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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in reply of the amendment filed on 05/14/2026; after entry of this amendment, claims 10-12 and new claim 13 are currently pending in this application.
Although the NPL document under entry no. 24 in the IDS filed on 12/12/2024 was previously crossed out/not considered, during a telephonic conversation with Applicant’s attorney, Ryan Smith (Reg. no. 62,257) on 03/12/2026, it was verified that said NPL had been cited in the Japanese Office Action. Therefore, the IDS filed on 12/12/2024 is hereby considered again in order to consider entry no. 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 10 has been amended, in part, to recite “wherein a pH of the first liquid is adjusted to one of 7.0 or more prior to the second step to make the pigmentary layer more red or to less than 7.0 to make the pigmentary layer more blue”. There is no support for this limitation in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination.
This is because 1) the only support for adjusting the pH to 7.0 or more is for the “first mixed liquid” not the presently claimed “first liquid”. 2) There is no support for the adjustment of a first liquid to a pH of “less than 7.0”. 3) There is no support for making the pigmentary layer “more red” or “more blue” based on the adjustment of the pH. 4) There is no support in the original disclosure that a “more red” color for the pigmentary layer or “more blue” color for the pigmentary layer is the result of the adjusting the pH for the “first liquid”; there is not even any support that a “more red” or “more blue” color, or even achieving a red or blue color is the result of, specifically, adjusting the pH of even the “first mixed liquid”. While achieving red or blue color are disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, there is no support that these colors are achieved, specifically, because of adjusting the pH of the “first liquid” or even the first mixed liquid.
Also, new claim 13 recites, in part, the adjustment of the pH of the “fourth liquid” to obtain a pigmentary layer of “more red” or “more blue” color. There is no support for this limitation in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination. This is because 1) the only support for adjusting the pH to 7.0 or more is for the “first mixed liquid” not the presently claimed “fourth liquid”. 2) There is no support for the adjustment of a fourth liquid to a pH of “7.0 or more prior to the third step” or to adjust the pH of the fourth liquid to “less than 7.0”. 3) There is no support for making the “second” pigmentary layer “more red” or “more blue” based on the adjustment of the pH. 4) There is no support in the original disclosure that a “more red” color for the pigmentary layer or “more blue” color for the pigmentary layer is the result of the adjusting the pH for the “fourth liquid”. While achieving red or blue color are disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, there is no support that these colors are achieved, specifically, because of adjusting the pH of the “fourth liquid”.
Claims 11-12 are rejected because of depending on base rejected base claim. Claim 13 is, additionally, rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitations of “more blue” or “more red” colors are found indefinite because it is not clear as to how blue a color could be to satisfy the claimed “more blue” or how red a color could be to satisfy the claimed “more red”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the cumulative amendments made to claim 10 with particular attention given to the adjustment of the pH of the “first liquid”, not the mixed liquid, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 10-12, as had been presented in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 5,554,215 to Simpson et al. (hereinafter Simpson). Simpson discloses a process for producing a composite particulate pigmentary material comprising forming an aqueous dispersion of a first particulate material and an aqueous dispersion of a second particulate material (abstract, col. 1, lines 31-42) to form a composite particle wherein the two types of pigmentary material are bonded to each other by one being deposited onto the surface of the other. However, Simpson does not disclose formation of an iron tannate, nor does it disclose that one aqueous dispersion comprises Fe and another tannic acid.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights