RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claim 34 made of record in the office action mailed on have been withdrawn due to Applicant' s amendment in the response filed 12/09/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 31, 33 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao et al. (WO 2009/119143) in view of Maul et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0087187).
Regarding claim 1, Nakao discloses an aluminum pigment composition for water-based coating materials (Abstract). Nakao further discloses forming a silica coating (i.e. a silicon oxide coating) alone or in combination with silane coupling agent and molybdenum oxide film on the surface of the aluminum pigment. (page 6, last 4 paragraphs and page 8, 3rd-12th paragraph). The silica coating disclosed in Nakao would therefore either consist of silicon oxide, when the silane is not included, or consist of both silicon oxide and an organofunctional silane as claimed. (page 8, 10th-11th paragraph and page 9, 8th full paragraph). The silane materials disclosed in Nakao include compounds such as methyltrimethoxysilane, dimethyldimethoxysilane, trimethylmethoxysilane which all meet the formula in claim 1 where Z is 3, 2 and 1 respectively and the R groups are CH3 which is an alkyl chain of 1 carbon atom. (page 9, 5th full paragraph). Nakao et al. therefore discloses an aluminum pigment containing protective encapsulation layers which consist of a) a silica or silicon oxide hybrid coating and b) a molybdenum oxide layer, as claimed.
The content of the silicon and the silane coupling agent coating is 1-20 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the uncoated aluminum pigment. (page 9, 8th full paragraph). The content of molybdenum is 0.01 to 5 parts by mass with respect to the uncoated aluminum pigment. (page 8, 7th paragraph). Since Nakao discloses ranges with are overlapping or encompass the presently claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obvious exists. MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to the limitation “acting as a network modifier”, the limitation is a statement of intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since the silane coupling agents disclosed in Nakao contain reactive functional groups in the form of epoxy, alkoxy, vinyl and amino groups, they would be capable as acting as network formers.
With respect to the limitation “PVD aluminum pigment”, Nakao et al. does not teach that the aluminum pigments are produced by a PVD process.
Maul et al. teaches an aqueous coating composition containing aluminum pigments which are provided with at least on inorganic anti-corrosion layer. (Abstract). Maul et al. teaches that brilliant aluminum pigments for aqueous coating applications can be made according two processes generally: wet grinding and PVD processes. (par. [0004]). Maul et al. teaches that the PVD process results in pigments having outstanding covering power and extreme thinness, resulting in coating compositions that have high luster and having the appearance of a cohesive metal film. (par. [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the aluminum pigments disclosed in Nakao et al. by a PVD process as taught in Maul et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the aluminum pigments by a PVD process in view of the improved covering power of the pigments resulting in coating composition having high luster and metallic film appearance.
Regarding claim 2, the aluminum pigments have diameters of 2 to 40 microns. (page 3, 2nd to last paragraph).
Regarding claims 3, the aluminum pigments have an aspect ratio (average diameter/average thickness) of 5 to 1000 (page 3, last paragraph). Therefore, the thickness thereof is in the range of 8 microns on the top end (40/5) and 0.002 microns (i.e. 2 nm) on the low end. (2/1000).
Regarding claim 7 and 10, the silica coating disclosed in Nakao would therefore either consist of silicon oxide, when the silane is not included, or consist of both silicon oxide and an organofunctional silane as claimed. (page 8, 10th-11th paragraph and page 9, 8th full paragraph). The silane materials disclosed in Nakao include compounds such as methyltrimethoxysilane, dimethyldimethoxysilane, trimethylmethoxysilane which all meet the formula in claim 1 where Z is 3, 2 and 1 respectively and the R groups are CH3 which is an alkyl chain of 1 carbon atom. (page 9, 5th full paragraph). Nakao et al. therefore discloses an aluminum pigment containing protective encapsulation layers which consist of a) a silica or silicon oxide hybrid coating and b) a molybdenum oxide layer, as claimed.
Regarding claim 31, Nakao discloses an aluminum pigment composition for water-based coating materials (Abstract). Nakao further discloses forming a silica coating (i.e. a silicon oxide coating) alone or in combination with silane coupling agent and molybdenum oxide film on the surface of the aluminum pigment. (page 6, last 4 paragraphs and page 8, 3rd-12th paragraph). The silica coating disclosed in Nakao would therefore either consist of silicon oxide, when the silane is not included, or consist of both silicon oxide and an organofunctional silane as claimed. (page 8, 10th-11th paragraph and page 9, 8th full paragraph). The silane materials disclosed in Nakao include compounds such as methyltrimethoxysilane, dimethyldimethoxysilane, trimethylmethoxysilane which all meet the formula in claim 1 where Z is 3, 2 and 1 respectively and the R groups are CH3 which is an alkyl chain of 1 carbon atom. (page 9, 5th full paragraph).
The content of the silicon and the silane coupling agent coating is 1-20 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the uncoated aluminum pigment. (page 9, 8th full paragraph). The content of molybdenum is 0.01 to 5 parts by mass with respect to the uncoated aluminum pigment. (page 8, 7th paragraph). Since Nakao discloses ranges with are overlapping or encompass the presently claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obvious exists. MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to the limitation “the layer of metal oxide being directly applied to the PVD pigment”, Nakao et al. teaches an embodiment wherein the molybdenum oxide layer (equivalent to the “layer of metal oxide” presently claimed”) is applied as a pretreatment prior to the silica layer, directly onto the surface of the PVD pigment. (page 8, 3rd paragraph-6th paragraph)
With respect to the limitation “acting as a network modifier”, the limitation is a statement of intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since the silane coupling agents disclosed in Nakao contain reactive functional groups in the form of epoxy, alkoxy, vinyl and amino groups, they would be capable as acting as network formers.
Regarding claims 33, the silica coating disclosed in Nakao either consists of silicon oxide, when the silane is not included, or consists of both silicon oxide and an organofunctional silane as claimed. (page 8, 10th-11th paragraph and page 9, 8th full paragraph). The silane materials disclosed in Nakao include compounds such as methyltrimethoxysilane, dimethyldimethoxysilane, trimethylmethoxysilane which all meet the formula in claim 1 where Z is 3, 2 and 1 respectively and the R groups are CH3 which is an alkyl chain of 1 carbon atom. (page 9, 5th full paragraph). Nakao et al. therefore discloses an aluminum pigment containing protective encapsulation layers which consist of a) a silica or silicon oxide hybrid coating and b) a molybdenum oxide layer, as claimed.
Regarding claim 36, Nakao discloses providing an outer organofunctional silane layer on the surface passivated aluminum pigment, either on the molybdenum or silica layer, which improves the dispersibility of the pigments in aqueous solutions, reducing reactivity in water and improve adhesiveness, moisture resistance and weather resistance. (page 9, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 37, Nakao et al. therefore discloses an aluminum pigment containing protective encapsulation layers which consist of a) a silica or silicon oxide hybrid coating and b) a molybdenum oxide layer, as claimed.
Regarding claim 38, Nakao et al. teaches further optionally including an outer silane functional layer to improve the dispersibility of the pigments in aqueous solutions, reducing reactivity in water and improve adhesiveness, moisture resistance and weather resistance. (page 9, 3rd paragraph). Since this layer is optional, when it is present the aluminum pigment encapsulation layers would consist of a) a silica or silicon oxide hybrid coating and b) a molybdenum oxide layer and c) the organofunctional silane, as claimed.
Claims 6 and 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao (WO 2009/119143) in view of Maul et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0087187), further in view of Albrecht et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2011/0207833).
Nakao and Maul et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 6 and 32, Nakao does not specifically teach the thickness of the silicon oxide-based layer.
Albrecht et al. teaches a metallic pigment comprising a metallic core and at least one low-refractive index layer. (Abstract). The metallic effect pigment has a platelet shape and the metallic core may be aluminum. (par. [0037]-[0038] and [0042]-[0044]). The low refractive index layer on the surface of the core material includes at least one coating which may be made of silicon dioxide (i.e. a silicon oxide) (par. [0040]) which may be used in mixtures or combinations with other metal oxides including molybdenum oxide. (par. [0056]-[0057]). Albrecht et al. teaches that the thickness of the silicon dioxide coating for use as a passivating layer is in the range of 6 to 40 nm, overlapping with the presently claimed range. (par. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the silica coating thickness used in the aluminum pigments disclosed in Nakao fall within the range disclosed by Albrecht et al.
Nakao and Albrecht teach the use of the metallic pigments having silicon oxide coating thereon for use in aqueous coating compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the thickness disclosed in the primary reference is suitable for imparting passivation properties to the metallic pigments without being excessively thick such that it would render the metallic pigment unsuitable for its intended use.
Claims 23 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao (WO 2009/119143) in view of Maul et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0087187), further in view of Schmidt et al. (DE 4319669)
Paragraph citations to Schmidt et al. refer to a machine translation of DE 4319669 provided by worldwide.espace.net, mailed in the office action on 01/10/2023.
Nakao and Maul et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Nakao in view of Maul et al. does not disclose the presence of tungsten in an amount of 0.01-0.8 wt% as claimed.
Schmidt et al. discloses a luster pigment having the structure of a platelet shaped substrate having a first layer of colorless metal oxide, a second layer of molybdenum and/or tungsten oxide and optionally a third layer of colorless metal oxide. (par. [0001]). The platelet shaped substrate may be aluminum (par. [0004] and [0019]) and the first layer of colorless metal oxide may be silicon oxide (par. [0022]). The second layer comprising the molybdenum and/or tungsten oxide may include pure oxides or oxide/hydroxide mixtures. (par. [0025]). The presence of the tungsten in the molybdenum coating imparts a blue hue to the coating and pigment. (par. [0008] and [0024], [0025]) Schmidt et al. teaches the metal oxide layer may contain both molybdenum and tungsten such that the contents of molybdenum or tungsten should be in the range of 0.1 to 30% by weight based on the desire to control the thickness of the coating layer which influences the color tone of the pigment. (par. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include tungsten in the molybdenum oxide coating disclosed in Nakao et al. in view of the teachings of Schmidt et al. in similar amounts as disclosed therein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include tungsten in the molybdenum oxide coating material in order to impart a blue tone to the coating and aluminum which would have desirable aesthetic and commercial applications
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (DE 4319669) in view of Maul et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0087187) and Schmid et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,624,486).
Paragraph citations to Schmidt et al. refer to a machine translation of DE 4319669 provided by worldwide.espace.net. A copy thereof is included within this office action.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Schmidt et al. discloses a luster pigment having the structure of a platelet shaped substrate having a first layer of colorless metal oxide, a second layer of molybdenum and/or tungsten oxide and optionally a third layer of colorless metal oxide. (par. [0001]). The platelet shaped substrate may be aluminum (par. [0004] and [0019]) and the first layer of colorless metal oxide may be silicon oxide (par. [0022]) (i.e. consists of silicon oxide). The second layer comprising the molybdenum and/or tungsten oxide may include pure oxides or oxide/hydroxide mixtures. (par. [0025]).
Schmidt et al. discloses that the contents of molybdenum or tungsten should be in the range of 0.1 to 30% by weight based on the desire to control the thickness of the coating layer which influences the color tone of the pigment. (par. [0028]). Since Schmidt et al. explicitly recognizes that the overall thickness and therefore content of the molybdenum or tungsten influences the color tone of the luster pigment, the prior art recognizes these as being result effective variables for altering the color properties of the pigments. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to optimize the content of molybdenum or tungsten in the luster pigments based on the teachings of Schmidt et al.
With respect to the limitation “PVD aluminum pigment”, Schmidt et al. does not teach that the aluminum pigments are produced by a PVD process.
Maul et al. teaches an aqueous coating composition containing aluminum pigments which are provided with at least on inorganic anti-corrosion layer. (Abstract). Maul et al. teaches that brilliant aluminum pigments for aqueous coating applications can be made according two processes generally: wet grinding and PVD processes. (par. [0004]). Maul et al. teaches that the PVD process results in pigments having outstanding covering power and extreme thinness, resulting in coating compositions that have high luster and having the appearance of a cohesive metal film. (par. [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the aluminum pigments disclosed in Schmidt et al. by a PVD process as taught in Maul et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the aluminum pigments by a PVD process in view of the improved covering power of the pigments resulting in coating composition having high luster and metallic film appearance.
Schmidt et al. does not disclose a content of silicon oxide with respect to the uncoated luster pigment (i.e. the platelet shaped substrate).
Schmid et al. teaches coated platelet like metallic pigments having two or more metal or metal oxide layers thereon, wherein the first layer is silicon oxide, aluminum oxide and/or aluminum oxide hydrate. (Abstract). The platelet core material is generally aluminum flakes. (col. 3, lines 38-40). Schmid et al. teaches that the content of silicon relative to the substrate particles is in the range of 10 to 60 wt%, which overlaps with the presently claimed range, for purposes of achieving desired color effects. (col. 7, lines 14-21). In particular, Schmid et al. discloses SiO2 contents of 13.5%, 18.8% and 29.9%. (Examples 1, 2 and 3, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the relative content of silicon oxide in Schmidt et al. such that it would fall within the range disclosed in Schmid et al., thereby substantially overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the relative content of silicon dioxide in Schmidt et al. for the purposes of adjusting the overall color effects of the metallic pigments which would be useful when used in coating compositions as disclosed in the primary reference.
Regarding claims 2-3, Schmidt et al. teaches that the platelet shaped substrates have diameters of 5 to 120 microns and thickness of 0.2 to 4 microns. (par. [0020], both of which overlap with the presently claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, the thickness of the first layer (which may be a silicon oxide) is in the range of 20 to 400 nm. (par. [0023]).
Regarding claim 23, Schmidt et al. discloses that the contents of molybdenum or tungsten should be in the range of 0.1 to 30% by weight based on the desire to control the thickness of the coating layer which influences the color tone of the pigment. (par. [0028]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (DE 4319669) in view of Maul et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0087187) and Schmid et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,624,486), further in view of Nakao (WO 2009/119143).
Schmidt, Maul and Schmid et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 24, above.
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt et al. does not disclose that the silicon oxide layer contains a mixture of silicon oxide and an organofunctional layer,
Nakao discloses an aluminum pigment composition for water-based coating materials (Abstract). Nakao further discloses forming a silica coating (i.e. a silicon oxide coating) alone or in combination with silane coupling agent and molybdenum oxide film on the surface of the aluminum pigment. (page 6, last 4 paragraphs and page 8, 3rd-12th paragraph). Nakao discloses providing an outer organofunctional silane layer with the silicon oxide layer or on the surface thereof improves the dispersibility of the pigments in aqueous solutions, reducing reactivity in water and improve adhesiveness, moisture resistance and weather resistance. (page 9, 3rd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an outer organofunctional silane on the surface of the luster pigments in Schmidt et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an outer organofunctional coating on the surface of the luster pigments of Schmidt et al. in order to improve the dispersibility of the pigments in aqueous solutions, reduce their reactivity in water and improve their adhesiveness, moisture resistance and weather resistance, as taught in Nakao.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34, 41 and 42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 40 and 43 are allowed.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 12/09/2025 regarding the prior art rejections made of of record have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the disclosure of Maul et al. teaches away from the use of PVD pigments and therefore would not teach the limitation of a PVD aluminum pigment as presently claimed. The Examiner disagrees.
Maul et al. teaches that both PVD pigments and “silver dollar pigments” including benefits and drawbacks to each such as the outstanding covering power and extreme thinness while being difficult to handle. (par. [0009]-[0013]). This does not constitute a teaching away from the use of PVD pigments as it does not disclose that PVD pigments are unsatisfactory for the intended purpose of the primary references under MPEP 2145D and 2143.01. V.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 01/29/2026