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 .
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 09/30/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 12/30/2025.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostertag et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,978,394) in view of Udagawa et al. (JP2010-280607).
Regarding claim 1, Ostertag et al. teaches metal oxide coated aluminum pigments having a platelike shape (i.e. flaky aluminum particle). (Abstract). The metal oxide coating includes a titanium oxide having an oxidation less than 4 (i.e. having a formula TiOx wherein x is less than 2) (col. 4, lines 22-30). The color of the pigment may be black blue (col. 3, lines 45-52) as the lower oxidation state TiO is known to be a dark color (col. 3, lines 26-30) but can have a variety of other interference colors including blue, yellow, gold, red, violet, green based on the thickness of the titanium oxide coating. (col. 3, lines 1-12). Additional metal oxide layers, including amorphous silica (formed by hydrolysis of a salt material or reduction of chlorides of silicon) may be formed on the surface of the titanium oxide layer. (col. 3, line 53 – col. 4, line 9). The reference therefore discloses a coating film comprising a titanium oxide layer and an amorphous silicon compound layer in this order on an aluminum particle surface as claimed.
Ostertag et al. does not disclose the thickness of the titanium oxide layer in the range of 100 nm or more and 1000 nm or less as claimed.
Udagawa et al. teaches a cosmetic composition including a pigment containing a monolayer of low order titanium oxide on a plate-shaped particle. (Abstract). Udagawa et al. further teaches that the low order titanium oxide can be used to form black colored pigments (page 5, 2nd full paragraph) and can be controlled to have a layer thickness in the range of 10 to 1000 nm, especially 140 nm, overlapping with the presently claimed range. (see Manufacturing Examples). Udagawa et al. further teaches that low order titanium oxide coating has a general formula TiOx and that when x approaches 1.0, the light absorption becomes strong implying a darker (i.e. blacker) color. (page 3, bottom half).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a lower order titanium oxide layer having a layer thickness in the range of 10 to 1000 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a layer thickness in the range taught in Udagawa et al. which overlaps with the presently claimed range in view of the teachings in the secondary reference that suitable ranges for low order titanium oxide coatings lie in the range of 10-1000 nm in the prior art and that workable examples with 140 nm can be suitably used as an interference pigment. 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, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, the reference teaches that the overall color, from darker to lighter, can be controlled by the layer thickness as well as the relative ratio of Ti to O in the low order coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to optimize both thickness and color of the coating composition to achieve the desired color characteristic depending on preferred aesthetic goals.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostertag et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,978,394) in view of Udagawa et al. (JP2010-280607), further in view of Miyamoto et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2017/0306160).
Ostertag in view of Udagawa et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Ostertag et al. does not disclose the layer thickness of the silicon oxide layers applied onto the titanium oxide layer.
Miyamoto et al. teaches a colored metallic pigment having an amorphous silicon oxide layer formed on the surface of the metallic particles wherein the layer thickness of the amorphous silicon oxide layer is more than 500 nm. (Abstract). Miyamoto et al. teaches that a thickness of more than 500 nm, there will be a high shift in color tone for imparting an interference effect. (par. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a silicon oxide layer thickness in the range disclosed in Miyamoto et al. for the silicon oxide layer of Ostertag et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a layer thickness of a silicon oxide layer as taught in Miyamoto et al. in view of the teaching in the reference of the applied color tone shifting and interference effect.
Regarding claim 8, Ostertag et al. does not disclose at least one of a base layer and a resin layer as an outermost layer of the coating film.
Miyamoto et al. teaches a colored metallic pigment including an amorphous silicon oxide layer on a surface of the metallic pigment. (Abstract). Miyamoto et al. teaches the inclusion of an outermost resin (i.e. polymer) layer to protect the metal pigment and impart chemical, moisture and weather resistance. (par. [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an outermost polymer coating to the metallic flakes of Ostertag et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an outermost polymer coating onto the flakes in order to impart improved weathering/chemical/water resistance to the metal flake to avoid deterioration thereof and create a product having improved durability.
Miyamoto et al. teaches a colored metallic pigment including an amorphous silicon oxide layer on a surface of the metallic pigment. (Abstract). Miyamoto et al. teaches the inclusion of an outermost resin (i.e. polymer) layer to protect the metal pigment and impart chemical, moisture and weather resistance. (par. [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an outermost polymer coating to the metallic flakes of Argoitia et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an outermost polymer coating onto the flakes in order to impart improved weathering/chemical/water resistance to the metal flake to avoid deterioration thereof and create a product having improved durability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostertag et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,978,394) in view of Udagawa et al. (JP2010-280607) and ‘555 (JP 2017-528555)
Ostertag et al. teaches metal oxide coated aluminum pigments having a platelike shape (i.e. flaky aluminum particle). (Abstract). The metal oxide coating includes a titanium oxide having an oxidation less than 4 (i.e. having a formula TiOx wherein x is less than 2) (col. 4, lines 22-30). The color of the pigment may be black blue (col. 3, lines 45-52) as the lower oxidation state TiO is known to be a dark color (col. 3, lines 26-30) but can have a variety of other interference colors including blue, yellow, gold, red, violet, green based on the thickness of the titanium oxide coating. (col. 3, lines 1-12). Additional metal oxide layers, including amorphous silica (formed by hydrolysis of a salt material or reduction of chlorides of silicon) may be formed on the surface of the titanium oxide layer. (col. 3, line 53 – col. 4, line 9). The reference therefore discloses a coating film comprising a titanium oxide layer and an amorphous silicon compound layer in this order on an aluminum particle surface as claimed.
Ostertag et al. does not disclose the thickness of the titanium oxide layer in the range of 100 nm or more and 1000 nm or less as claimed.
Udagawa et al. teaches a cosmetic composition including a pigment containing a monolayer of low order titanium oxide on a plate-shaped particle. (Abstract). Udagawa et al. further teaches that the low order titanium oxide can be used to form black colored pigments (page 5, 2nd full paragraph) and can be controlled to have a layer thickness in the range of 10 to 1000 nm, especially 140 nm, overlapping with the presently claimed range. (see Manufacturing Examples). Udagawa et al. further teaches that low order titanium oxide coating has a general formula TiOx and that when x approaches 1.0, the light absorption becomes strong implying a darker (i.e. blacker) color. (page 3, bottom half).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a lower order titanium oxide layer having a layer thickness in the range of 10 to 1000 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a layer thickness in the range taught in Udagawa et al. which overlaps with the presently claimed range in view of the teachings in the secondary reference that suitable ranges for low order titanium oxide coatings lie in the range of 10-1000 nm in the prior art and that workable examples with 140 nm can be suitably used as an interference pigment. 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, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, the reference teaches that the overall color, from darker to lighter, can be controlled by the layer thickness as well as the relative ratio of Ti to O in the low order coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to optimize both thickness and color of the coating composition to achieve the desired color characteristic depending on preferred aesthetic goals.
Ostertag et al. does not disclose a base layer disposed on the aluminum particle surface selected from oxide, hydroxide or hydrate of Mo and/or phosphorus as claimed.
‘555 discloses a colored effect pigment comprising a metal flake substrate with at least three layers applied on the surface thereof (Abstract and page 3). ‘555 teaches that metal substrates are known in the art to be passivated with a phosphate (i.e. oxide of phosphorus coating) to prevent reactivity with water or other acidic/caustic substances present in solution with the flakes. (page 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to applied a base coating of an oxide of phosphate on the surface of the metal flakes of Ostertag et al. as taught in ‘555.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply a base phosphate layer on the surface of the metal flakes of Ostertag et al. to prevent unwanted reaction of the metal with water or other acidic/caustic substances in solution.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed regarding the 12/30/2025 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 03/02/2026