DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 22-26 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Quevedo (2020/0354578) in view of Loginov et al. (2022/0088635).
Regarding claim 22, Ruiz Quevedo teaches a platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule (fig. 3, item 6) for use in a printing ink ([0004]), comprising a layer construction (fig. 9, [0017]) with a magnetic layer (fig. 9, item 33) and at least one optical functional layer (fig. 9, item 36),
wherein the magnetic layer comprises magnetic particles fixed within a solid matrix ([0070], Examiner maintains that it is inherent within the reference that such magnetic particles are necessarily in a solid matrix. Note that Merriam-Webster defines “matrix” as “a continuous solid phase that holds reinforcements,” which is the case in the prior art) and aligned such that an average magnetization direction of all magnetic particles of the magnetic layer in combination deviates from a platelet plane defined parallel to a direction of a largest dimension of the effect pigment granule and parallel to a largest flat surface of the effect pigment granule (see fig. 3, 7, 9, [0029], Note that the magnetic layer 15 contains magnetic nickel and aluminum particles fixed within a solid matrix, and note that, based on the direction of the granules 6 in the magnetic field 7, with the field travelling perpendicular to the surfaces of the granules 6, the average magnetization direction of the magnetic particles in the magnetic layer of the magnetic pigment granule is necessarily deviant from the claimed plane).
Ruiz Quevedo does not teach how the solid matrix is formed and more specifically that the matrix is cured. Loginov teaches producing an optical effect layer of the type disclosed by Ruiz Quevedo’s magnetic layer by applying a magnetic field to the magnetic layer to orient the magnetic particles and curing the layer simultaneously so as to lock the magnetic particles into a certain orientation (Loginov, [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure the magnetic layer disclosed by Ruiz Quevedo in the manner disclosed by Loginov because doing so would amount to applying a known formation technique to a known optical effect layer to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov teaches the platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule according to claim 22, wherein the largely uniform preferential magnetic direction of the magnetic particles fixed within the solid matrix is aligned substantially perpendicular to the platelet plane of the effect pigment granule (Ruiz Quevedo, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov teaches the platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule according to claim 22, wherein the magnetic particles have a size of less than 1000 nm (Ruiz Quevedo, [0053]).
Regarding claim 25, Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov teaches the platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule according to claim 22, wherein the magnetic particles have a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy, including a uniaxial magnetic crystal anisotropy or a uniaxial magnetic shape anisotropy (Ruiz Quevedo, [0053], Note that several of the materials disclosed would have such anisotropy).
Regarding claim 26, Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov teaches the platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule according to claim 25, wherein the material of the magnetic particles is selected from the group consisting of BaFe12O19, FePt, CoCrPt, CoPt, BiMn, a-Fe2O3 and Nd2Fe14B BaFel2019, FePt, CoCrPt, CoPt, BiMn, o-Fe203 and Nd2Fel4B (Ruiz Quevedo, [0050]) and the magnetic particles have a uniaxial magnetic crystal anisotropy (Ruiz Quevedo, [0050], note that several of the materials disclosed would have such anisotropy), or
wherein the material of the magnetic particles is selected from the group consisting of iron, cobalt, nickel and an alloy of one or several of the aforementioned elements and the magnetic particles have a uniaxial magnetic shape anisotropy (Ruiz Quevedo, [0050]).
Regarding claim 31, Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov teaches the platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule according to claim 22, wherein the effect pigment granule has a sandwich-like layer construction and the magnetic layer as a central layer is provided both on the front side and on the back side with respectively one optical functional layer, wherein a front side of the magnetic layer and the back side of the magnetic layer are each provided with an optical functional layer (Ruiz Quevedo, see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 32, Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov teaches the platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule according to claim 22, wherein the effect pigment granule has a symmetric layer construction, wherein the effect pigment granule has a sandwich-like layer construction and wherein a front side of the magnetic layer and the back side of the magnetic layer are each provided with an optical functional layer,
wherein the two optical functional layers respectively are an interference layer construction based on a reflective layer, a dielectric layer and an absorbent layer, and the effect pigment granule has the following layer sequence: absorbent layer - dielectric layer - reflective layer - magnetic layer - reflective layer - dielectric layer - absorbent layer (Ruiz Quevedo, see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 33, Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov teaches the platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule according to claim 22, wherein the optical functional layer is an interference layer construction based on a reflective layer, a dielectric layer and an absorbent layer and the effect pigment granule has the following layer sequence: absorbent layer - dielectric layer - reflective layer - dielectric layer - absorbent layer - magnetic layer (Ruiz Quevedo, see fig. 9).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Fan et al. (6,072,629).
Regarding claim 27, Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov teaches the platelet-shaped magnetic effect pigment granule according to claim 22. Ruiz Quevedo does not teach wherein the magnetic particles each comprise needles obtainable by means of the glancing angle deposition (GLAD) technique or the oblique angle deposition (OAD) technique. Fan teaches this (Fan, col. 16, lines 27-53). It would have been obvious to use needles deposited by OAD, as disclosed by Fan, as the magnetic particles in the pigment granule disclosed by Ruiz Quevedo in view of Loginov because doing so would amount to combining a known magnetic particle shape and deposition technique with a known magnetic effect pigment granule to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Ruiz Quevedo in view of Raksha does not go into detail about the form and deposition of its magnetic particles, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to look to Raksha for such a teaching.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Ruiz Quevedo and Loginov teach different structures, as Ruiz Quevedo is directed to orienting magnetic particles within a layer of an effect pigment particle, while Loginov is directed to orienting magnetic pigment particles in a coating. While the distinction is acknowledged, Examiner maintains that the method of orienting and curing magnetic pigment particles within a coating on a substrate would have been obvious to apply to a layer of an effect pigment having magnetic particles. That is, it is Examiner’s position that orienting and then curing any layer or coating containing magnetic particles to solidify the particles in a particular orientation would have been obvious in any number of applications, whether forming a magnetic coating on a substrate or forming a magnetic layer in an effect pigment.
(Note that Applicant’s general argument seems to be repeated below in various forms, and the preceding is intended to address those arguments as well).
Applicant further contends that Ruiz Quevedo teaches a vapor deposition technique for forming the magnetic orientation of its magnetic layer. Examiner maintains there were several well-known layer-manufacturing techniques at the time of invention, and one of skill would have found it obvious to use the technique disclosed by Loginov instead of such a vapor deposition. This is also applicable to the noting of the mention of spin casting a precursor.
Additionally, Applicant notes that the rejection cites to different embodiments of Ruiz Quevedo. Examiner maintains the embodiments simply list several variations, but the embodiments are not mutually exclusive and have combinable features.
The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
