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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 1/22/2026, 11/24/2025 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claim 1 in the submission filed 11/24/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancellation of Claims 6, 8 in the submission filed 11/24/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants’ arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants’ arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that, with respect to amended Claim 1, as well as Claims 3-5, 7, 9-10, 16, 19-20 which depend on amended Claim 1, the combined teachings of Phillips et al. and Banerjee et al. fail to teach or reasonably suggest the conformal dielectric layer having a thickness between 5 nm and 500 nm (canceled Claim 6), or the conformal absorber layer having a thickness between 2 nm and 50 nm (canceled Claim 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the size of the structures and the types of structures disclosed in Phillips et al. and Banerjee et al.; particular encapsulation methods to achieving nanoscale precision) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In particular, Applicants’ comparison of the flake dimensions in Phillips et al. (Applicants referring to Phillips et al., col. 9, lines 45-50) with the absorber layer thickness in Banerjee et al. (Applicants referring to Banerjee et al., Paragraph 0030) is highly inappropriate, particularly when Banerjee et al. actually teaches that the surface dimensions of the flakes are on the order of 20 microns and the thickness dimensions are on the order of 0.3 to 1.5 microns (See Banerjee et al., Paragraph 0053). Further, Applicants argue that ‘…Phillips merely discloses encapsulated structures and non-encapsulated structures, but Phillips does not provide any guidance to how its encapsulated structures are made or any limitations on the encapsulated structures.’ (See Page 7 of Applicants’ response). Applicants then argue that ‘…Phillips discloses that its structures may be formed by physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), or plasma enhanced variations (PEV) See Phillips col. 5, lines 59-65’ (See Pages 7-8 of Applicants’ response). However, Applicants’ own contradictory assertions are irrelevant in this instance since Claim 1 does not even recite specifics of method of forming the various claimed layers. Thus, it is believed that the combined teachings of Phillips et al. and Banerjee et al. do teach or reasonably suggest the conformal dielectric layer having a thickness between 5 nm and 500 nm (canceled Claim 6), or the conformal absorber layer having a thickness between 2 nm and 50 nm (canceled Claim 8).
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 16, 19-20 are now rejected as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6569529), of record, in view of Banerjee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2013/0265668 A1), of record.
Phillips et al. discloses a multilayer structure (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-20) that reflects color comprising a core layer (See for example 22 in Figure 2); a conformal dielectric layer (See for example 24, 24a, 24b in Figure 2) encapsulating the core layer, the conformal dielectric layer having a thickness between 5 nm and 500 nm (See for example col. 6, line 53-col. 7, line 53); and a conformal absorber layer (See for example 26 in Figure 2) encapsulating the conformal dielectric layer, the conformal absorber layer having a thickness between 2 nm and 50 nm (See for example col. 8, line 37-col. 9, line 9), wherein the multilayer structure consists of three optical layers (See for example 22, 24, 24a, 24b, 26 in Figure 2). Phillips et al. further discloses the multilayer structure reflects a single narrow band of visible light when exposed to broadband electromagnetic radiation (See for example Figures 17, 18; each figure showing two reflection peaks); the core layer is formed from Al, Ag, Pt, Sn, Au, Cu, brass, bronze, stainless steel, TiN, Cr, Al2O3, SiO2, glass or combinations thereof (See for example col. 2, lines 40-52); the core layer has a thickness between 20 nm and 100 µm (See for example col. 2, lines 40-52); the conformal dielectric layer is formed from TiO2, ZnS, ZrO2, HfO2, Fe3O4, AlAs, Fe2O3, PbS, GaAs, InAs, SiO2, MgF2, KBr, ZnO, Al2O3, and combinations thereof (See for example col. 6, line 53-col. 7, line 53); the conformal absorber layer is formed from W, Cr, Ge, Ni, stainless steel, Pd, Ti, Si, V, TiN, Co, Mo, Nb, ferric oxide, or combinations thereof (See for example col. 8, line 37-col. 9, line 9); the core layer is formed from Al, the conformal dielectric layer is formed from TiO2, and the conformal absorber layer is formed from W (See for example col. 2, lines 40-52; col. 6, line 53-col. 7, line 53; col. 8, line 37-col. 9, line 9); the core layer is formed from Al, the conformal dielectric layer is formed from Fe2O3, and the conformal absorber layer is formed from W (See for example col. 2, lines 40-52; col. 6, line 53-col. 7, line 53; col. 8, line 37-col. 9, line 9); the multilayer structure has an aspect ratio from 1 to 100 (See for example col. 16, lines 8-18); a paint system comprising a binder; and the above multilayer structure (See for example col. 16, line 25-col. 17, line 31); and an automotive vehicle comprising the above paint system (See for example col. 16, line 25-col. 17, line 31).
Phillips et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the single narrow band of visible light comprising a color shift of the single narrow band of visible light is less than 30° measured in Lab color space when the multilayer structure is exposed to broadband electromagnetic radiation and viewed from angles between 0° and 45° relative to a direction normal to an outer surface of the multilayer structure. However, Banerjee et al. teaches a conventional omnidirectional structural color multilayer structure (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-12) similar to that of Phillips et al., wherein the five-layer structure (See for example Figure 9a), corresponding to structures similar to that of Phillips et al., exhibit very little color change and very little brightness change when viewed from 0 to 45 degrees (See for example Figure 8a; ‘Ra-C*(ab)’ in Figure 8c). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure of Phillips et al., have the single narrow band of visible light comprising very little color shift of the single narrow band of visible light when the multilayer structure is exposed to broadband electromagnetic radiation and viewed from angles between 0° and 45° relative to a direction normal to an outer surface of the multilayer structure, as taught by Banerjee et al., to provide a multilayer structure that provides a consistent and near non-changing color over a wide angular viewing range (i.e. a close to non-color changing color over wide viewing ranges), as required based on the intended application. Additionally, though the combined teachings of Phillips et al. and Banerjee et al. do not quantify the color shift as being less than 30 degrees measured in Lab color space, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the color shift as being less than 30 degrees measured in Lab color space, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the color shift as being less than 30 degrees measured in Lab color space, to allow for slight variances in required color shifts over wide angular ranges, based on the intended application (e.g. slight color changes may be pleasing to a viewer over a wide angular range if the colors are appropriate for that viewer). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15, 17-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
2/5/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872