DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 04/10/2026:
claims 1 and 3-28 are currently pending
claims 15-28 are withdrawn from consideration
claims 1 and 7 are amended
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Reuter, Donoghue and Fujimura are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuter et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0267877 A1), hereinafter referred to as REUTER, in view of Donoghue et al. (WO 2017156372 A1), hereinafter referred to as DONOGHUE, and Freeman et al. (US 5551975 A), hereinafter referred to as FREEMAN, with evidence from Chang et al. (Effect of SiO2 nanoparticles on the phase transformation of TiO2 in micron-sized porous TiO2-SiO2 mixed particles. Materials Letters, 65, 2011, pages 3272-3274), hereinafter referred to as CHANG, as to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, REUTER teaches a cluster particle for paint compositions comprising (see REUTER at paragraph [0011]: an opacifying cluster particle suitable for latex paint composition):
a binder coalescing cluster components into a cluster particle (see REUTER at paragraph [0011]: binder coalescing cluster components into a generally homogeneous particle);
the cluster component of the cluster particle including one or more silicon-containing particles (see REUTER at paragraphs [0045]: “binder” is a material that may be used to form a cluster from different components (ex., pigments, small sized extenders) by coalescing and mechanically connecting the components; and [0046]: “small size extender” refers to ground and precipitated silica). Please note, the limitations following the phrase “optional” are not positive limitations and not required constituents of the cluster particle as set forth in claim 1. However, REUTER teaches optional discrete polymeric particles each defining a closed void volume therein (see REUTER at paragraph [0011]: discrete polymeric particles each defining a closed void volume therein), optional non-photocatalytic inorganic pigment particles (see REUTER at paragraph [0012]: 0 to 6% by volume of the inorganic pigment particles), and optional extender pigment particles (see REUTER at paragraph [0012]: optional extender pigment particles);
an interstitial void network of the cluster particle forming a porosity thereof (see REUTER at paragraphs [0011]: binder further includes porosity thereof defining a binder void volume of the cluster; and [0055]: FIG. 2(a) shows a cross sectional view of opacifying cluster; the cluster 20 comprises a volume of binder material 23 having an outer surface 21 wherein the outer surface further comprises a plurality of interstices or pores 22; the plurality of pores 22 collectively establish the porosity of the cluster); and
While REUTER discloses that TiO2 can be used as the pigment (see REUTER at paragraph [0062]), REUTER fails to explicitly teach a cluster particle being photoactive.
However, DONOGHUE discloses photocatalytic coating compositions wherein photocatalytic titanium dioxide particles are combined with binders, extenders and further ingredients, the composition being effective to form coatings exhibiting photocatalytic activity and improved durability (see DONOGHUE at lines 1-4, p. 1). DONOGHUE teaches that the titanium dioxide may be in the rutile form or anatase form (see DONOGHUE at lines 4-5, p. 5). DONOGHUE also discloses that pigmentary TiO2 will provide significantly greater hiding power; pigmentary TiO2 is substantially non-photocatalytic in nature and can be predominantly or completely in rutile form (see DONOGHUE at lines 5-10, p. 7). Additionally, DONOGHUE teaches that the photocatalytic titanium dioxide used in the coating compositions can be substantially in the form of agglomerates; such agglomerates can have a mean size in the range of 0.1 µm to 8 µm (see DONOGHUE at lines 24-26, p. 5).
Disclosures of REUTER and DONOGHUE are from the same field of endeavor and describe coating compositions comprising similar constituents (see REUTER at paragraph [0011] and DONOGHUE at lines 1-4, p. 1), and according to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cluster particle of REUTER by including among the inorganic pigment particles the photocatalytic titanium dioxide as disclosed by DONOGHUE based on teachings of DONOGHUE describing that when photocatalytic titanium dioxide particles are combined with binders, extenders and further ingredients, the composition is effective to form coatings exhibiting photocatalytic activity and improved durability (see DONOGHUE at lines 1-4, p. 1).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
While REUTER discloses binder used as a material that may be used to form a cluster from different components by coalescing and mechanically connecting the components, and that exemplary binders include, but are not limited to solvent-borne binders and water reducible binders (see REUTER at paragraph [0045]), but REUTER is silent with respect to the one or more silicon-containing particles including silicon dioxide particles derived from colloidal silica that act as the binder or a portion of a binder.
However, the use of colloidal silica to form composite particles including TiO2 are known in the art, as evidenced form the disclosure of CHANG describing TiO2-SiO2 mixed micro-particles prepared from colloidal mixture of amorphous silica and anatase titania nanoparticles (see CHANG at Abstract). CHANG discloses that anatase titania is widely used in the field of photocatalysis, whereas rutile titania is preferred in the pigment industry; and that to obtain stable anatase phase and high surface area essential for application of anatase titania as photocatalyst, TiO2 nanoparticles are known to be mixed with other metal oxides, such as SiO2 (see CHANG at 1. Introduction, 1st paragraph). CHANG also discloses that commercial colloidal suspension of amorphous silica nanoparticles and anatase phase titania nanoparticles were used as silica and titania sources for the preparation of spherical and porous TiO2-SiO2 mixed micro-particles (see CHANG at 2. Experimental, 1st paragraph).
Furthermore, FREEMAN discloses structured composite pigments which are reaction products of clay, colloidal silica, and optional spacer particles such as titanium dioxide (see FREEMAN at Col. 1, lines 9-11). FREEMAN teaches that the clay is initially treated with colloidal silica, preferably in suspension form at ambient temperatures; after treatment, a particularly advantageous procedure is to inject the clay slurry/colloidal silica reaction mixture into a spray dryer to initiate the bonding reaction and thereby produce the structured aggregate clays (see FREEMAN at Col. 3, lines 49-56). FREEMAN also teaches that the preferred colloidal silica is a silica containing about 30 wt. % SiO2 with an average particle diameter of 7 nm and a surface area of 360 m2/g (see FREEMAN at Col. 4, lines 9-12).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when utilizing colloidal silica disclosed by FREEMAN as a binder of the cluster of REUTER based on the teachings of REUTER describing exemplary binders including, but are not limited to solvent-borne binders and water reducible binders (see REUTER at paragraph [0045]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the opacifying cluster of REUTER by utilizing colloidal silica as a binder as disclosed by FREEMAN based on the disclosure of CHANG describing that addition of SiO2 to TiO2 is known to result in obtaining stable anatase phase and high surface area essential for application of titania as a photocatalyst (see CHANG at 1. Introduction, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that utilizing colloidal silica as disclosed by FREEMAN as a binder in the opacifying cluster disclosed by of REUTER would be suitable.
Regarding claim 3, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, wherein the silicon dioxide particles have a sub-micron average particle size (see rejection of claim 1 above and FREEMAN at Col. 4, lines 9-12: colloidal silica is a silica containing about 30 wt. % SiO2 with an average particle diameter of 7 nm).
Regarding claim 4, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, wherein the photoactive component is titanium oxide in a photocatalytic form having an average particle size of about 0.2 to about 1.0 microns (see rejection of claim 1 above and DONOGHUE at lines 24-26, p. 5: the photocatalytic titanium dioxide used in the coating compositions can be substantially in the form of agglomerates; such agglomerates can have a mean size in the range of 0.1 µm to 8 µm). DONOGHUE teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, further comprising non-photocatalytic titanium dioxide in a form selected from anatase, rutile or combinations thereof (see rejection of claim 1 above and DONOGHUE at lines 5-10, p. 7: pigmentary TiO2 will provide significantly greater hiding power; pigmentary TiO2 is substantially non-photocatalytic in nature and can be predominantly or completely in rutile form).
Regarding claim 7, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, wherein the binder includes the silicon-containing particles and the organic latex polymer (see REUTER at paragraph [0045]: binders which may be used include polyvinyl acetates, vinyl acrylics, styrene butadiene, styrene acrylics, and ethylene styrene acrylics).
According to MPEP § 2111, the proper claim interpretation includes giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Therefore, for the purpose of the claim interpretation, the examiner treats the limitation “organic latex polymer” according to the specification, paragraph [0032]: “latex polymers are a non-limiting example of an organic binder; exemplary latex binders that may be used in the present disclosure include, but are not limited to, polyvinyl acetates, vinyl acrylics, styrene butadiene, styrene acrylics, and ethylene vinyl acrylics”.
Regarding claim 8, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, further comprising the discrete polymeric particles each defining a closed void volume therein and wherein the cluster particle has a total void volume including a total closed void volume of all the discrete polymeric particle closed void volumes and the interstitial void network of the cluster particle (see REUTER at paragraphs [0012]: the opacifying cluster particle may have a total void volume including a total closed void volume of all the discrete polymeric particles closed void volumes and the binder void volume of the polymeric latex binder; and [0055]: FIG. 2(a) shows a cross sectional view of opacifying cluster; the cluster 20 comprises a volume of binder material 23 having an outer surface 21 wherein the outer surface further comprises a plurality of interstices or pores 22; the plurality of pores 22 collectively establish the porosity of the cluster).
Regarding claim 9, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 8, wherein the total void volume is from about 1 percent to about 35 percent by volume of the cluster particle (see REUTER at paragraphs [0012]: the total void volume may be from about 1 percent to about 35 percent by volume of cluster particle). REUTER teaches range which is identical to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 8, wherein a space forming the closed void volume of the discrete polymeric particle has a size from about 0.4 microns to about 0.7 microns (see REUTER at paragraph [0012]: an average closed void volume of each discrete polymeric particle may be about 0.4 microns to about 0.7 microns in size). REUTER teaches range which is identical to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, wherein an average particle size of the cluster particle is about 1 to about 44 microns (se REUTER at paragraph [0012]: an average particle size of the opacifying cluster particle may be from about 5 microns to about 44 microns). REUTER teaches range which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, wherein the cluster particle has an outer surface defined at least by a portion of the photoactive component and wherein the outer surface has a surface porosity defined by a portion of the interstitial void network (see REUTER at paragraph [0012]: the cluster particle may have an outer surface defined at least by a portion of the polymeric latex binder and wherein the outer surface has a surface porosity; the surface porosity may be formed by one or more interstices).
Regarding claim 13, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, wherein the porosity is formed by one or more interstices each from about 0.050 µm to about 0.150 µm in cross-sectional size (see REUTER at paragraph [0012]: surface porosity may be formed by one or more interstices each from about 0.050 µm to about 0.150 µm in size).
Regarding claim 14, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, comprising:
about 1 percent to about 30 percent by volume of dry cluster volume of the binder (see REUTER at paragraph [0012]: the cluster includes from about 1 percent to about 30 percent by volume of the polymeric binder), wherein the binder comprises the one or more silicon-containing particles (see REUTER at paragraphs [0045]: “binder” is a material that may be used to form a cluster from different components (ex., pigments, small sized extenders) by coalescing and mechanically connecting the components; and [0046]: “small size extender” refers to ground and precipitated silica),
about 1 percent to about 90 percent by volume of the photoactive component wherein the photoactive component is titanium dioxide in a photocatalytic form (see REUTER at paragraphs [0012]: from about 0 to about 6 percent by volume of the inorganic pigment particle; [0062]: inorganic pigment particle is TiO2; and see rejection of claim 1 above and DONOGHUE at lines 24-26, p. 5: the photocatalytic titanium dioxide), REUTER teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range,
about 0 to about 85 percent by volume of non-catalytic inorganic pigment particles (see REUTER at paragraphs [0012]: from about 0 to about 6 percent by volume of the inorganic pigment particle),
about 0 to about 80 percent by volume of the discrete polymeric particles each defining a closed void volume therein (see REUTER at paragraph [0012]: from about 10 percent to about 70 percent by volume of the discrete polymeric particles), and
about 0 to about 90 percent by volume of the extender pigment particles (see REUTER at paragraph [0012]: the optional extender pigment particles).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REUTER in view of DONOGHUE and FREEMAN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimura et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190249017 A1), hereinafter referred to as FUJIMURA.
Regarding claim 6, REUTER as modified by DONOGHUE and FREEMAN teaches the photoactive cluster particle of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising a surface treatment of an outer surface of the cluster particle with one of silane compound, a siloxane compound, a fluorine compound, an organic compound, or combination thereof.
However, FUJIMURA teaches a composite pigment containing an extender pigment and an inorganic compound and/or organic compound, a composite pigment further containing an inorganic color pigment such as a titanium oxide pigment, and a paint composition containing the composite pigments (see FUJIMURA at paragraph [0005]). FUJIMURA discloses that when a composite pigment is used in which a titanium oxide pigment and an extender pigment are fixed, the composite pigment can be dispersed and formed into a paint in a labor-saving manner (see FUJIMURA at paragraph [0037]). FUJIMURA teaches that the composite pigment may further have an inorganic compound and/or organic compound for surface treatment on the outer surface thereof (see FUJIMURA at paragraph [0198]). Additionally, FUJIMURA teaches examples of the organic compound for surface treatment, which is provided on the surface of the composite pigment, including organic silicone compounds such as silicone resins, siloxanes, silane coupling agents, carboxylic acids; and that by treating the matting agent/the composite pigment with the organic compound, dispersibility in a dispersion medium such as resin or the like can be improved (see FUJIMURA at paragraph [0201]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the cluster particle of REUTER by applying a surface treatment organic compound, e.g., siloxanes, silane coupling agents, carboxylic acids, as disclosed by FUJIMURA since FUJIMURA explicitly teaches that by treating the composite pigment with the organic compound, dispersibility in a dispersion medium such as resin or the like can be improved (see FUJIMURA at paragraph [0201]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cluster particle of REUTER by applying a surface treatment organic compound disclosed by FUJIMURA in order to improve the dispersibility in a dispersion medium such as resin or the like.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights