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 .
Specification
The first line of the specification should be amended to recite that “This application claims benefit of Provisional Serial No. 63/609,418, filed on December 13, 2023.”.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In instant claim 2, the limitation “Number of isocyanate groups (NCO groups)” should be amended to recite “Number of NCO groups (isocyanate groups)” for consistency purposes with the equation.
In instant claim 20, the limitation “density of less than about optionally less than about 0.98” should be amended to recite “density of less than about 0.98” 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “wherein said comprises from about 90% to 100%”, followed by the narrow recitations of “optionally from about 95% to 100%, optionally from about 99% to 100%”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Claims 2-20 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 2 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “15 to 32% by weight”, followed by the narrow recitation of “or even from 21 to 25% by weight”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “excluding any solvent or other substances that may be mixed with the isocyanate”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since the molecular weight of the isocyanate compound is based only on the elements present in the isocyanate compound. Accordingly, the limitation “excluding any solvent or other substances that may be mixed with the isocyanate” should be deleted. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 7 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “wherein the alpha-aromatic isocyanate is selected from the group of” in lines 1-2, followed by the narrow recitations of “optionally, wherein the alpha-aromatic isocyanate is selected from the group of”, and “optionally, wherein the alpha-aromatic isocyanate is selected from the group of” in lines 9 and 15. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 8 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the beta-aromatic isocyanate is selected from the group of” in lines 1-2, followed by the narrow recitations of “optionally, wherein the beta-aromatic isocyanate selected from the group of”, and “optionally, wherein the beta-aromatic isocyanate is selected from the group of” in lines 8-9 and 13. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 9 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “wherein the isocyanate component comprises at least two di- and/or poly-isocyanates selected from” in lines 1-2, followed by the narrow recitations of “optionally, wherein the isocyanate component” in line 4, “optionally, wherein the isocyanate component comprises 30 to 40%” in lines 6-7, “optionally 34%” in line 7, “from 60 to 70%” in lines 8-9 and “optionally 66%” in line 9. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein the core-shell encapsulate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the limitation “core-shell encapsulate” does not appear in claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 17 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “polyalkylene glycol having a weight average molecular weight from 2000 to 15000” in line 18, followed by the narrow recitations of “preferably a polyethylene glycol having….., even more preferably a mixture…..” in lines 19-21. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, US 2021/0339217.
Feng, US 2021/0339217, discloses a microcapsule containing a benefit agent, wherein the microcapsule is the reaction product of chitosan and polyisocyanate (see abstract and paragraphs 21-23). It is further taught by Feng that the shell contains 21-75% by weight of chitosan (see paragraph 25), that suitable polyisocyanates have at least two isocyanate groups comprising an aromatic moiety, wherein suitable aromatic polyisocyanates include a mixture of toluene diisocyanate (i.e., an alpha-aromatic isocyanate) and a trimethylol propane-adduct of xylylene diisocyanate (i.e., a beta-aromatic isocyanate; see paragraphs 47-50), that the core contains perfume raw materials (see paragraphs 52-56), that the core-shell microcapsules have a mean particle size of 1-100 microns (see paragraph 42), that the microcapsule is part of a solid product that further contains 20-95% by weight of a carrier, such as polyethylene oxide (see paragraphs 164-170), that the ratio of core to shell is up to 99:1 (see paragraph 40), and that a cleaning composition contains 0.01-10% by weight of the microcapsules (see paragraph 132), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Capsule Examples 3-17 and the Composition Examples in Tables 1-18.
Although Feng generally discloses a microcapsule comprising the reaction product of chitosan and a mixture of toluene diisocyanate (i.e., an alpha-aromatic isocyanate) and a trimethylol propane-adduct of xylylene diisocyanate (i.e., a beta-aromatic isocyanate), the reference does not require such microcapsules 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 microcapsule, as taught by Feng, which contained a microcapsule comprising the reaction product of chitosan and a mixture of toluene diisocyanate and a trimethylol propane-adduct of xylylene diisocyanate, because such microcapsules fall within the scope of those taught by Feng. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a microcapsule comprising the reaction product of chitosan and a mixture of toluene diisocyanate and a trimethylol propane-adduct of xylylene diisocyanate is expressly suggested by the Feng 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
July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights