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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conc++++++++++lude 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 7-11 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 7 lacks support for “the precursor” in line 1 with respect to claim 1 to which this claim is dependent upon. Presumably, claim 1 or claim 7 inadvertently omitted the limitation “wherein the first shell component comprises a condensed layer and a nanoparticle layer, wherein the condensed layer comprises a condensation product of a precursor” as supported in the specification on page 13, line 19 to page 14, line 4.
Claims 8-11, being dependent from claim 7, inherit the same rejection as in claim 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaccaro et al. (US 2017/0137758), hereinafter “Vaccaro.”
Regarding claims 1-5, Vaccaro teaches a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film and at least a first internal compartment, wherein the first internal compartment comprises a first liquid laundry detergent composition comprising a gel and a particle (see abstract; [0001] and [0006]), wherein the particle comprises an active material (see [0106]), wherein the active material includes perfume microcapsules (see [0113]) comprising a core comprising the perfume and a wall material that at least partially surrounds the core (see [0123]), and wherein the wall may comprise silica, as one of the selections (which reads on the first and second shell components; see [0125]). Vaccaro, however, fails to specifically disclose the capsule comprising a shell having about 90%-100%, by weight of the shell of an inorganic material like silica, and the microcapsules having a fracture strength between 1MPa and 10MPa as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected silica as the specific microcapsule wall material because this is one of the selection of wall or shell materials as disclosed by Vaccaro in [0125]), and considering no other wall or shell material is included, the silica is present in the wall or shell within those recited, i.e., almost 100%.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the perfume microcapsules of Vaccaro to exhibit a fracture strength within those recited because similar microcapsules having similar wall materials have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
Regarding claim 6, Vaccaro further teaches that at least 75%, 85% or even 90% of said microcapsules may have a particle size of from about 10 microns to about 50 microns (wherein the particle size is indicative of the microcapsule diameter; see [0124[).
Regarding claims 12-13, Vaccaro further teaches that the Gel 2 composition comprises 8 wt% of perfume microcapsules and 3.53 wt% deionized water (see Table 1).
Regarding claims 15-16, as discussed above, Vaccaro teaches a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film (see [0006]). Vaccaro also teaches that the most preferred film materials include polyvinyl alcohols, i.e., polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers, polyvinyl alcohol copolymers or combinations thereof (see [0141]).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Vaccaro as applied to claims 1-6, 12-13 and 15-16, and further in view of Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330948, already cited in IDS dated 03/07/2025), hereinafter “Cardoso.”
The applied reference to US 2020/0330948 has five (5) common inventors (i.e., A. Barros, M. Cardoso, S. Smith, P. Verstraete, and V. Wong)) 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).
Regarding claims 7-11, Vaccaro teaches the features as discussed above. Vaccaro, however, fails to disclose, presumably the shell comprising a first shell component having a condensed layer and a nanoparticle layer, and wherein the condensed layer comprises a condensation product of a precursor as recited in claims 7-11.
Cardoso, an analogous art, teaches a population of capsules, the capsules comprising an oil-based core comprising a benefit agent like perfume raw materials (see paragraph [0136]), and a substantially inorganic shell surrounding the core, wherein the shell comprises a first shell component comprising at least one of a metal oxide or a semi-metal oxide (see paragraph [0010]). The shell can include a first shell component and optionally a second shell component that surrounds the first shell component, wherein the first shell component can include a condensed layer formed from the condensation product of a precursor, the first shell component can include a nanoparticle layer (see paragraph [0040]), and wherein the condensed layer is disposed between the core and the nanoparticle layer(see paragraph [0053]). The first shell component comprises a condensed layer comprising a condensation product of a precursor of at least one of formula (I) or formula (II) or both:
(MvOzYn)w (Formula I),
where M is one or more of silicon, titanium and aluminum, v is the valence number of M and is 3 or 4, z is from 0.5 to 1.6, each Y is independently selected from
—OH, —OR2, halo,
PNG
media_image1.png
168
177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R2 is a C1 to C20 alkyl, C1 to C20 alkylene, C6 to C22 aryl, or a 5-12 membered heteroaryl comprising from 1 to 3 ring heteroatoms selected from O, N, and S, R3 is a H, C1 to C20 alkyl, C1 to C20 alkylene, C6 to C22 aryl, or a 5-12 membered heteroaryl comprising from 1 to 3 ring heteroatoms selected from O, N, and S, n is from 0.7 to (v-1), and w is from 2 to 2000;
(MvOzYnR1p)w (Formula II),
where M is one or more of silicon, titanium and aluminum, v is the valence number of M and is 3 or 4, z is from 0.5 to 1.6, each Y is independently selected from —OH, —OR2, halo,
PNG
media_image2.png
185
214
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R2 is selected from a C1 to C20 alkyl, C1 to C20 alkylene, C6 to C22 aryl, or a 5-12 membered heteroaryl comprising from 1 to 3 ring heteroatoms selected from O, N, and S, R3 is a H, C1 to C20 alkyl, C1 to C20 alkylene, C6 to C22 aryl, or a 5-12 membered heteroaryl comprising from 1 to 3 ring heteroatoms selected from O, N, and S, n is from 0 to (v-1), each R1 is independently selected from a C1 to C30 alkyl, a C1 to C30 alkylene, a C1 to C30 alkyl substituted with one or more of a halogen, —OCF3, —NO2, —CN, —NC, —OH, —OCN, —NCO, alkoxy, epoxy, amino, mercapto, acryloyl, CO2H, CO2alkyl, aryl, and heteroaryl, or a C1 to C30 alkylene substituted with one or more of a halogen, —OCF3, —NO2, —CN, —NC, —OH, —OCN, —NCO, alkoxy, epoxy, amino, mercapto, acryloyl, CO2H, CO2alkyl, aryl, and heteroaryl, p is present in an amount up to pmax, and w is from 2 to 2000; wherein pmax=60/[9*Mw(R1)+8], where Mw(R1) is the molecular weight of the R group (see paragraphs [0012]-[0013]). The compounds of formula (I) and/or the compounds of formula (II) can have a Polystyrene equivalent Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) of from about 100 Da to about 300,000 Da (see paragraph [0112]), a molecular weight polydispersity index of about 1 to about 50 (see paragraph [0113]), and a degree of branching of 0 to about 0.6, or about 0.2 to about 0.3 (see paragraph [0114]). The second shell component can include one or more of a metal oxide, a semi-metal oxide, a mineral, and a metal. In embodiments, the second shell component can include one or more of SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3, CaCO3, Ca2SiO4, Fe2O3, Fe3O4, clay, gold, iron, silver, nickel, and copper, and in certain embodiments, the second shell component can be silica (see paragraph [0123]). Cardoso also teaches that the capsule shells advantageously have low permeability, which advantageously allows for slow diffusion of the encapsulated benefit agent when incorporated into a formulated product; the capsules have improved storage stability, the capsule shells have low porosity and high density, thereby enhancing the stability of the capsules as compared to conventional inorganic capsules (see paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the encapsulated perfume of Vaccaro with the perfume capsules of Cardoso, the capsules having a first shell of metal oxide like silica, and a second shell, as recited above, because such substitution would provide perfume capsules having improved storage stability, the capsule shells have low porosity and high density, thereby enhancing the stability of the capsules as compared to conventional inorganic capsules, as taught by Cardoso.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 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); 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 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. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacarro as applied to claims 1-6, 12-13 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Labeque et al. (US 2017/0298216), hereinafter “Labeque.”
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Vacarro teaches the features as discussed above. Vaccaro, however, fails to disclose the liquid laundry detergent composition comprising non-encapsulated perfume as recited in claim 14; and the water-soluble film comprising a blend of a polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer and a carboxylated anionic polyvinylalcohol copolymer as recited in claim 17.
Labeque, an analogous art, teaches pouches made from a water-soluble film, where the water-soluble film at least partially encloses a composition in at least one compartment, and where the film includes a polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) resin blend (see [0011], comprising a first PVOH polymer comprising carboxylated anionic monomer units and vinyl alcohol monomer units, and a second PVOH polymer consisting essentially of vinyl alcohol monomer units (see [0013] and Table A, page 19), wherein the above PVOH resin blend maintain better pouch strength upon ageing (see [0241]). Labeque also teaches that the composition is a heavy duty liquid detergent composition (see [0078]) which comprises perfume, i.e., unencapsulated perfume and perfume microcapsules (see [0131], see also Formulation P in Table 7, page 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a non-encapsulated perfume in the liquid detergent composition of Vaccaro because it is known from Labeque to combine the unencapsulated perfume with perfume microcapsules for the known use of providing fragrance during and after the wash cycle; and to have utilized a PVOH resin blend comprising a first PVOH polymer comprising carboxylated anionic monomer units and vinyl alcohol monomer units, and a second PVOH polymer consisting essentially of vinyl alcohol monomer units because said resin blend maintain better pouch strength upon ageing as taught by Labeque.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,129,448, already cited in IDS dated 03/07/2025. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to similar water-soluble unit dose articles comprising water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol films and laundry detergent compositions comprising capsules having similar first and second shell components having the same capsule fracture strengths and overlapping inorganic materials. Hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
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