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 .
Claims 11-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II and group Ill, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/04/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group | in the reply filed on 04/04/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raimund Schmid et al (WO 2017/001393, here after Schmid). Document#1 is cited as evidence of inherency.
Claim 1 is rejected. Schmid teaches a method for producing metallic effect pigments[abstract, page 6 lines 18-22 ] on the basis of aluminum flakes furnished with a metal(iron) oxide coating |title], wherein the aluminum flakes have a thickness of 5 nm [page 7 lines 5-6] and are coated by the metal oxide coating, wherein the metal oxide coating is composed of Fe2O3[page 6 lines 5-6] in a thickness of 80 to 150 nm[page 8 lines 24-26] and has a refractive index of at least 1.9(refractive index of Fe2O3 is 2.63, see document #1), Schmid also teaches the oxide(iron oxide) forms on the aluminum based substrate particles(flakes) which is optionally passivated[page 5 lines 13-15, page 7 lines 26-30] that means iron oxide also forms on aluminum flakes wherein no further coating enveloping the aluminum flakes is provided between the surface of the aluminum flakes and the metal oxide coating. Schmid teaches the method comprising the steps of:
(a) Introducing the aluminum flakes in an organic solvent(100% organic solvent with no water), with formation of a corresponding dispersion(suspension), and adding at least one metal oxide precursor compound, with dissolution of the metal oxide precursor compound wherein the at least one metal oxide precursor compound is selected from the group consisting of acetates, acetylacetonates, of iron, and (6) thermally decomposing(calcination) the metal oxide precursor compound in the organic solvent [page 8 lines 28-35], to form the metal oxide coating on the aluminum flakes. Although Schmid does not specifically teach enveloping the aluminum flakes with metal oxide, however the deposition method is a wet chemical deposition and have both surfaces of the flakes (entirely or at least partially) will be covered by the coating.
Claim 2 is rejected as Schmid teaches aluminum flakes are formed by vacuum metallization and are uniform thickness distribution [page 7 lines 1-2], therefore the aluminum flakes have a thickness fluctuation of less than 30% based on the disclosure specification.
Claim 3 is rejected as Schmid teaches the aluminum flakes are vacuum- metallized pigments [page 6 lines 36-37].
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raimund Schmid et al (WO 2017/001393, here after Schmid). Document#1 is cited as evidence of inherency.
Claim 6 is rejected. Schmid teaches the aluminum flakes even before step (a) are present in dispersed form and to that solvent is used which is identical to the solvent used in step (a) [page 14 lines 6-11]. Although in this embodiment Schmid does not teach there is a layer(passivation) between the aluminum flake and iron oxide, however in another embodiment Schmid teaches passivation layer is optional [page 5 lines 13-15, page 7 lines 26-30]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of forming metallic effect pigments as Schmid teaches where there is no passivation layer on aluminum flakes, because substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raimund Schmid et al (WO 2017/001393, here after Schmid), further in view of Jeffrey S. DePue et al (U. S. Patent: 5372638, here after DePue).
Claims 4-5 are rejected. Schmid does not teach the organic solvent is 1- methoxy-2- propanol (propylene glycol monomethyl| ether). DePue teaches a method of making pigments by treating aluminum flakes with transition metal salt (atomic number 26 which is iron), and also teaches dispersing aluminum flakes in metal salt solution
where the solvent is propylene glycol monomethyl ether which in fact forms iron oxide on the aluminum flakes [column 2 lines 40-45, lines 19-26, lines 14-18, column 3 lines 29-36]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of forming metallic effect pigments as Schmid teaches where the solvent is 1-methoxy-2- propanol, because it is suitable solvent to disperse aluminum flakes and deposit iron oxide on it from iron salt.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raimund Schmid et al (WO 2017/001393, here after Schmid), further in view of Takahiro Sakon et al (WO 2013/145908, here after Sakon).
Claims 6-7 are rejected. Schmid does not teach the aluminum flakes even before step (a) are present in dispersed form and to that end an organic solvent is used which is different or identical from the organic solvent used in step (a). Sakon teaches a method of forming metal oxide coated aluminum particles and teaches dispersing aluminum flakes in IPA prior to adding organometallic compound [example 26]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of forming metallic effect pigments as Schmid teaches and disperse the aluminum flakes prior to add organometallic compound and organic solvent, because it is suitable to disperse aluminum flakes prior to adding organometal compound. Although Sakon method is to coat the aluminum flakes with silicon oxide, however this method in coating other metallic oxide such as iron oxide can be employed in expectation of success.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raimund Schmid et al (WO 2017/001393, here after Schmid), further in view of Si-Qin Zhao et al, Huaxue Shiji (Chemical Reagents), 32, 2(2010)108-110, here after Zhao.
Claims 8 -9 are rejected, Schmid teaches the iron oxide is gamma iron (Ill) [page 7 lines 5-3], and metal precursor is metal nitrate [page 8 lines 27-33]. Schmid does not teach the metal atom of the metal oxide precursor compound is present in complexed form. Zhao teaches obtaining gamma iron (III) by decomposition of Iron (Ill)-urea complex in organic solvent[abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Schmid when the iron precursor is Iron (IIl)-urea complex, because it is a suitable complex to form gamma iron (Ill) oxide.
Claim 10 is ejected as Zhao teaches the metal oxide precursor compound is [Fe(H2N(CO)NH2)6] (NO3)3[abstract].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/23/25, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claims 6-7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Schmid does not teach the new limitation of amended claim 1. The examiner disagrees, as Schmid teaches the solvent is organic which means 100% organic which is in fact based on example 26 and not example 2. Furthermore, Schmid teaches step of calcination to form metal (iron) oxide from organic solvent and metal(iron) precursor which means thermally heating [page 8 lines 28-35].
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718