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
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1, canceled Claims 3-7, and withdrawn Claims 9-11 in the response filed on 7/1/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the data shows that explosive power remains substantially suppressed throughout the 4:6 to 5:5 range despite increasing aluminum content. Such behavior is contrary to what would ordinarily be expected in systems containing aluminum metal and metal oxides that are capable of participating in exothermic thermite reactions.
Moreover, the specification explains that the hollow TiO2 structure possesses lower apparent specific gravity than conventional inorganic plate-shaped particles, thereby enabling maintenance of explosion stability while preserving saturation and opacity. The prior art does not recognize this mechanism or suggest that the present claimed combination would provide the observed explosion-stability characteristics. The presently claimed ratio therefore represents a critical operating region than an arbitrary selection from a broader range.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not recognize or suggest that the combination of the aluminum flakes coated with a plurality of metal oxides and TiO2 coated with a metal oxide layer would provide the observed explosion-stability characteristics, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant stated that the unexpected result is that the pigment composition has relatively superior explosion stability. The explosive power of pigment compositions were measured after inducing a thermite reaction by containing the powder directly with flame ([0081] in Applicant’s published application). That is, the argued unexpected result is dependent on subjecting the pigment composition with a flame. As shown in Table 1, the explosive power generally increases the more coated aluminum flakes are present. That is, as the amount of coated aluminum flakes increases, the explosive power increases (i.e. it is an expected behavior). Table 1 does not demonstrate inflection(s) that shows that the range of aluminum flakes and TiO2 weight ratio of 4:6 to 5:5 is critical. Table 1 also demonstrates some weight ratios outside said claimed range having the argued unexpected results.
Simon discloses the aluminum flakes coated with a plurality of metal oxides (goniochromatic coloring agents) and hollow metal oxide plate-shaped particles coated with a metal oxide layer (reflective particles) ([0055], [0064], [0073], [0074], [0077]-[0079], [0087], [0102], and [0109]). Simon further discloses a weight ratio of the reflective particles to the goniochromatic pigments ranges from 0.5 to 2.5, and disclosed an example of having 0.75 weight ratio (weight ratio of the goniochromatic coloring agents to the reflective particles) ([0055], [0102], and [0168]). Therefore, the data provided in Applicant’s Table 1 does not establish the criticality of the 4:6 to 5:5 range, and so do not present the closest prior art to Simon. Applicant also has not provided any additional evidence that Simon does not have the unexpected result (i.e. its pigment composition does not explode or have explosion stability when subjected to a flame).
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, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20100202991 (“Simon et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20180298198 (“Son et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1 and 2, Simon et al. teaches a pigment composition comprising aluminum flakes sequentially coated with a first SiO2 oxide layer and a second Fe2O3 oxide layer (goniochromatic coloring agents) ([0106], [0108], and Fe2O3/SiO2/Al/SiO2/Fe2O3 disclosed in [0109]); and hollow metal oxide coated with a metal oxide layer of Fe2O3 (reflective particles) ([0074], [0077]-[0079], and [0087]).
Simon et al. teaches the metal oxide layer is a metallic compound of Fe2O3, and further recognizes that metallic coatings has a content between 1% and 20% of the total weight of the reflective particles ([0082] and [0087]), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Therefore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the content of the metal oxide layer (e.g. Fe2O3) to be 10-35 parts based on 100 parts of its hollow metal oxide in order to tailor a desirable metallic effect and be aesthetically pleasing to a representative artisan.
Simon et al. teaches the aluminum flakes and the hollow metal oxide are mixed at a weight ratio of 0.33 to 3.33 [0055]. As shown in paragraphs [0168] and [0173], Simon et al. also discloses appropriate amounts for its goniochromatic coloring agents and reflective particles, and even a 1 to 1 ratio (equal parts) is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art especially when considering the function/use of the pigment composition [0055].
Simon et al. recognizes that its reflective particles provides gloss effect [0098], and has an average particle diameter of less than or equal to 150 μm [0063]. While Simon et al. teaches hollow metal oxides ([0077] and [0078]), Simon et al. does not explicitly teach the reflective particles of hollow metal oxide is TiO2. Simon et al. does not teach a thickness of the TiO2 is 10-500 nm.
However, Son et al. teaches a glossy pigment comprising TiO2 having a hollow space inside thereof, wherein TiO2 has an average diameter of 10 to 150 μm and a thickness of 0.1 to 3 μm (Abstract, [0019]-[0021], [0026], [0033], and [0035]). 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 Simon et al.’s hollow metal oxide be TiO2 with the claimed structure in order to obtain a glossy light weight pigment with excellent performance ([0009], [0010], and [0038]).
With regards to Claim 8, the limitation(s) “used for industrial clothing, varnish, automotive coating, powder coating, printing ink or cosmetics” is an intended use limitation and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. Note that “in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." Regardless, it is noted that Simon et al. teaches its pigment being used as claimed (Abstract).
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 LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
