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, 2 and 4-8 in the reply filed on May 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special technical feature of a detergent composition comprising a silica capsule enclosing a functional agent, a cationic polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 500,000 or more and 5,000,000 or less and obtained by polymerizing an unsaturated monomer having a cation group, and water makes a contribution over Loughnane et al. (US 2016/0090564) because Loughnane discloses starch perfume encapsulates, not silica perfume capsules (see [0282]). This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the previous office action dated April 8, 2026, Loughnane teaches a cleaning composition which comprises silica perfume capsules (see [0282]), copolymer of acrylamide and dimethyl diallylammonium chloride (see [0248]) having a molecular weight preferably in the range 100,000 to 2,000,000 (see [0246], which overlaps those recited), and water (see [0262]). Therefore, unity of invention is lacking according to PCT Rule 13.2.
While Loughnane teaches starch perfume encapsulates in para. [0282], please note that Loughnane also teaches silica perfume capsules as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
584
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 29, 2026.
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 1-2 and 4-8 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 is indefinite in the recital of “(excluding those enclosed in the silica capsule of the component (A))” in lines 6-7 (last two lines) because it is not clear if the phrase inside the parentheses is part of the claim limitations or not. It is suggested that the parentheses be deleted.
Claims 2 and 4-8, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
Claim 2 is further indefinite in the recital of “an oil agent, a cooling sensation agent, a warming sensation agent, and oil-soluble polymer” in lines 3-5, because it is not clear what the metes and bounds of these compounds encompass.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US 2023/0107594) as evidenced by Kawai (US 2012/0064137), hereinafter “Kawai.”
The applied reference has a common Applicant (i.e., Kao Corporation) 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.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5, Yamazaki teaches, in Comparative Example 9 in Table 2, an aqueous microcapsule dispersion which comprises Component (A): 19.8 mass % silica capsules (A-1), i.e., encapsulating fragrance; and Component (B): 0.4 mass% dimethyldiallylammonium chloride/acrylamide copolymer (Merquat 550), a cationic polymer, wherein the mass ratio of Component (A)/Component (B) is 49.5 (see [0137, [0098], [0134]). As evidenced by Kawai, Merquat 550 or Polyquaternium-7 has a weight average molecular weight of 1,600,000 (see Table 1, lines 9-10). Yamazaki as evidenced by Kawai need not disclose a detergent composition because this limitation occurs in the preamble reciting an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478,481 (CCPA 1951). See also MPEP 2111.02 II.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lei et al. (EP 2,862,597, already cited in IDS dated 11/12/2025), hereinafter “Lei.”
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Lei teaches a flowable, silica capsule formulation composed of a silica capsule suspension and an adjuvant for use in products, one of which is a fabric care product (see abstract), like a liquid detergent (see [0009]), wherein the silica capsule suspension includes core-shell capsules encapsulating an active material, e.g., a fragrance oil, and the adjuvant is a cationic polymer (e.g., a polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride such as Polyquaterium-6, a vinyl pyrrolidone/dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate copolymer such as Polyquaternium-11, an acrylic acid/methacrylamidopropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride/methyl acrylate terpolymer such as Polyquaternium-47, or a combination thereof) having a molecular weight in the range of 15,000 to 3,000,000 or more preferably in the range of 50,000 to 1,500,000, as one of the selections (see [0006], [0016], claims 6 and 12). In Example 3, Sample 18, Lei teaches silica capsule slurries containing fragrance oil and water, and which comprises 0.2 wt% poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride), a cationic polymer also known as Polyquaternium-7 having an average molecular weight of 1,600,000 (see Table 2 on page 12).
Lei teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Lei anticipates the 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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, Lei teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Lei teaches that the cationic polymer adjuvant is present in the formulation in the range of 0.01% to 5% of the total capsule formulation weight (see [0019]). Lei, however, fails to disclose the silica capsule (A) to the cationic polymer (B) mass ratio of (A)/(B) of 20 or more and 100 or less.
Considering that Lei teaches that the cationic polymer adjuvant ranges from 0.01% to 5% of the total capsule formulation weight, where the remainder is the silica capsule, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Meek et al. (US 2011/0021408), hereinafter “Meek.”
Regarding claims 6-8, Lei teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Lei teaches silica capsule formulation composed of a silica capsule suspension and an adjuvant for use in products, one of which is a fabric care product (see abstract), like a liquid detergent (see [0009]). Lei, however, fails to disclose the liquid detergent composition comprising a surfactant as recited in claim 6, which is an anionic surfactant and nonionic surfactant as recited in claim 7, and wherein the surfactant to silica capsules have a mass ratio of 20 or more and 200 or less.
It is known from Meek, an analogous art, that a typical liquid laundry detergent composition comprises anionic surfactants like alkylbenzene sulfonic acid in an amount of 7 wt% and sodium C12-14 alkyl ethoxy 3-sulfate (AE3S) in an amount of 2.3 wt%, a nonionic surfactant like C14-15 alkyl 7-ethoxylate in an amount of 5 wt%, and the perfume microcapsule slurry, which is equivalent to the silica capsule suspension enclosing fragrance, is used in an amount of 0.2 wt% (see Example 7 in Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the liquid detergent composition of Lei to comprise anionic surfactants and nonionic surfactants, for example, in a total amount of 14.3 wt% (7 + 2.3 + 5) and 0.2 wt% silica capsule suspension because these are typical liquid detergent ingredients and proportions as shown by Meek, hence, the mass ratio of the surfactants to the silica capsule suspension is 14.3/0.2 or 71.5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 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 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights