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 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.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US Pat. 3,437,502) in view of Patel (US Pat. 5,433,956).
Considering Claims 1-7: Werner teaches a pigment particle comprising a rutile pigment particle (2:64-3:1); a silica coating applied to the rutile particle prepared from a silicate solution (2:1-44; Example 1); and a further coating of aluminum oxide on the silica layer (2:1-44, Example 1).
Werner does not teach adding a blue pigment to the coating. However, Patel teaches neodymium oxide powder to a sol gel coating, such as a silicate solution (3:33-46). Patel is analogous art as it is concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely offsetting the color to provide a white appearance. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the pigment of Patel to the coating layers of Werner, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Patel suggests, to create a white color in the pigment of Werner.
Considering Claims 8-10: Werner and Patel are silent towards the amount of pigment in the coating layer. However, the amount of pigment would control the coloration of the coating, and thus would be considered to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of pigment in the coating, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Patel suggests, to provide the desired color to the pigment of Werner.
Considering Claim 18: Werner teaches a coating comprising the particle (7:58-69).
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US Pat. 3,437,502) in view of Patel (US Pat. 5,433,956).
Considering Claims 11-14: Werner teaches a method for preparing a pigment particle comprising providing a rutile pigment particle (2:64-3:1) in an aqueous suspension (Example 1); providing a silicate solution/silica precursor (2:1-44; Example 1); forming a silica coating on the pigment particle (2:1-44; Example 1); providing a aluminum oxide precursor the suspension (2:1-44; Example 1);and providing a further coating of aluminum oxide on the silica layer (2:1-44, Example 1).
Werner does not teach adding a blue pigment to the coating. However, Patel teaches neodymium oxide powder to a sol gel coating, such as a silicate solution (3:33-46). Patel is analogous art as it is concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely offsetting the color to provide a white appearance. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the pigment of Patel to the coating layers of Werner, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Patel suggests, to create a white color in the pigment of Werner.
Considering Claims 15 and 16: Werner and Patel are silent towards the amount of pigment in the coating layer. However, the amount of pigment would control the coloration of the coating, and thus would be considered to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of pigment in the coating, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Patel suggests, to provide the desired color to the pigment of Werner.
Considering Claim 17: Werner teaches a coating comprising the particle (7:58-69).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that the alumina of Werner would not be considered to be a coating on the pigments is not persuasive. Werner teaches that the alumina is precipitated onto the coating titanium dioxide particles (Abstract) and teaches that the alumina is intimately admixed with the particles (6:27-33). As the alumina is precipitated on the surface of the particles, it would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of coating. The instant claims do not recite any specific means of coating or bonding between the layers, and thus alumina precipitated on the surface of the particles would read on the claim.
B) The applicant’s argument that the sol-gel coating of Patel would be understood as being a matrix rather than a coating is not persuasive. Patel teaches adding a pigment to a silica sol-gel coating. Werner teaches coating a titanium dioxide pigment with a silica sol-gel. Therefore, the combination of Werner and Patel would result in a pigmented sol-gel coating on a pigment, when combined as outlined above.
The blue pigment used in Werner is from a distinct embodiment and is related to a coating comprising both the claimed particles and additional components. It is not concerned with the formation of the particles themselves, which is the embodiment of Werner relied upon in the rejection.
C) In response to applicant's argument that the prior art did not recognize the problem being solved by the applicant, 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).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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 Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767