DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2023, 12/19/2023, 12/19/2023 and 1/26/2024 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2007/0259182 A1) to Bujard et al. (hereinafter Bujard).
Bujard is directed toward a multilayer structure that reflects color. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0069] that the reflective layer or core layer may be aluminum. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0069] that core layer has a thickness of 30 to 800 nm, which reads on Applicants range of between 20 nm and 100 microns. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0209] that the layers can be absorbing or nonabsorbing materials with a thickness of 1 to 50 nm. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0124] that the dielectric layer encompasses the core layer. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0126] that a layer may include either an MgF2 or SiO2, which reads on Applicants absorber material. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0126] that MgF2 or SiO2 can be deposited and a first and third layer over the aluminum layer. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0129] that a three layer structure may include an aluminum oxide layer, reads on the barrier layer, with a thickness of 40 nm to 200 nm, which reads and overlaps on Applicants range of less than or equal to 50 nm. 5 nm to 500 nm, and 2 nm to 50 nm respectively. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0031] that preferred metals for dielectric absorber layers includes W, Cr, etc. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0070] that the aspect ratio is 40 to 290, which overlaps and reads on Applicants range of aspect ratio of 1 to 100. Bujard discloses at paragraph [0036] that the particle structure has a diameter of 2 to 20 microns, which reads on Applicants range of 1 to 500 microns. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select Applicants structure to use as a metallic paint pigment from the possible choices of pigment materials described as desirable choice for each layer. It has been held that the mere fact that a reference suggest a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of these combinations less obvious, citing Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Bujard to select each and every element from the list of possible layers to make a prima facie case of obviousness for claims 1-3, 5-11 and 16-17.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4 and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach a multilayer structure having the claimed color shift nor the pore volume and surface area of the layers.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766