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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “he” in line 1 should be amended to “The”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perez-Estebanez et al(“Inorganic pigments based on fluorite-type oxynitrides”, J. Mater. Res., Vol. 21, No. 5, (2006) pp. 1427-1433 submitted in the IDS filed 4/14/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Perez-Estebanez discloses inorganic pigments comprising Zr-R-O-N system where R = Ce, Eu, and Er with various rare earth concentration levels (See Page 1427, Last Paragraph). Perez-Estebanez further discloses Zr0.9Er0.1O1.77N0.12 and Zr0.5Er0.5O1.741N0.006 (see Table VII).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertaux et al (US 6,719,837).
Regarding claim 1, Bertaux discloses a pigment comprising an oxynitride based on two metals comprising:
ABO3-xNx
A= Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Ba, Sr, Pb, Ln(=rare earth), Bi, Y
B= W, Re, Mo, Ta, Nb, Mo, W, Zr, Sn, Ge, Nb, Ta, Al, Ga, Ln(=rare earth), Fe, Cr, and with x = 1, 2, or 3 and the electronic charges a of A and b of B verify a+b=6+x; a≥x and solid solutions of these compounds (see Col 3, Ln 49-63). An artisan would recognize the rare earth as taught by Bertaux to include La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Sc and Y. Bertaux therefore discloses a composition that overlaps in scope with the claimed zirconium-based nitride powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare a pigment as taught by Bertaux where the A is any of the elements listed by Bertaux including the claimed rare earth elements Dy, Er, Gd, Ho, Lu, Nd, Pr, Sc, Sm, Tb, and Tm and B is Zr in order to produce a pearlescent pigment as suggested by Bertaux.
Regarding claim 2, Bertaux teaches where the mean diameter of the resulting pigments is between 1 and 500 µm, preferably between 5 and 50 µm (see Col 8, Ln 26-28). 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare a pigment comprising the rare earth zirconium oxynitride as taught by Bertaux where the size range is in any range overlapping with 1 and 500 µm as taught by Bertaux.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are allowed.
Claims 3-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record, namely Perez-Estabanez and Bertaux cited above disclose zirconium-containing powder following General Formula (I) where X is at least one element of Dy, Er, Gd, Ho, Lu, Nd, Pr, Sc, Sm, Tb, and Tm, an amount of Y is 0, and an amount of O is 0 mol or greater with respect to 1 mol of a total amount of nitrogen and oxygen.
Perez-Estabanez and Bertaux do not teach the powder
wherein in extinction coefficients measured by the following method, a ratio of an extinction coefficient of visible light at a wavelength of 550 nm to an extinction coefficient of ultraviolet light at a wavelength of 365 nm is within a range of 1.4 or greater and 100 or less,
(method for measuring extinction coefficient)
a dispersion containing the zirconium-containing nitride powder at a mass concentration of 50 ppm is put into a cell having an optical path length d (unit: m),
the cell containing the dispersion is irradiated with light to measure transmission light intensity of the light transmitted through the cell, and
α is calculated as an extinction coefficient of the light irradiated into the cell by substituting the optical path length d, incident light intensity I₀ of the light irradiated into the cell, and transmission light intensity I of the light transmitted through the cell into the following Equation (1),
I = I₀exp(-αxd) (1) as required in claim 5.
Claims 13 and 19 depend on claim 5.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, as above Perez-Estabanez and Bertaux do not teach the powder comprising an extinction coefficient as claimed with all of the limitations in claim 3 or 8.
Claims 4, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 depend on claims 3 or 8.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the closest prior art of record, namely Perez-Estabanez and Bertaux cited above disclose zirconium-containing powder following General Formula (I) where X is at least one element of Dy, Er, Gd, Ho, Lu, Nd, Pr, Sc, Sm, Tb, and Tm, an amount of Y is 0, and an amount of O is 0 mol or greater with respect to 1 mol of a total amount of nitrogen and oxygen. Bertaux further discloses a pigment where the average particle size is within a range of 10 nm or greater and 70 nm or less.
Perez-Estabanez and Bertaux do not teach an ultraviolet ray-curable black organic composition comprising an ultraviolet ray-curable organic material and a black pigment dispersed in the ultraviolet ray-curable organic material where the black pigment is the zirconium-containing nitride powder according to claim 1. The Office also notes that Perez-Estabanez teaches that the oxynitride containing Er is pink (see Table 1).
Claims 7 and 16 depends on claims 6 or 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738