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, claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19, in the reply filed on April 10, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the invention of Group I is novel. This is not found persuasive, because the examiner respectfully asserts that the invention of Group I is not novel in view of the newly applied references.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11, 12, 15, 17 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 April 10, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In instant claim 19, the term “or” after “sugar alcohol” should be deleted for grammatical purposes.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the Markush listing “polyacrylate”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since claim 1 excludes “acrylates” from being present in the solid composition. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bay et al, WO 2022/112202.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Bay et al, WO 2022/112202, discloses, with sufficient specificity, in Examples 13 and 15, a solid scent booster composition comprising 77-79 grams of xylitol (melting point of 92-96 degrees Celsius) as a water soluble biodegradable carrier and 3.5-3.6 grams of core-shell microcapsules of encapsulated fragrances of Examples 7-12 (resulting in 96% xylitol carrier and 4% microcapsule), which contain fragrances encapsulated in various shells, such as melamine-formaldehyde shells (see Example 7 of Bay et al, WO 2022/112202), that are formed into solid scent booster pastilles (see Examples 13 and 15 of Bay et al, WO 2022/112202), per the requirements of the instant invention. It is noted by the examiner that Examples 13 and 15 of Bay et al, WO 2022/112202, are almost identical to Examples 1 and 2 of the instant application on pages 38-40 of the instant specification. Therefore, instant claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are anticipated by Bay et al, WO 2022/112202.
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.
Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struillou et al, WO 2018/172514.
Struillou et al, WO 2018/172514, discloses a solid scent booster composition comprising a solid carrier comprising powder particles made up of a water soluble polymer matrix, and an oil phase comprising a perfume dispersed in said polymer matrix, wherein a part of the oil phase is encapsulated in microcapsules (see abstract and page 2, lines 21-30). It is further taught by Struillou et al that the solid carrier includes sugar alcohols, such as sorbitol, xylitol, and erythritol (see page 4, lines 1-15), that the solid carrier constitutes 50-99.5% by weight of the total composition (see page 5, lines 1-3), that the perfume containing oil phase is encapsulated in a microcapsule, wherein the shell of the microcapsule is made of a melamine-formaldehyde resin (see 7, line 28-page 8, line 11), and that the encapsulated oil constitutes 3-30% by weight of the total composition (see page 13, lines 17-20), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-3 and Tables 1-8.
Although Struillou et al generally discloses a solid scent booster composition containing sugar alcohols, such as sorbitol, xylitol, and erythritol as the solid carrier, the reference does not require such solid scent booster compositions containing this component as the solid carrier with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a solid scent booster composition, as taught by Struillou et al, which contained sugar alcohols, such as sorbitol, xylitol, and erythritol as the solid carrier, because such solid scent booster compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Struillou et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a solid scent booster composition containing sugar alcohols, such as sorbitol, xylitol, and erythritol as the solid carrier, is expressly suggested by the Struillou et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
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 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
June 3, 2026
