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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 25-26 remain pending in the application. Claims 16-22 were previously withdrawn. Claims 23-24 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 25 were amended and support for amendments are found in the Specification and claims as originally filed.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-15 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieloch et al. (WO 2019/133713; cited in the IDS submitted on 10/14/2022; hereafter as “Wieloch ‘713”), in view of Rathschlag et al. (WO 2010/072379A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Rathschlag”), and as evidenced by Refractive Index of Polymers (Scientific Polymer Products Inc.).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 25-26, Wieloch ‘713 teaches a composition comprising polymers [Table 2, Ex7c; Paragraphs 0127-0128], corresponding to the polymeric composition of Claim 1. Wieloch ‘713 further teaches:
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [Table 2, Example 7c; Paragraphs 0127-0128; Claim 3], which has a refractive index of 1.5750 [as evidenced by Refractive Index of Polymers, Page 7] and corresponding to the first polymer of Claim 1;
3% polymethylpentene (PMP) [Table 2, Example 7c; Paragraphs 0127-0128; Claim 1], which has a refractive index of 1.4630 [as evidenced by Refractive Index of Polymers, Page 2] and corresponding to the second polymer of Claim 1, and corresponding to wherein the second refractive index of the second polymer is lower than the first refractive index of the first polymer of Claim 1, and corresponding to where the second polymer has an amount in the range of 0.5 wt. % to 6 wt. % of Claims 3 and 5;
2.25% TiO2 [Table 2, Example 10; Paragraphs 0006, 0058, 0131-0133; Claim 5], thereby reading on wherein the light scattering inorganic additive is TiO2 of Claim 1, the light scattering inorganic additive of Claim 2, the light scattering inorganic additive has an amount in the range of 0.5 wt. % to 4 wt. % of Claims 3 and 5; and reading on the TiO2 of Claim 8;
0.02% Carbon black (PBlk 7) [Table 2, Example 10; Paragraphs 0131-0133; Claim 5], and thereby reading on wherein the light absorbing additive consists of black pigment of Claim 1, corresponding to the light absorbing additive has an amount in the range of 50 ppm to 15,000 ppm, which is equivalent to 0.005-1.5 %) of Claims 3 and 5, and the light absorbing additive of Claim 2, and reading on the carbon black of Claim 9; and
Wherein PBlk 7 blocks all light [Paragraph 0132]; and
wherein said TiO2 may scatter light [Paragraphs 0006 and 0058].
Wieloch ‘713 further teaches light reflecting additives [Paragraphs 0006 and 0058].
However, Wieloch ‘713 does not explicitly teach an opacified polymeric composition of Claim 1; 1ppm to 750 ppm of a light reflecting additive, wherein the light reflecting additive is a metal flake of Claim 1, where the weight percent of the sum of the light scattering inorganic additive, the light absorbing additive, and the light reflecting additive based on the total weight of the polymeric composition is at most 3.75 wt% of Claim 2, wherein the light reflecting additive has an amount in the range of 1 ppm to 750 ppm of Claims 3 and 5, wherein the metal flake comprises an aluminum flake of Claim 10, wherein the light reflecting additive has an amount in the range of 1 ppm to 500 ppm of Claim 25, and where the weight percent of the sum of the light scattering inorganic additive, the light absorbing additive, and the light reflecting additive based on the total weight of the polymeric composition is at most 3.50 wt% of Claim 26.
Regarding the metal flake of Claim 1 and aluminum flake of Claim 10, nevertheless, Rathschlag teaches platelet-shaped and goniochromatic pigment granules, such as titanium oxide, silica, talc, color pigments, and additives for polymer compositions for use in plastics [Abstract; ¶ 0039, 0041-0044], comprising plate-shaped aluminum [¶ 0041], corresponding to the claimed metal flake of Claim 1, and aluminum flake of Claim 10.
Rathschlag offers the motivation that the plate-shaped pigments can form opaque layers in the final composition [¶ 0039], which also corresponds with the opacified polymer composition of Claim 1.
Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of optically-active compositions comprising polymers, titanium oxide, color pigments, and additives that scatter and reflect light.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the aluminum flake of Rathschlag with the polymeric composition of Wieloch ‘713, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding the amount of light reflecting additive of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 25, Wieloch ‘713 teaches the perceived color effect involves a balance between specularly reflected light, diffusely reflected light and fluorescence induced light, and at angles close to the specular angle the reflected light is dominated by specular reflection and fluorescent induced light is not perceivable [Column 2, Lines 1-14]. Rathschlag also teaches that pigment granules, such as aluminum flake, are known in the field to not be oxidation stable and tend to self-heat in polymer compositions even though the pigment granules are not classified as highly flammable solids [¶ 0011]. Therefore, the amount of the light reflecting metal flake can be optimized to reach the desired amount of light relative to the induced fluorescence and thermal properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the amount of light reflecting metal flake for the intended level of reflection via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claims 2 and 26, the sum of the light scattering inorganic additive (2.25 wt.% TiO2 of Wieloch ‘713), light absorbing additive (0.02wt% carbon black of Wieloch ‘713), and light reflecting additive (aluminum flake of Rathschlag) is equivalent to >2.27% (Total additives = amt. TiO2 + amt. PB1k 7 + amt. aluminum flake = 2.25% + 0.02% + amt. aluminum flake ≥ 2.27%), corresponding to where the weight percent of the sum of the light scattering inorganic additive, the light absorbing additive, and the light reflecting additive is at most 3.75 wt. % of Claim 2, and at most 3.50 wt.% of Claim 26.
Regarding Claims 6-7, and 14, Wieloch ‘713 further teaches:
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [Table 2, Example 7c; Paragraphs 0127-0128; Claim 3], thereby reading on the polyester of Claim 6;
polymethylpentene (PMP) [Table 2, Example 7c; Paragraphs 0127-0128; Claim 1], thereby reading on the polymethylpentene of Claim 7; and
wherein the additives, polyester and polymethylpentene are dispersed and kneaded together in the polymer composition [Paragraph 0099], corresponding to where the light scattering inorganic additive, the light absorbing additive, and the light reflecting additive are at least partially encapsulated by the second polymer of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, Wieloch ‘713 further teaches:
A composition thickness of about 100 – 1000 μm [Paragraph 0088], which overlaps the claimed thickness of 200 microns;
Wherein the composition functions as a light barrier, for light with wavelengths ranging from about 400 nm to about 700 nm [Claim 7; Paragraph 0045], which overlaps with the claimed polymeric composition has a percent transmittance at 700 nm; and
Wherein the composition functions as a light barrier of greater than about 90% [Claim 7; Paragraph 0045], which is equivalent to a claimed transmittance of ≤ 10 %, which overlaps with the claimed percent transmittance of less than 0.5 %.
Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag do not teach the exact same ranges for thickness, wavelength and amount of transmittance as required by the instant claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Wieloch ‘713 for the thickness, wavelengths and amount of transmittance (100 – 1000 μm, 400-700 nm and ≤ 10 %, respectively) overlaps the instantly claimed ranges (200 μm, 700 nm and < 0.5 %, respectively) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieloch et al. (WO 2019133713; cited in the IDS submitted on 10/14/2022; hereafter as “Wieloch ‘713”) in view of Rathschlag et al. (WO 2010/072379A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Rathschlag”), as evidenced by Refractive Index of Polymers (Scientific Polymer Products Inc.) and in further view of Luo et al. (US 20190106576 A1; hereafter as “Luo”).
Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag teach the first polymer, second polymer, light scattering inorganic additive, light absorbing additive and light reflecting additive of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wieloch ‘713 also teaches the use of polypropylene as a secondary polymer [Table 2; Examples 8a-c].
However, Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag are silent to the co-second polymer of Claim 4 and where the co-second polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polymethylpentene (PMP), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), and fluoropolymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene, polyhexafluoropropylene oxide, fluorinated ethylene propylene, polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, polyethylene oxide, and combinations thereof of Claim 11.
Nevertheless, Luo teaches polymeric coatings that transmit and reflect light [Abstract; Claim 1], comprising:
combinations of polymers including poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) [Paragraphs 0031 and 0036], which has a refractive index of 1.5750 [Refractive Index of Polymers, Page 7] and corresponding to the first polymer of Claims 1 and 4; and
polypropylene [Paragraph 0031], which has a refractive index of 1.4735 [Refractive Index of Polymers, Page 3], which corresponds to a co-second polymer with a refractive index that is lower than the first refractive index of the first polymer of Claim 4, and thereby reading on the polypropylene of Claim 11.
Luo offers the motivation that inorganic pigment particles, such as metal flakes, can be applied to polymers such as PET and polypropylene to opacify the polymer composition [¶ 0021, 0031].
Wieloch ‘713, Rathschlag, and Luo are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of optically-active polymeric compositions comprising at least two polymers with different refractive indices and additives that transmit and reflect light.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polypropylene of Luo with the polymeric composition of Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag, with motivation of opacifying the polymer composition, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieloch et al. (WO 2019133713; cited in the IDS submitted on 10/14/2022; hereafter as “Wieloch ‘713”) in view of Rathschlag et al. (WO 2010/072379A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Rathschlag”), as evidenced by Refractive Index of Polymers (Scientific Polymer Products Inc.) and Tronox (Tronox® CR-834 Technical Data Sheet (NPL); hereafter as “Tronox”).
Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag teach the first polymer, second polymer, light scattering inorganic additive, light absorbing additive and light reflecting additive of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wieloch ‘713 further teaches TiO2 [Table 2, Example 7c; Paragraphs 0006, 0058, 0127-0128; Claim 5], corresponding to the light scattering inorganic additive of Claims 12 and 13. Wieloch ‘713 further teaches said TiO2 is grade CR-834 and sourced from Tronox Limited.
However, Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag are silent to where the light scattering inorganic additive has a median particle size in the range of 0.2 microns to 45 microns of Claim 12 and a median particle size in the range of 0.2 microns to 0.5 microns of Claim 13.
Nevertheless, the particle diameter of CR-834 TiO2 as evidenced by Tronox is approximately 0.2 µm [Page 1, Tronox] which reads on the particle size of 0.2 - 45 microns of Claim 12, and particle size of 0.2 - 0.5 microns of Claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed March 27, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-15 and 25-26 under Wieloch ‘713 in view of Decker have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendment, and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wieloch ‘713 in view of Rathschlag.
Applicant argues (1) Wieloch ‘713 in view of Decker do not teach “ 1 ppm to 750 ppm of a light reflecting additive”. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above wherein Rathschlag teaches aluminum flake. Furthermore, Wieloch ‘713 teaches the perceived color effect involves a balance between specularly reflected light, diffusely reflected light and fluorescence induced light, and at angles close to the specular angle the reflected light is dominated by specular reflection and fluorescent induced light is not perceivable [Column 2, Lines 1-14]. Rathschlag also teaches that pigment granules in polymer compositions are known in the field to not be oxidation stable and tend to self-heat even though the pigment granules are not classified as highly flammable solids [¶ 0011]. Therefore, the amount of the light reflecting metal flake can be optimized to reach the desired amount of reflected light relative to the induced fluorescence and thermal properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the amount of light reflecting metal flake for the intended level of reflection via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (2) that none of the cited references disclose or suggest an opacified polymeric composition because Wieloch ‘713 in view of Decker do not teach the claimed amount of reflecting additive. However, Wieloch ‘713 teaches the claimed types and amounts of the first polymer, second polymer, light scattering additive, light absorbing additive, and Rathschalg teaches the claimed light reflecting additive. The combined teachings of Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag teach all the claimed limitations, and thus, render the claimed invention obvious. Since Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschalg teach all the claimed components, the composition of Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschalg would also expectedly have the same opacified properties as the claimed invention. Rathschlag also teaches that the aluminum flakes can be used to form opaque layers in the plastic compositions [¶ 0039], which implies the polymeric composition of Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag would also be opacified. Thus, applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Applicant argues (3) Wieloch ‘713 and Decker are not analogous art as the claimed invention. However, Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of optically-active plastic compositions comprising polymers, titanium oxide, color pigments, and additives that scatter and reflect light. Furthermore, Wieloch ‘713 and Rathschlag both pertain to developing goniochromatic polymer compositions. Thus, applicant’s argument is not convincing.
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 DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights