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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 17, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are amended relative to the previously examined version.
Claim 17 is new.
Claims 7 and 9-16 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 17 as filed on July 17, 2026 are pending and under consideration to the extent of the elected species, e.g., the species of at least one chromophore is aryl-carbon and the species of polyol with reactive functional groups is polypropylene oxide.
Withdrawn Objections / Rejections
In view of the amendment of the claims, all previous claim objections are withdrawn, all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn, and all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 103 over Vasudevan are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 2, 2026 was considered.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan (US 2006/0089422, published April 27, 2006, of record) as evidenced by Smith et al. “The nature and activity of carbon black surfaces,” Rubber Chemistry and Technology 23(3):625-634, 1950, of record in view of Soane et al. (WO 2007/021731, published February 22, 2007, IDS reference filed August 30, 2023) and Valsesia et al. (US 2018/0133136, published May 17, 2018).
Vasudevan is applied herewith on the broader recitation of the claims in an effort to expedite prosecution
Vasudevan teaches a polymeric colorant comprising a pigment having a polymer covalently attached thereto, a dye covalently attached to the polymer, wherein the dye covalently attached to the polymer includes a reactant coupled to the dye and to the polymer (title; abstract; claims).
Dyes include phthalocyanine dyes (paragraph [0030]), as required by instant claim 2. The dye comprises active groups inclusive of carboxyl which can be reacted with polymers having alcohol groups (paragraph [0029]; claim 2).
Polymers include acrylic polymers (paragraph [0028]). The polymers contain reactive groups (paragraph [0026]).
Pigments include carbon black (comprise hydroxy groups as evidenced by Smith, e.g., summary) (claim 25), as required by instant claims 4, 5. Linking groups and/or functional groups attach the pigments to the polymers, although certain polymers can be directly attached (paragraph [0044]).
The pigment particle to polymer chain weight ratio can be from about 10:1 to 1:10 (paragraph [0045]).
Vasudevan does not specifically teach or exemplify an embodiment of a powder comprising 0.1 to 50 wt% of at least one polymeric chromophore chemically linked to a polyol with reactive functional groups and 50 to 99.9 wt% of a powder having superficial reactive groups as instantly claimed. However, Vasudevan renders obvious colorants comprising pigment particles inclusive of carbon black (which comprises surface hydroxy groups) in a weight ratio of about 10:1 to 1:10 with respect to a polymer chain inclusive of an acrylate polymer (polyol) covalently attached to a dye inclusive of a phthalocyanine dye (chromophore). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the recitation of a cosmetic composition and of at least one cosmetic powder, such recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Vasudevan does not teach alkoxy or Si-H reactive groups as required by claim 1.
Vasudevan does not teach an alkoxy group as required by claim 3.
Vasudevan does not teach a pearlescent pigment as required by claim 6.
Vasudevan does not teach 3-isocyanate propyl triethoxy silane as required by claim 17.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Soane and Valsesia.
Soane teaches dye-attached and/or surface modified pigments; dyes include photochromic dyes (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1, 12, 80). The pigments further comprise a polymer attached to the surface thereof via a multifunctional coupling agent; polymers include polyacrylate (claims 1, 16, 17). Multifunctional coupling agents may comprise Si and include trialkoxy isocyanosilanes such as triethoxy isocyanosilane (3-isocyanate propyl triethoxy silane) (claims 10, 32-36), as required by instant claims 3, 17. The pigments may be used in inks or/and cosmetics (e.g., abstract; paragraphs [0096], [0097]). Soane further teaches a nacreous (pearlescent) pigment (claim 81; paragraph [0015]), as required by instant claim 6. Soane further teaches the pigments comprise surface hydroxyl groups (claim 9).
Valsesia teaches alkoxy-silanes inclusive of 3-isocyanatepropyltriethoxysilane as condensed coatings for cosmetic powders (title; abstract; claims; structures 4, 7; Examples), as required by instant claims 3, 17. In a first step, 3-isocyanatepropyltriethoxysilane is reacted with an alcohol (paragraphs [0024]-[0026]; structures 4, 5; Example 1). In a subsequent step, the product is reacted with surface hydroxyls of the powder (structure 7; Example 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymers of the polymeric colorant of Vasudevan inclusive of acrylic polymers to further comprise a multifunctional coupling agent as taught by Soane inclusive of trialkoxy isocyanosilanes such as triethoxy isocyanosilane (3-isocyanate propyl triethoxy silane) in order to covalently attach the polymers to the surface of the pigment. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Vasudevan expressly teaches the polymers may contain reactive groups and because Valsesia illustrates 3-isocyanatepropyltriethoxysilane (triethoxy isocyanosilane) is capable of reacting with hydroxyl groups of two different moieties.
Regarding the recitation of a cosmetic composition and of at least one cosmetic powder, in view of Soane it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the polymeric colorants of Vasudevan or/and the polymeric colorants of Vasudevan in view of Soane and Valsesia are suitable for cosmetics because Soane teaches dye-attached and/or surface modified pigments such as those of Vasudevan are suitable for use in inks or/and cosmetics.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute nacreous (pearlescent) pigment as taught by Soane for the pigment of Vasudevan because simple substitution of functionally equivalent elements yields predictable results, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan (US 2006/0089422, published April 27, 2006, of record) as evidenced by Smith et al. “The nature and activity of carbon black surfaces,” Rubber Chemistry and Technology 23(3):625-634, 1950, of record in view of Soane et al. (WO 2007/021731, published February 22, 2007, IDS reference filed August 30, 2023) and Valsesia et al. (US 2018/0133136, published May 17, 2018) as applied to claims 1-6 and 17 above, and further in view of Bruhnke et al. (US 5,766,268, published June 16, 1998, of record).
Vasudevan is applied herewith on the elected embodiment
The teachings of Vasudevan, Soane and Valsesia have been described supra.
They do not teach an aryl-carbon dye chromophore as required by the elected embodiment of claim 2.
They do not teach polypropylene oxide as required by claim 8.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Bruhnke and Salman.
Bruhnke teaches poly(oxyalkylene)-substituted colorants comprising an organic chromophore inclusive of phthalocyanine or diarylmethane (aryl-carbon), an electrophilic reactive group, a nucleophilic linking group and a poly(oxyalkylene)-containing moiety inclusive of polypropylene oxide (title; abstract; claims; paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4; paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5), as required by instant claims 2, 8. The colorants are suitable for ink and non-ink applications (columns 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the poly(oxyalkylene)-substituted colorants of Bruhnke comprising an organic chromophore inclusive of diarylmethane (aryl-carbon) and a poly(oxyalkylene)-containing moiety inclusive of polypropylene oxide as taught by Bruhnke for the dye covalently attached to the polymer of the polymeric colorant of Vasudevan because simple substitution of functionally equivalent elements yields predictable results, absent evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection over Vasudevan necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Polta (US 5,052,380) teaches colored resins comprising a chromophore-containing polyol covalently bonded thereto via an isocyanate; exemplary chromophores include Reactint® polyols (title; abstract; claims).
Zhu et al. (CN 102675556 A, as evidenced by the Google translation) teaches a fluorescent chromophore comprising an amphiphilic polymer such as polyethylene glycol (title; abstract; claims).
Salman et al. “Design and fabrication of covalently linked PEGylated nanohybrids of ZnO quantum dots with preserved and tunable fluorescence,” Materials & Design 131:156-166, 2017 teaches PEGylated ZnO particles using 3-isocyantopropyltriethoxysilane as a coupling agent (title; abstract; Figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA PROSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-5164. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 10 am - 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID BLANCHARD can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/ALISSA PROSSER/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/BENNETT M CELSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights