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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1, canceled Claims 3-7, and withdrawn Claims 9-11 in the response filed on 3/25/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended Claim 1 is now commensurate in scope with Table 1, and therefore provides evidence of unexpected results.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 1:9 to 6.4 is critical.
Applicant further argues that the materials in the pigment composition are critical and argued that the comparative examples shown in Tables 3 and 4 provide evidence as such. However, Tables 3 and 4 disclose general inorganic particles of TiO2-coated synthetic mica and Fe2O3-coated synthetic mica. However, Plaff discloses a pigment composition of a component A comprising Al2O3 flakes coated with one or more metal oxides and component B of TiO2 flakes coated with Fe2O3 with a mixing ratio from 1:10 to 10:1 (Col. 1: Lines 43-48 and 54-56; Col. 2: Lines 14-23 and 47-48). None of the comparative examples in Tables 3 and 4 represent Plaff’s materials in its pigment composition. Further, comparative examples in Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate explosion stability for coated aluminum flakes and TiO2-coated synthetic mica and Fe2O3-coated synthetic mica, especially in the weight ratio range of 1:9 to 3:7. For the reasons set forth above, Applicant has not persuasive demonstrated critical features that produces an unexpected result.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the aluminum flake is sequentially coated with a first oxide layer comprising SiO2 and a second oxide layer comprising Fe2O3”. To promote clarity, please amend “SiO2” to “SiO2” and “Fe2O3” to “Fe2O3” in Claim 1 (i.e. please use subscripts).
Further, please amend the instant limitation to recite that the first and second oxide layers are in sequential order from the aluminum flake, as opposed from an outermost coating to the aluminum flake. For the purpose of evaluating prior art, the instant limitation is interpreted as: the aluminum flake is sequentially coated with a first oxide layer comprising SiO2 on the aluminum flake and a second oxide layer comprising Fe2O3 on the first oxide layer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 1 recites the broad recitation of aluminum flakes coated with a plurality of metal oxide layers, and the claim also recites aluminum flakes sequentially coated with a first oxide layer comprising SiO2 and a second oxide layer comprising Fe2O3 which appears to be the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the aluminum flake” in Line 7 (i.e. a singular aluminum flake). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further clarification is also needed if it is Applicant’s intention to recite a mixture of aluminum flakes coated with a plurality of metal oxide layers and a separate distinct single aluminum flake to have a first oxide layer comprising SiO2 and a second oxide layer comprising Fe2O3.
Claim 1 recites the aluminum flakes and the TiO2 are mixed at a weight ratio of 1:9 to 6:4. The instant limitation is considered indefinite because it’s unclear if the mixing weight ratio is aluminum flakes to the TiO2 or TiO2 to aluminum flakes. For the purpose of examining prior art, the Examiner is taking the position that the aluminum flakes to the TiO2 are mixed at a weight ratio of 1:9 to 6:4.
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 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]. 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).
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 6267810 (“Pfaff et al.”), in view of US Pub. No. 20180298198 (“Son et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20190169439 (“Schoen et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1 and 2, Pfaff et al. teaches a pigment composition comprising aluminum flakes coated with a plurality of metal oxide layers, and TiO2 coated a metal oxide layer of Fe2O3 (Abstract, Col. 1: Lines 33-48, Col. 2: Lines 13-18 and 46-63, and Claims 1-4). Pfaff et al. further teaches the aluminum flakes and the TiO2 are mixed at a weight ratio that overlaps the claimed range of 1:9 to 6:4 (Col. 1: Lines 54-57 and Example 4). 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.
Pfaff et al. does not teach the claimed dimensions of its TiO2, and that the TiO2 has a hollow space inside thereof. While Pfaff et al. teaches aluminum flakes coated with a plurality of metal oxide layers, Pfaff et al. does not explicitly teach the aluminum flake is sequentially coated with a first oxide layer comprising SiO2 and a second oxide layer comprising Fe2O3.
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 Pfaff et al.’s TiO2 have the claimed structure in order to obtain a glossy light weight pigment with excellent performance ([0009], [0010], and [0038]).
Schoen et al. teaches its aluminum flake is sequentially coated with a first oxide layer comprising a metal oxide with a refractive index of 1.8 or lower (e.g. SiO2) and a second oxide layer comprising a metal oxide with a refractive index of 1.8 or higher (e.g. Fe2O3) (Abstract, [0037], [0041]-[0043], and [0046]-[0068]). 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 Pfaff et al.’s aluminum flakes coated with a plurality of metal oxide layers with the claimed low and high-refractive index in order to obtain a pigment with increased gloss and further increased interference color or color flop [0041].
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 Pfaff et al. teaches its pigment being used as claimed (Col. 1: Lines 49-52).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights