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
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 1/29/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 1/29/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to include the content of water derived from the metal oxide hydrate. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it is not immediately clear that the amount of water from metal oxide hydrated is based on the coating film and not the surface-treated IR-absorbing particles.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunematsu (WO 2019/093524, document citations to English-language equivalent US 2021/0047518).
With respect to claims 1-3, Tsunematsu discloses surface-treated infrared absorbing fine particles which are formed by coating infrared absorbing particles with a metal chelate compound or a hydrolysis product of a metal chelate compound (abstract). In Example 1, IR absorbing cesium tungsten bronze particles having formula Cs0.33WOz, 2.0 ≤ z ≤ 3.0 (paragraph 0211) is treated with aluminum ethyl acetoacetate diisopropylate chelate to form an aluminum oxide hydrate coating on the IR absorbing particles (paragraph 0212). Tsunematsu teaches that the carbon concentration in the surface-treated infrared absorbing fine particle powder is 0.2-5 mass % or less in order to provide high-density coating layer (paragraph 0143; claim 7). Example 1 mixes 890 g of a solution containing 2 mass % tungsten bronze having formula Cs0.33WOz and 360 g of 2.5 mass % dilute solution of aluminum ethyl acetoacetate diisopropylate which is the same mixture disclosed by Applicant in the specification as originally filed (paragraphs 0145, 0148, and 0150). Because the relative amounts of IR absorbing particles and metal chelating agent determine the amount of carbon or aluminum hydroxide hydrate in the film on the surface of the IR absorbing particles, the carbon concentration is expected to at least overlap with the claimed range and the amount of aluminum oxide hydrate is expected to be also be about the same.
Tsunematsu does not explicitly disclose the carbon content in the film or the water content from the aluminum oxide hydrate in the film.
Regarding the carbon content, because Tsunematsu teaches that the carbon content is low in order to provide a high-density coating and given that Tsunematsu’s Example 1 includes the same mixture chelating agent and IR absorbing filler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the carbon content in the film to an amount of 5.0 mass % or less.
Regarding the amount of water derived from the metal oxide hydrate in the coating film, Tsunematsu does not explicitly disclose the amount of water from the metal oxide hydrate remaining on the film of the IR absorbing particles, however, it teaches that after stirring the mixture of IR absorbing particles and metal chelating agent, the medium is evaporated and dried by fluidized drying to form a powder (paragraph 0213). Example 16 dries the same mixture except by spraying drying to form a powder (paragraph 0238). Tsunematsu also teaches performing an optional heat treatment to dry the particles but provides guidance about not heating to the point where the coated particles aggregate (paragraphs 0139-0140).
Given that Tsunematsu’s Example 1 includes the same mixture chelating agent and IR absorbing filler which provides for relative amounts of chelating agent and IR absorbing filler (i.e., Tsunematsu discloses about the same amount of aluminum as Applicant’s own Example 1) and further given that Tsunematsu teaches a plurality of ways to dry the surface treated particles to obtain a powder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the amount of water from the aluminum oxide trihydrate to within the claimed range.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Tsunematsu discloses that the surface-treated infrared absorbing fine particles are in a dispersion liquid medium such as organic solvent, oil and fat, and liquid plasticizer (paragraph 0036).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Tsunematsu discloses that the surface-treated infrared absorbing fine particles are in a dispersion body comprising solid resin including a fluororesin, PET resin, acrylic resin, polyamide resin, vinyl chloride resin, polycarbonate resin, olefin resin, epoxy resin, and polyimide resin (paragraph 0039).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues Tsunematsu does not disclose a hydrate of a metal oxide.
In Example 1, IR absorbing cesium tungsten bronze particles having formula Cs0.33WOz, 2.0 ≤ z ≤ 3.0 (paragraph 0211) is treated with aluminum ethyl acetoacetate diisopropylate chelate to form an aluminum oxide hydrate coating on the IR absorbing particles (paragraph 0212). This same example mixes 2.5 mass % dilute solution of aluminum ethyl acetoacetate diisopropylate which is the same mixture disclosed by Applicant in the specification as originally filed (paragraphs 0145, 0148, and 0150).
Applicant argues that Tsunematsu fails to disclose a specific heat treatment to arrive at the claimed water content derived from the metal oxide hydrate.
Tsunematsu teaches that after stirring the mixture of IR absorbing particles and metal chelating agent, the liquid medium is evaporated and dried by fluidized drying to form a powder (paragraph 0213). Example 16 dries the same mixture except by spraying drying to form a powder (paragraph 0238). Tsunematsu also teaches performing an optional heat treatment to dry the particles but provides guidance about not heating to the point where the coated particles aggregate (paragraphs 0139-0140). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be guided to use a suitably dry surface treated powder like claimed.
Comparative example 4 of the specification as originally filed which does not heat the surface treated particles in a liquid medium to dry (dried at 30°C rather than at 55°C like the inventive examples) and has a water content of 5.6 mass %. While this amount is outside the claimed range and Tsunematsu does not exemplify specific drying conditions at elevated temperatures, it generally teaches drying the surface treated particles sufficiently to form a powder and therefore drying to water content of 5 mass % or less.
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 VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn