635 fails to teach phosphate ester salts or a “hypernucleating agent.” Hanssen (US’598) teaches both phosphate ester salts and a hypernucleating agent under the trademark HYPERFORM, which was known at the time of invention as “a very good nucleating agent” [0008]; phosphate ester salts are conventional nucleating agents, and nucleating agents sold under the trademark HYPERFORM are well-known, including for polyesters [0048]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references, because US’635 suggests adding nucleating agents, and US’598 teaches both phosphate ester salts and a hypernucleating agent as nucleating agents, including for polyesters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 1 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 11-16 and 20-26 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and overcomes the previous rejection under these paragraphs. The rejections of Claims 11-16 and 20-26 under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 11-16 and 20-26 under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the amendment to the claims overcomes the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 USC 112(b) (Remarks, p. 9), while the amendment provides sufficient antecedent basis, a review of the specification has raised another issue under 35 USC 112(b). The limitation “water-miscible organic solvent” is indefinite as ambiguous in light of the specification, which includes water among so-called water-miscible organic solvents, but water is neither water-miscible (being water itself) nor organic. Therefore, it is not clear whether the term is meant to include water or whether water is listed as a water-miscible organic solvent in error.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed process as a whole (Remarks p. 15, next to last paragraph), this paragraph does not point to any specific errors.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the rejection relies upon impermissible hindsight reconstruction (Remarks, p. 15, last paragraph), 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). The rejections provide sufficient motivation from analogous prior art, scientific reasoning, and/ or conventional knowledge and practices. See rejections herein.
In response to Applicant’s argument the combination of references fails to teach or to suggest the inclusion of amorphous polyesters in a phase for the production of microcapsules (Remarks, p. 16), Zuo et al. (US’622) suggests incorporating an amorphous polyester resin into the shell of a particle with a core and a shell, including as a component of an emulsion (col. 18, lines 27-64), Zuo et al. (US’622) is cited as analogous art in the field of microcapsule production for its suggestion to use an amorphous polyester resin and its recognized reactions with diols and diacids to form a wall/ shell in microparticles, and is thus both in an analogous field and reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem of forming microcapsules through emulsion chemistry.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Yan does not teach or suggest incorporating agents into the presently claimed polyester essential-oil precipitation process (Remarks, p. 16), the assertion is loaded, since the rejections are based on the obviousness of Applicant’s claims from motivations taught in a combination of references, known in the prior art, supplemented by scientific reasoning and conventional knowledge, not as anticipated by a single reference. As explained in the rejections, Yan et al. (US’635) is analogous art in the field of the production of microcapsules through emulsion chemistry, including the production of microcapsules containing a core of essential oils [0139], and also reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem of producing such microcapsules through emulsion chemistry and suggests nucleating agents which promote encapsulated phase change materials to be used in various domestic applications [0034-0035] to address various problems, including supercooling [0038] and to bring melting and solidifying temperatures of a phase change material closer together [0034].
In response to Applicant’s argument that the rejection combines references directed to coacervation, generalized microencapsulation, latex shell formation, and phase change material nucleation systems and that the “references operate in materially different technical contexts and address unrelated problems” (Remarks, p. 17), despite Applicant’s characterization as operating in materially different technical contexts and addressing unrelated problems, each reference is analogous art in the field of microencapsulation (including microparticles), and is each reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s various problems for which each is cited, including the formation microcapsules by emulsion chemistry.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Office does not provide sufficient articulated reasoning and that the rejection appears to rely on Applicant’s disclosure (Remarks, p. 17), other than mere conclusory generalities, Applicant offers no arguments which directly address the reasoning in fact provided with each reference either in the analogous field, reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem, or both.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Yan does not teach incorporating nucleating agents into Applicant’s claimed process for producing generally spherical essential-oil microparticles using amorphous polyester precipitation (Remarks, p. 18), US’063 is cited for its suggestions that precipitated microcapsules can be expected to be globular (“generally spherical”); Applicant provides no arguments against the US’063 reference, which is cited for its suggestions about generally spherical microcapsules, even though Applicant clearly recognizes that US’063 was cited for this suggestion (Remarks, p. 12). Thus, Applicant’s arguments largely attack individual reference A for failing to teach or to suggest certain limitations for which reference B is cited, while not addressing the pertinent teachings of reference B about those same limitations.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights