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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, and the species of water-soluble polymers (claims 1-6, 9, 10, and 18-20) in the reply filed on February 16, 2026 is acknowledged. In view of Thomas (US 2009/0126644, cited below), the species election is hereby withdrawn.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method of claim 1 requires “dispersing the particles in an organic liquid non-solvent for the matrix material”, which Postma does not teach. (Remarks, 6, February 16, 2026.) This is not found persuasive because the common technical feature among Groups I and II as represented by amended claims 1 and 7, respectively, does not require “dispersing the particles in an organic liquid non-solvent for the matrix material” as Applicant argues. Claim 1 is drawn to a method, whereas claim 7 is drawn to a product. Claim 7 recites a product which comprises a fragrance-containing particle within a matrix, which “matrix having been subsequently treated with an organic liquid non-solvent for the matrix material prior to its addition to the product”. First it is noted that “subsequently treated” in claim 7 raises indefiniteness as it is a product claim and it is unclear what “subsequently” relates to. Secondly claim 7 is a product claim wherein “treated” means neither of (a) dispersed as in claim 1, nor (b) any “organic liquid non-solvent for the matrix material” present on the “fragrance-containing particles”. Therefore the common technical feature among Groups I and II as represented by claims 1 and 7, respectively, does not require “dispersing the particles in an organic liquid non-solvent for the matrix material” as Applicant argues. The common technical feature is encapsulated fragrance in a particulate matrix wherein the matrix material is water-soluble or water-dispersible, which Thomas (US 2009/0126644) teaches as discussed below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 16, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “pectines” should be “pectins” because the former refers to the process of extracting pectin from fruits. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 9-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the resulting particles" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Alternatively claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how “the particles” of step (b) which are solids, form “the resulting particles”. “Dispersing the particles” in step (b) would result in a dispersion comprising the particles and the medium into which the particles are dispersed in. Thus “the resulting particles” are separate from the medium into which “the particles” have been dispersed into; the result of step (b) would be a dispersion, not particles. Because claim 1 recites a method “comprising”, possibly some other process steps, omitted in claim 1, lead to particles without or separate from the dispersion medium. Furthermore it is ambiguous whether “the resulting particles” comprise any of the “organic liquid non-solvent for the matrix material” on the surface or internally.
None of the dependent claims resolves this issue and therefore they are also rejected on this ground.
For the purposes of examination now “the resulting particles" is construed as the particles in solid form or in a dispersion medium, and either comprising or free of the “organic liquid non-solvent for the matrix material”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Thomas (US 2009/0126644).
Thomas teaches “solid, free-flowing composition adapted to deliver fragrance or malodor counteractant in a consumer product” comprising a core comprising a fragrance, and an optional protective coating which preferably includes polyethylene glycol (title; abstract; paras. 0006-12, 0036; see entire document). The core comprises fragrance and the materials in instant claims 4 and 9-17 (paras.0025, 0029-35). A “method of forming a delivery system … compris[es] the steps of spraying a fragranced material on to an absorbent material, which thereby becomes the internal absorbent material …[o]ptionally, the resultant encapsulated material can be coated with a coating material” (para.0046). “The fragranced material may be sprayed on to particles, in the form of an emulsion” (para.0047) and then spray dried (paras.0048-49).
“By ‘protective coating’ is meant a thin layer of a material having the function of preventing low levels of moisture present in the product causing breakdown or clumping of the particles, yet which, in the presence of larger amounts of water in use, will break down and allow release of the fragrance.” (Para.0036). The protective “coating material may be provided in the form of a melt, an aqueous solution, emulsion or dispersion” and then “sprayed onto the delivery system” (paras.0045, 0050). A protective coating including polyethylene glycol provided in an emulsion or dispersion would comprise the particles of the core in a dispersion.
The fragrance-containing particles, described as “a solid, free-flowing composition” can be added to products such as those in claim 20 (paras.0063-64).
.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2009/0126644) in view of McGee (US 2003/0072733).
Thomas does not specifically teach the polyethylene glycol of molecular weight from about 200 to about 700 as in claims 3, 6, and 19.
McGee is drawn to “absorbing moisture and/or malodor and providing a fragrance to the surrounding ambience that includes providing a delivery vehicle containing an enrobement material, a fragrance, and a fixative” wherein the fixative is polyethylene glycol having molecular weight of about 400 to about 20,000 Daltons, e.g., 400 Daltons (abstract; claims 3, 4; see title; paras.0014-33). The delivery vehicle is a free-flowing powder and comprises a fragrance material and an absorbent material such as starches (paras.0012-14).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Thomas and McGee and disperse Thomas’s fragrance-containing particles in polyethylene glycol of molecular weight from about 400 to about 20,000 Daltons, e.g., 400 Daltons, which claims 3, 6, and 19 read on. The skilled person would have been motivated to do so because both references are drawn to free-flowing, fragrance-containing particles that are dispersed in polyethylene glycol, and McGee teaches a suitable molecular weight range for the polyethylene glycol. The range of about 400 to about 20,000 Daltons overlaps that in claims 3, 6, and 19. For result-effective variables, in the case where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05 (citations omitted). Furthermore, optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation does not support patentability absent comparative evidence of criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (citations omitted).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to H. S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-5258. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/H. SARAH PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614