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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida (US 2005/0140040 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 2012/0220708 A1), and further in view of Wakamiya (US 2009/0274735 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-8, Hishida teaches a resin molded product of luminous colorant, free of weld lines (Abstract), comprising a resin and a luminous colorant (Abstract), wherein the resin may be a polycarbonate ([0030]). Hishida further teaches the incorporation of fine inorganic particles ([0013]), which may be titanium oxide ([0033]).
Hishida is silent with regard to the polycarbonate being an aromatic polycarbonate, and the luminous colorant being titanium dioxide-coated glass flakes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tanaka also teaches polycarbonate resin compositions including titanium dioxide and glossy particles (Abstract), teaches the specific use of aromatic polycarbonates therein (Abstract), and teaches the particular use of metal oxide-coated glass flakes as the glossy particles ([0014]). Tanaka specifies that the metal oxide coating can be titanium oxide ([0046]), and teaches said metal oxide-coated glass flakes as equally suitable alternatives to, inter alia, mica and metal particles ([0045]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Furthermore, Hishida teaches the use of polycarbonates (as described above), and teaches the optional use of mica and metal powders as the luminous colorant, while simultaneously specifying that the type of luminous colorant is not limited ([0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the aromatic polycarbonate and titanium oxide-coated glass flakes of Tanaka into the formulation of Hishida, as Tanaka teaches them as suitable components for the formation of polycarbonate resin compositions including titanium dioxide and glossy particles. In so doing, the composition of Hishida would contain all of the claimed components.
Regarding the claimed compositional limitations, Hishida teaches that the composition includes 100 parts by weight of the resin, 0.01 to 10 parts by weight of the luminous colorant, and 0.1 to 30 parts by weight of inorganic particles ([0032] and [0035]). These values equate to ranges of about 71.4-99.9 wt% of the resin, about 0.008-9.1 wt% of the luminous colorant, and about 0.09-23.1 wt% of the inorganic particles. In each case, these amounts overlap their respectively claimed ranges in claims 1-2 and 6-8, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Hishida does not require further components beyond the resin, luminous colorant, and inorganic particles ([0024]). Therefore, Hishida teaches compositions containing 0 wt% of the claimed “further additives,” which falls within the respectively claimed ranges in claims 6 and 8, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Hishida as modified by Tanaka differs from claim 1 because is silent with regard to the claimed D50 characteristic.
In the same field of endeavor, Wakamiya teaches flaky particles and luster pigments (Abstract), and compositions thereof which also include polycarbonate ([0047]). Wakamiya further discusses commercially-available METASHINE 1020 RS as a luster pigment ([0078]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize METASHINE 1020 RS within the formulation of Hishida as modified by Takana, as Wakamiya teaches it as a luster pigment.
METASHINE 1020 RS is indicated within the instant Specification as having a D50 value of 6.2 microns (c.f. instant Specification p. 23, lines 11-14), which falls within the claimed range of “between 5 µm and 25 µm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches that the titanium dioxide-coated glass is flake-shaped ([0045]), which reads on the claimed limitation of “shard-shaped.”
Regarding claim 4, Hishida is unspecific regarding the type of titanium dioxide coating on the glass flakes. However, Tanaka teaches that rutile titanium oxides are useful within the inventive composition because they possess preferably heat stability and weatherability characteristics ([0041]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize rutile type titanium dioxide within the surface coating of the glass flakes, to take advantage of the preferable heat stability and weatherability characteristics thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka exemplifies the use of a bisphenol A polycarbonate as the aromatic polycarbonate resin ([0110]). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize an exclusively bisphenol A-based polycarbonate.
Regarding claim 9, Hishida is silent with regard to the incorporation of the claimed additives. However, Tanaka teaches the incorporation of stabilizers including phosphorus-based antioxidants including, inter alia, triphenyl phosphite ([0070], [0072]) which reads on the claimed “heat stabilizer” because the instant Specification states that phosphites are suitable heat stabilizers (see instant Specification at p. 17, lines 20-22). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the claimed “heat stabilizer” within the formulation of Hishida, as Tanaka recognizes it as a suitable additive for polycarbonate-based resin compositions.
Regarding claims 10-11, as described above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize METASHINE 1020 RS within the formulation of Hishida as modified by Takana, as Wakamiya teaches it as a luster pigment.
METASHINE 1020 RS is indicated within the instant Specification as having an aspect ratio of 2.31, a thickness of 1.3 microns, and a coating layer of 149 nm (c.f. instant Specification p. 23, lines 11-14); in each case, these values fall within the respectively claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 12, Hishida teaches the formation of a molded product ([0001]).
Regarding claim 13, Hishida teaches the formation of a molded product ([0001]), but is silent with regard to the specific formation of a reflector or a part of a reflector. However, Tanaka also teaches the formation of molded articles ([0089]), and specifies the formation of head lamp reflectors ([0097]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form a molded reflector part from the composition of Hishida as modified by Tanaka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tanaka teaches the incorporation of two types of glossy particles, and asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would therefore only be motivated to include both particles into the formulation of Hishida.
However, in the rejection applied previously and above, Tanaka is not being relied upon for the numerosity or inventive combination of glossy particles; in contrast, Tanaka is relied upon merely for teaching that the glossy particles provided therein are suitable for compositions similar to those of Hishida. As described previously and above, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Tanaka provides clear teaching that the glossy particles therein are suitable for compositions similar to those of Hishida, and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the particles of Hishida with any of the equivalent glossy particles of Tanaka. This motivation would not require the complete adoption of every teaching of Tanaka with respect to the incorporation of said glossy particles, but would merely indicate to one having ordinary skill in the art that said particles are suitable for their intended purpose. The incorporation therefore would have been obvious.
Applicant’s remaining arguments stem from the previous assertion and attempt to explain how the simultaneous incorporation of both types of glossy particles from Tanaka within Hishida would not read on the claimed composition; however, as described above, this is not a requirement within the motivation of a person of ordinary skill in the art within the rejection applied previously and above.
Applicant finally asserts that the combination of Hishida and Tanaka with Wakamiya is improper because the particles of Wakamiya do not fit the composition of Tanaka; however, Tanaka is not being relied upon for its particle size constraints; instead, Tanaka merely supplies an example of suitable glossy particles which would reasonably be utilized in the modified formulation because it is indicated as being suitable therefor. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762