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 claims 1-7, 10-12 in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that they do not comprise distinct inventions. This is not found persuasive because the election of species of group c is self evidently proper as the common genus is negatively defined by what these disparate methods are not as opposed to what they are. Similarly, the deposition species comprise disparate items: acids, sugars, amides, amines, alcohols, trimoniums, polymers etc with no common chemical genus. Applicant provides no argument in regards to the restriction between product and method, which are entirely different statutory categories. All of the species categories contain mutually exclusive subject matter it is unlikely the same references would read on both claims requiring search of additional classes and use of different search queries, thus prolonging examination and prosecution.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-9, 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/22/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Gucht (WO 2021/191290 with US 11958030).
As to claim 1, Van Der Gucht teaches a microcapsule comprising a core and a shell [title]; wherein the core comprises a core material selected from perfumes [0010, 0011, 0013, 0050-0055], claim 16]; wherein a shell material comprises a plant protein [0031] and a polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is selected from: pectins, natural or chemically modified celluloses, xanthan gum, alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic and any combination thereof [0034, 0037].
As to claim 2, Van Der Gucht microcapsule is biodegradable as it is composed of the same materials [0031, 0034, Claim 16].
As to claim 3, Van Der Gucht teaches the microcapsule encapsulates biodegradable perfumes [0098, 0225, claim 16].
As to claim 4, Van Der Gucht teaches the plant protein is pea protein [0031].
As to claim 5, Van Der Gucht teaches the polysaccharide is selected from: alginate, carrageenan [0034].
As to claim 10, Van Der Gucht teaches the polysaccharide is alginate [0034].
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Gucht (WO 2021/191290 with US 11958030).
As to claim 7, Van Der Gucht teaches a deposition aid attached to the shell of the microcapsule as the shell may be composed of materials inclusive Chitosan [0034, 0035]. Use of 2 art recognized equivalents, in this case chitosan and remaining non-protein polymers in the shell, is obvious, see MPEP 2144.06.
As to claim 12, Van Der Gucht teaches the deposition aid is chitosan [0034, 0035]. Use of 2 art recognized equivalents, in this case chitosan and remaining non-protein polymers in the shell, is obvious, see MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Gucht (WO 2021/191290 with US 11958030) in view of Sasaki (WO 2020/131875). Note this is an alternative rejection of claims 7 and 12
As to claims 6 and 11, Van Der Gucht does not explicitly say the microcapsules comprise from 1 to 80 wt.% and 2 to 70 wt.% of the shell material.
Sasaki teaches pea protein [0037, 0040] with chitosan deposition aid [0121] based microcapsules [Abstract] the wall or shell components is .5-85% or preferably 2-50% the weight of the microcapsule [0116] that encapsulate fragrance or flavor agents [0002, 0009, 0014, 0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Van Der Gucht and made the microcapsule walls have a shell component be is .5-85% or preferably 2-50% the weight of the microcapsule, as suggested by Sasaki, as this weight percentage had proven successful at creating microcapsules for delivery fragrance.
As to claim 7 and 12, Van Der Gucht teaches a deposition aid attached to the shell of the microcapsule as the shell may be composed of materials inclusive Chitosan [0034, 0035]. Use of 2 art recognized equivalents, in this case chitosan and remaining non-protein polymers in the shell, is obvious, see MPEP 2144.06.
Additionally, Sasaki teaches pea protein [0037, 0040] with chitosan deposition aid to aid in deposition onto hard surfaces [0121] based microcapsules [Abstract] the wall or shell components is .5-85% or preferably 2-50% the weight of the microcapsule [0116] that encapsulate fragrance or flavor agents [0002, 0009, 0014, 0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Van Der Gucht and included Chitosan as a deposition aid , as suggested by Sasaki, in order to improve the deposition of the fragrance microcapsules to hard surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights