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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferencz (US 2007/0172662 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ferencz teaches a powder coating composition which produces coatings with a homogeneous hue (Abstract). The composition is formed by a first powder having a first hue and a second powder having a second hue different than the first hue ([0008]). The powders may be formed from organic thermoplastic polymers ([0039]). Ferencz further teaches that the homogeneous hue produced by the inventive composition is a different hue than either the first or second hues ([0007]). The composition of Ferencz therefore reads on the claimed “colored particulate blend.”
Ferencz specifies that the inventive composition may be a blend of two or more powder compositions of different hues ([0004]), which includes three powder compositions of different hues, and which therefore reads on the claimed blends. Furthermore, Ferencz teaches that the combined color of the inventive powders is different than the constituent hues, and therefore the composition of Ferencz reads on the claimed limitations of “wherein the third color is different than the first color and the second color.” Finally, the instant Specification states that situation wherein the “single color is a lightened variant of the first color” arises in circumstances where only one colorant is present ([0091]). Therefore, the composition of Ferencz containing three powders of different hues meets the limitation requiring that “the single color is not a lightened variant of the first color.” Finally, as described above, Ferencz teaches that the colored powders of the inventive composition may be formed from organic thermoplastic polymers ([0039]), and teaches that the color-imparting particles of the inventive powders are enclosed within the polymer matrices of the powders ([0007]). The composition of Ferencz therefore reads on the claimed “plurality of third thermoplastic polymer particulates.”
Ferencz teaches that, in some respects, the invention is directed towards kits comprising the aforementioned colored powder coating compositions (e.g., [0008]-[0009]). Furthermore, Ferencz specifies what the term “comprising” is meant to convey in the context of the inventive composition – that is, the “comprising” language indicates that a composition “can further comprise other, non-recited components, during the composition’s formation” ([0022], emphasis added). Therefore, the incorporation of other ingredients is optional, and Ferencz therefore teaches compositions containing only the aforementioned colored powder coating compositions, which meets the claimed “consisting of “ limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Ferencz teaches that the color-imparting particles of the inventive powders are enclosed within the polymer matrices of the powders ([0007]), which reads on the claimed limitation requiring that the colors be in an interior of the thermoplastic particulates.
Regarding claim 3, Ferencz teaches that the first powder and/or the second powder comprise polymer-enclosed color-imparting particles ([0017]). The optionality of the color-imparting particles therefore includes compositions wherein the color-imparting particles are absent from the second powder, which reads on the claimed blend, “wherein the second colorant is not present.”
Regarding claim 4, the instant Specification states that the situation wherein the “single color is a lightened variant of the first color” arises in circumstances where only one colorant is present ([0091]). In other words, the “lightened variant” of the single color present is essentially resulting from a dilution of color due to the combination of a colored powder with a non-colored powder.
As described above, Ferencz is silent with regard to the combined, different, color of the mixed system being a lighter version of that of either the first or second hues. Nevertheless, as described above, Ferencz includes compositions wherein only one of the two polymer powders is colored. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed limitation requiring that the overall color of the composition is a lighter version of the first color will therefore necessarily be present in Ferencz as applied above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ferencz specifies that the inventive composition may be a blend of two or more powder compositions of different hues ([0004]), which includes three powder compositions of different hues, and which therefore reads on the claimed blends. Furthermore, Ferencz teaches that the combined color of the inventive powders is different than the constituent hues, and therefore the composition of Ferencz reads on the claimed limitations of “wherein the third color is different than the first color and the second color.” Finally, the instant Specification states that situation wherein the “single color is a lightened variant of the first color” arises in circumstances where only one colorant is present ([0091]). Therefore, the composition of Ferencz containing three powders of different hues meets the limitation requiring that “the single color is not a lightened variant of the first color.” Finally, as described above, Ferencz teaches that the colored powders of the inventive composition may be formed from organic thermoplastic polymers ([0039]), and teaches that the color-imparting particles of the inventive powders are enclosed within the polymer matrices of the powders ([0007]). The composition of Ferencz therefore reads on the claimed “plurality of third thermoplastic polymer particulates.”
Regarding claim 7, Ferencz teaches that suitable pigments include blue, red, and green pigments ([0093]), which are primary colors.
Regarding claim 8, Ferencz does not require that the polymers within each of the pigmented thermoplastic powders be different, and thus Ferencz teaches compositions containing two polymer powders which contain the same thermoplastic polymer.
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 9-11, 13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferencz (US 2007/0172662 A1) in view of Farrugia (US 2021/0070993 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Ferencz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ferencz teaches the physical and chemical surface modification of the inventive particles ([0026]) differs from claims 9 and 10 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of nanoparticles on the surface of the particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Farrugia teaches thermoplastic polymer particles (Abstract), useful for coating and 3D printing applications ([0178]-[0179]), which may contain pigments ([0122]). The polymer particles comprise an emulsion stabilizer such as nanoparticles (Abstract), which may be embedded in the outer surface of the particles (Abstract). Farrugia teaches that the inventive particles, formed from melt emulsification using said nanoparticles ([0078]), produce a particulate product with a homogeneous covering of said nanoparticles, which improve flowability of the particles ([0081]). Ferencz additionally contemplates flow modification of the inventive polymer particles, as it includes the addition of flow modifiers ([0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the polymer particles of Ferencz using the emulsion-stabilizer-modified melt emulsification process of Farrugia for the purpose of forming a thermoplastic particulate with improved flowability. The resulting polymer particulates comprise nanoparticles on the surface of the thermoplastic particles, which reads on the claimed “nanoparticles located upon an outer surface of at least a portion of the thermoplastic polymer particulates.” Farrugia further teaches that the emulsion stabilizers may include carbon black, oxide nanoparticles, polymer nanoparticles, and combinations thereof ([0128]).
Regarding claim 11, Farrugia teaches that the thermoplastic polymer particulates formed from the inventive melt-emulsification process have circularities ranging from 0.7 to 0.95 ([0169]), which falls within the claimed range of “about 0.9 to about 1.0,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Farrugia further teaches that said particles have a Hausner ratio ranging from about 1.0 to about 1.5 ([0171]), which is identical to the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Farrugia teaches that said particles have an angle of repose ranging from about 20° to about 45° ([0170]), which is identical to the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 13, Farrugia teaches that the thermoplastic polymer particulates formed from the inventive melt-emulsification process have D50 diameters ranging from about 0.5 to about 200 microns ([0163]), which encompasses the claimed range of “about 10µm to about 120 µm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Farrugia further teaches that the diameter span of said particles ranges from about 0.2 to about 10 ([0163]), which encompasses the claimed range of “about 0.2 to about 2,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 15, Ferencz teaches the provision of each of the inventive powders, followed by the mixing thereof ([0008]). Ferencz is silent with regard to the formation of the inventive powders by melt emulsification. However, as described in the rejections of claims 9 and 10, above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to do so in view of the teachings of Farrugia.
Regarding claim 16, Ferencz teaches that the color-imparting particles of the inventive powders are enclosed within the polymer matrices of the powders ([0007]), which reads on the claimed limitation requiring that the colors be in an interior of the thermoplastic particulates.
Regarding claim 18, as described in the rejection of claims 9 and 10, above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the polymer particles of Ferencz using the emulsion-stabilizer-modified melt emulsification process of Farrugia for the purpose of forming a thermoplastic particulate with improved flowability. The resulting polymer particulates comprise nanoparticles on the surface of the thermoplastic particles, which reads on the claimed “nanoparticles located upon an outer surface of at least a portion of the thermoplastic polymer particulates.”
Regarding claim 19, Farrugia teaches that the thermoplastic polymer particulates formed from the inventive melt-emulsification process have circularities ranging from 0.7 to 0.95 ([0169]), which falls within the claimed range of “about 0.9 to about 1.0,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Farrugia further teaches that said particles have a Hausner ratio ranging from about 1.0 to about 1.5 ([0171]), which is identical to the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Farrugia teaches that said particles have an angle of repose ranging from about 20° to about 45° ([0170]), which is identical to the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Farrugia further teaches that the thermoplastic polymer particulates formed from the inventive melt-emulsification process have D50 diameters ranging from about 0.5 to about 200 microns ([0163]), which encompasses the claimed range of “about 10µm to about 120 µm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Farrugia further teaches that the diameter span of said particles ranges from about 0.2 to about 10 ([0163]), which encompasses the claimed range of “about 0.2 to about 2,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, as described above, Ferencz teaches the provision of each of the two inventive powders, followed by the mixing thereof ([0008]). Ferencz is silent with regard to the formation of the inventive powders by melt emulsification. However, as described in the rejections of claims 9 and 10, above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to do so in view of the teachings of Farrugia. Farrugia teaches that the thermoplastic polymer particulates formed from the inventive melt-emulsification process have circularities ranging from 0.7 to 0.95 ([0169]), which falls within the claimed range of “about 0.9 to about 1.0,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Farrugia further teaches that said particles have a Hausner ratio ranging from about 1.0 to about 1.5 ([0171]), which is identical to the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Farrugia teaches that said particles have an angle of repose ranging from about 20° to about 45° ([0170]), which is identical to the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Farrugia further teaches that the thermoplastic polymer particulates formed from the inventive melt-emulsification process have D50 diameters ranging from about 0.5 to about 200 microns ([0163]), which encompasses the claimed range of “about 10µm to about 120 µm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Farrugia further teaches that the diameter span of said particles ranges from about 0.2 to about 10 ([0163]), which encompasses the claimed range of “about 0.2 to about 2,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferencz (US 2007/0172662 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ferencz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ferencz requires no additional limitation on the particulate powders as having to be different from one another in particle size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize two powders having the same particle size within the formulation of Ferencz. Said powders would have an average diameter difference of about 0%, which falls within the claimed range of “about 10% or less,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 14, Ferencz does not expressly disclose the claimed ratio range. Nevertheless, the obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, the two pigmented thermoplastic powders as equally suitable alternatives to one another and therefore recognizes the equivalence of the two solvents. It would have would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine said two inventive powders in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. This 1:1 ratio falls within the claimed ratio, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferencz (US 2007/0172662 A1) in view of Farrugia (US 2021/0070993 A1) and further in view of Smink (US 2018/0258237 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ferencz as modified by Farrugia teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Ferencz as modified by Farrugia differs from claim 17 because it is silent with regard to the claimed method of introducing the colorants into the thermoplastics by way of melt compounding with a colorant masterbatch.
In the same field of endeavor, Smink teaches a highly loaded and well-dispersed masterbatch composition and a method of making said masterbatch (Abstract), wherein the masterbatch includes a colorant and a thermoplastic carrier (Abstract). Smink further teaches that colorants are commonly applied in the form of masterbatches, which can color plastics in a superior way because they provide better colorant dispersion and eliminate dry colorant dust from the workplace ([0003]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the masterbatching method taught by Smink to incorporate the colorant into the thermoplastics taught by Ferencz before the melt emulsification process taught by Farrugia for the purpose of improving colorant dispersion and eliminating dry colorant dust from the workplace before forming the composition into the desired powder form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 15, and 20 are moot because the Applicant has amended said claims to remove the “comprising” phrasing which was previously indicated as rendering the claims indefinite.
Applicant argues that prior art Ferencz fails to meet the “consisting of“ limitation required by the instant claims. Applicant states that Ferencz (i) teaches that the polymer-enclosed color-imparting particles are included in a powder coating composition, (ii) indicates that the colored particles are mixed with other components, and (iii) teaches that the composition only includes up to 50 wt% of the colored particles, implying that other components must be present. Applicant refers to paragraphs [0015], [0091], [0092], and [0096]).
However, in each of the cited paragraphs, Ferencz specifically utilizes phasing indicating certain embodiments of the inventive composition, or specifically utilizes phrasing which designates optional aspects of the inventive composition. For example, in paragraph [0015], Ferencz merely states that “certain embodiments” of the invention are directed to coatings; in paragraph [0091], Ferencz states that the composition “may comprise” a film-forming resin, etc.; likewise, the teaching of 0.1 to 50 percent by weight is described within “certain embodiments.”
The limitations of certain embodiments of the teachings of Ferencz which differ from the claimed composition do not rebut the broader teachings of Ferencz which read on the claimed composition. Importantly, patents are relevant for all of the information they contain, and non-preferred and alternative embodiments nonetheless constitute prior art (see MPEP 2123.I and II).
Conclusion
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