DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph. However, new grounds of art-based rejection are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over POPPLEWELL (WO 2020/209908).
Claim 1: Popplewell teaches delivery particles comprising a core and shell
surrounding the core, wherein the core comprises a benefit agent, i.e. an active material
and the shell comprises a polymeric material which is biopolymer crosslinked with a
crosslinking agent (para. 0006); wherein the biopolymer comprises plant-based fluor
(para. 0009) and the crosslinking agent includes isocyanate (para. 0010, 0056 & 0063),
thus, the shell comprises a reaction product of an isocyanate and a plant-based flour;
and wherein the plant-based flour includes soya, chickpea, lentil and rice flour (para.
0020) which flour satisfies the claimed content as follows:
a) a protein content, of at least 15% by weight of the flour,
b) a structural polysaccharide content of at least 10% by weight of the flour,
c) a starch content of less than 50% by weight of the flour, and,
d) a portion of the protein comprising at least one glycoprotein;
See instant specification, page 31, Table 3, that shows content analysis of soybean
flour, chickpea flour, lentil flour and rice flour.
In light of Popplewell's teaching biopolymer to include plant-based material which
includes specific flours such as soya, chickpea, lentil and rice as equivalent components
to other plant-based materials, it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select
those specific flours as components for the plant-based biopolymer material that forms
the shell of the delivery particles.
With regards to the shell structure, the method of forming the shell as disclosed in the instant specification is from the formation of reaction product of the crosslinking agent which is an isocyanate with a plant-based flour, and the shell is formed with an internal surface of the crosslinking agent and the external surface of a polymer without any specific process step(s). As Popplewell teaches the formation of the shell is exactly the same mechanism, i.e. crosslinking isocyanate with a plant-based flour; therefore, the shell naturally and inherently forms with an internal surface of isocyanate and external surface of polymer as claimed.
Popplewell teaches the core comprises an active material which
includes fragrance (para. 0007 and 0085-0086) and thus the core includes a fragrance material.
Claim 2: Popplewell teaches the plant-based flour includes soya, chickpea, and
lentil flour (para. 0020) which flours inherently have a N-content of 4% to 8.65% (See
instant specification, page 31, Table 3, where N-content of soybean flour, chickpea flour
and lentil flour is reported, which meets the claimed nitrogen content of from 2.5 to 10%
by weight.
Claim 4: The plant-based comprises a structural carbohydrate having a
molecular weight of from about 10,000 Da to 40,000,000 Da (para. 0026) which
overlaps the claimed range of 5000 kDa to about 35,000 kDa,
Claim 5: Popplewell teaches the plant-based flour comprised of structural
carbohydrates comprising arabinogalactan polysaccharide consisting of arabinose and
galactose units and uronic acids i.e. glucuronic acid (para. 0039-0040). No reports as
to the concentration in the plant-based flour; however, without showing criticality of the
concentration, it would have been obvious through routine experimentations.
Claim 6: Popplewell teaches delivery particles comprising a core and shell
surrounding the core, wherein the core comprises a benefit agent, i.e. an active material
and the shell comprises a polymeric material which is biopolymer crosslinked with a
crosslinking agent (para. 0006); wherein the biopolymer comprises plant-based fluor
(para. 0009) and the crosslinking agent includes isocyanate (para. 0010, 0056 & 0063),
thus, the shell comprises a reaction product of an isocyanate and a plant-based flour;
and wherein the plant-based flour includes soya, chickpea, lentil and rice flour (para.
0020) which flour satisfies the claimed content as follows:
a) a protein content, of at least 15% by weight of the flour,
b) a structural polysaccharide content of at least 10% by weight of the flour,
c) a starch content of less than 50% by weight of the flour, and,
d) a portion of the protein comprising at least one glycoprotein;
See instant specification, page 31, Table 3, that shows content analysis of soybean
flour, chickpea flour, lentil flour and rice flour.
In light of Popplewell's teaching biopolymer to include plant-based material which
includes specific flours such as soya, chickpea, lentil and rice as equivalent components
to other plant-based materials, it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select
those specific flours, e.g. soybean flour, as components for the plant-based biopolymer material that forms the shell of the delivery particles. Popplewell teaches the plant-based flour comprised of structural carbohydrates comprising arabinogalactan polysaccharide consisting of arabinose and galactose units and uronic acids i.e. glucuronic acid (para. 0039-0040). No reports as to the concentration in the plant-based flour; however, without showing criticality of the concentration, it would have been obvious through routine experimentations.
Claim 7: Popplewell teaches the isocyanate comprising a
polyisocyanurate of toluene diisocyanate, a trimethylol propane adduct of toluene
diisocyanate, a trimethylol propane adduct of xylylene diisocyanate, methylene diphenyl
isocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, tetramethylxylidene diisocyanate, naphthalene-1,5-
isocyanate, phenylene diisocyanate and combinations thereof (para. 0064-0065).
Claim 8: Popplewell teaches delivery particles comprising a core and shell
surrounding the core, wherein the core comprises a benefit agent, i.e. an active material
and the shell comprises a polymeric material which is biopolymer crosslinked with a
crosslinking agent (para. 0006); wherein the biopolymer comprises plant-based fluor
(para. 0009) and the crosslinking agent includes isocyanate (para. 0010, 0056 & 0063),
thus, the shell comprises a reaction product of an isocyanate and a plant-based flour;
and wherein the plant-based flour includes soya, chickpea, lentil and rice flour (para.
0020) which flour satisfies the claimed content as follows:
a) a protein content, of at least 15% by weight of the flour,
b) a structural polysaccharide content of at least 10% by weight of the flour,
c) a starch content of less than 50% by weight of the flour, and,
d) a portion of the protein comprising at least one glycoprotein;
See instant specification, page 31, Table 3, that shows content analysis of soybean
flour, chickpea flour, lentil flour and rice flour.
In light of Popplewell's teaching biopolymer to include plant-based material which
includes specific flours such as soya, chickpea, lentil and rice as equivalent components
to other plant-based materials, it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select
those specific flours, e.g. soy flour, as components for the plant-based biopolymer material that forms the shell of the delivery particles.
With regards to the content of the soy flour and the isocyanate crosslinker, the ratio as claimed is a necessary result for the reaction to take place, and thus the ratio range as claimed would have been resulted from routine experimentation.
Claim 11: The delivery particles have a mean particle size of 9-49 µm (Page
133, Table 30) which falls within the claimed range of 1 to about 50 µm.
Claim 12: See claim 8 above. With regards to the process limitations, claim 12 is a product-by-process claim; therefore, how the delivery particle is made is not given patentable weight unless it can be shown that the process limitations as claimed results in a product distinct from the delivery particle taught by Popplewell.
Claim 13: Because the particles taught by Popplewell comprises the shell formed from the same reaction product as that of the claimed invention: namely a reaction product of isocyanate and plant-based flour; see the rejections to claims 1 and 8 above, it necessarily follows that the shell would possess the same degradation rate as claimed.
Claim 14: The delivery particles are added as an aqueous slurry (para. 00146-
00147).
Claims 15-16: Popplewell teaches an article comprising the core-shell delivery
particles of claim 1, wherein the article includes a soap, a surface cleaner, a laundry
detergent, a fabric softener, a shampoo, a textile, paper towel, an adhesive, a wipe, a
diaper, a feminine hygiene product, a facial tissue, a pharmaceutical, a napkin, a
deodorant, a heat sink, a foam, a pillow, a mattress, bedding, a cushion, a cosmetic, a
medical device, packaging, an agricultural product (para. 0008).
Claim 19: The delivery particles have a mean particle size of 9-49 µm (Page
133, Table 30) which falls within the claimed range of 1 to about 10 µm.
Claims 10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popplewell in view of Teixeira (EP 3919044 A1).
Popplewell teaches the claimed delivery particles comprising a fragrance material in the core as discussed above. However, Popplewell does not teach a partitioning agent in particular isopropyl myristate as the partitioning agent. In the same field of endeavor, namely a fragrance composition, Teixeira teaches adding isopropyl myristate in the fragrance material enhance intensity of the fragrance (abstract). As the core of Popplewell contains fragrance material, it would have been obvious for the POSITA to incorporate isopropyl myristate in order to enhance the perceived fragrance intensity of the particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 am to 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
