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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 12, 2026 has been entered.
As requested by the RCE submission of June 12, 2026, the after final amendment of May 18, 2026 has been entered and considered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-22 are pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/045152 (hereinafter ‘152) in view of Fujita et al (US 2019/0211211), (1) EITHER Teng et al (US 4511597) OR Adib et al (US 2021/0320041) and (2) EITHER Japan 2008-307700 (hereinafter ‘700) OR Japan 2002-179960 (hereinafter ‘960); and (3) optionally further as evidenced by Skinley et al (US 2015/0224473).
*** Please note: Saito et al (US 2022/0289449), the national stage application of the application of ‘152 is used as the translation of ‘152, and therefore paragraph citations are to Saito et al (US 2022/0289449).***
Claim 1: ‘152 teaches a method of forming a structural color metal-dielectric-metal component (pigment, giving a structural color/pigment component as described by applicant) (note figure 2, 0073). The method includes forming a first metal layer over what can be considered a treated surface or at least suggested to be a treated surface of a substrate by first electroless deposition, which would be at least suggested to be by contacting a surface of the treated substrate with a first plating bath, where in the first metal layer comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of copper, etc (note the base pigment to be coated can be a glass or other pigment that is metal covered by electroless plating with a metal such as Cu, Ag, Ni, etc. 0084, where from the described process of electroless plating, a pretreatment catalyst layer of Sn, Pt, Pd, etc. is applied to the surface, so treating it 0093-0098 (or at least be suggested to be applied with an expectation of predictably acceptable results as a known method of providing electroless plating), and where particles to be electroless plated are immersed in a plating bath, so contacting the surface-note 0098, giving at least a suggested method for forming the metal layer). A dielectric layer is deposited over the first metal layer (over the silicon oxide layer), which can be by a sol-gel process, where the dielectric layer can broadly be a metal oxide, including oxide of zinc, understood to be at least inclusive of ZnO, and/or titanium oxide (understood to be at least inclusive of TiO2) and/or cerium oxide and/or zirconium oxide, for example (note 0075, 0102-0104 describing the intermediate metal oxide layer, where “at least one” of the listed oxides can be used, allowing for two or more). As well, a silica (which would be SiO2) layer can be applied over the first metal layer by hydrolyzing TEOS (tetraethoxysilane, also considered tetraethyl orthosilicate), etc, in solution, which can also be considered as forming a sol gel (note 0075, 0088-0090, note the described process and formed “silicon oxide” layer understood to be at least inclusive of forming silica/SiO2, as a silicon oxide that would form with the hydrolyzing of TEOS, for example, which can also be considered part of the dielectric layer claimed, where the combination of the silica layer and TiO2, etc. intermediate layer can be considered a joint dielectric layer, for example). A second metal layer is formed over the dielectric layer by a second electroless deposition process by contacting the dielectric layer with a second plating bath, where the second layer can be a metal such as copper to form a layer of deposited metal particles (note 0073, 0075, 0113, 0119, 0093, 0098, indicating how a bath is used for depositing electroless plating where the pigment is immersed in the bath for plating, where a second bath would at least be suggested as different metals can be used for the different layers, which would need different baths, and even if the same metal, such as copper used, for both layers, the different layers would be different parts of the process and would predictably and acceptably used different baths). The second metal layer can be continuous (note 0073, metal particles (second layer) on the entire surface, and 0074, the metal particles can exist in the form of a continuous layer).
(I) As to the dielectric layer comprising niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5), for example,
Fujita describes providing a coating comprising a pigment particle, where the pigment particle has dielectric layers and metallic thin film layers (note 0026, 0031-0033, figures 1-2), where the metallic thin film layer can be made of metal such as copper (note 0052), and the dielectric layers can be made from zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, cerium oxide, silicon dioxide, and niobium pentoxide, alone or combination (note 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 to provide that the dielectric layer comprises niobium pentoxide as suggested by Fujita with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘152 indicates that a dielectric layer can be provided containing broadly metal oxide, including zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide and/or zirconium oxide and/or cerium oxide, for example over a metal layer of copper, for example, when forming pigments, and Fujita would indicate that when forming pigments with dielectric layers over a metal layer such as copper, along with materials such as zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, zirconium oxide, cerium oxide, etc., niobium pentoxide can be similarly used, so it would expected that niobium pentoxide could either be used alone in the layer or along with zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide, etc., niobium pentoxide could be used in a mixture in the layer given the indicated similar use of the listed oxides. It would further be predictably and acceptably expected that the niobium pentoxide material can be deposited by a sol gel process, since ‘152 indicates that the general “metal oxide” material (where niobium pentoxide would be a metal oxide), can be deposited by sol-gel processing (note 0102-0104).
(II) ‘152 does not specifically teach the pH of the second plating bath. As noted above, the electroless plating for both layers can be with copper, and reducing agents would be present in the bath, for example (note 0098).
(A) Using Teng: Teng describes how when electroless plating it is conventional to immerse the substrate in an electroless plating bath to deposit a metal on the substrate (note column 2, lines 35-40). Teng also indicates how copper ions can be reduced using formaldehyde at a pH of greater than 7 (overlapping the claimed range) (note column 4, lines 5-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita to specifically provide electroless plating baths that contact the surface to be plated to provide the desired plating, and where the pH of the bath can be >7 as suggested by Teng with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘152 wants to provide copper electroless plating for the first and second layers, and where a reducing agent is present in electroless baths, and Teng notes how electroless plating can be provided by contact with electroless plating baths, and further how the bath can have reducing agent of formaldehyde that reduces copper ions at a pH of greater than 7, overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note 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).
(B) Using Adib: Adib describes how electroless plating can be provided using copper (note 0085), where electroless plating can be provided with a bath containing ions of the metal to be plated, reducing agent, etc. where a catalyst is applied to the substrate and then plating is provided, where the reducing agent can be DMAB, and where plating can occur by contacting (immersing) in the plating bath (0086, 0088, 0103), and where the pH of a plating bath with DMAB can be about 7, in the claimed range ( note 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita to specifically provide electroless plating baths that contact the surface to be plated to provide the desired plating, and where the pH of the bath can be about 7, in the claimed range, as suggested by Adib with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘446 wants to provide copper electroless plating for the first and second layers, and where reducing agent would be present in baths for electroless plating, and Adib notes how electroless plating can be provided by contact with electroless plating baths, and further how a reducing agent of DMAB can be used with a bath at a pH of about 7, in the claimed range, or at least overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note 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).
(III) As to the substrate being polymeric, ‘152 notes that metal coated flake shaped glass and other metal coated pigments can be used, such as forming a simple substance (that is, just the one metal) or an alloy of Cu, Ag, Ni, Fe, etc. or the like onto a flaky or granular substrate such as glass or alumina or silica, by a method such as electroless plating (that is, providing the first metal layer on an underlying substrate of particle material of glass or alumina or silica, etc.) (note 0084).
(a) Using ‘700: ‘700 notes how pigments can be material such as glass flake treated with metal electroless plating and also made from a cut up resin sheet with metal electroless plating (so with a resin/plastic/polymer substrate) (note translation, paragraph bridging pages 3-4), where further as to the use of polymer/resin/plastic substrates, it is also described as to when providing a further resin sheets in contact with metal plates, note plate A, layer B in contact, that can be polyvinyl chloride or polyester, understood to be polymers/plastics/resin (note page 3, translation), further suggesting a resin material on which metal plating can be provided would include polymers like polyvinyl chloride or polyester with an expectation of predictably acceptable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita and EITHER Teng OR Adib, to additionally provide that the substrate is polymer as suggested by ‘700 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘152 is providing treating metal pigments in the form of electroless metal plated particles of non-metal material such as glass or alumina, and ‘700 indicates that polymer/plastic/resin as well as glass can also be electroless metal plated to form pigments, suggesting that polymer/plastic/resin can predictably and acceptably considered a core/substrate material of pigements as well as material like glass.
(b) Using ‘960: ‘960 notes how metal pigments for printing can have a problem of having too large a specific gravity, causing them to settle out of ink (note 0003). ‘960 suggests to instead provide a coated metal pigment made from a core/substrate of a sphere/particle or hollow sphere/particle made from plastic (polymer) having a low specific gravity, and providing a thin metal coating to cover the outer peripheral surface of the sphere giving a significantly lighter pigment (note 0005-0007). It is described that the metal coating can be formed by plating metal such as copper, gold or silver by electroless plating on the plastic sphere (note 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita and EITHER Teng OR Adib, to additionally provide that the substrate is polymer as suggested by ‘960 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘152 is providing treating metal pigments in the form of electroless metal plated particles of non-metal material such as glass or alumina, and ‘960 indicates that polymer/plastic can also be electroless metal plated to form pigments and provide desirable lightweight pigmnets, suggesting that polymer/plastic can predictably and acceptably considered a core/substrate material of pigments as well as material like glass.
(IV) Optionally, further as evidenced by Skinley: as to the SiO2 layer formed by a sol-gel process, as noted above, ‘152 describes that the silicon oxide layer can be applied by hydrolyzing TEOS (tetraethoxysilane, also considered tetraethyl orthosilicate, in solution kept basic, note 0046-0048). ‘152 indicates that materials present can be TEOs with water, alcohol (note IPA) that is hydrolyzed as part of providing the silicon oxide coated film (note 0088-0091). Skinley evidences how hydrolyzing of TEOS (tetraethylorthosilicate also known as tetraethoxysilane) in solution with ammonia (which would give alkalinity/basic), alcohol and water indicated as using sol-gel chemistry and providing silica (0005). Therefore, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that ‘152 is describing a process that can be considered as at least including sol-gel processing and providing silica from the evidentiary teaching of Skinley.
Claims 2, 3: As to the thickness of the first layer, in ‘152, the first layer thickness is not described, but the metal pigment is described as having a diameter of 2-300 microns and thickness of 0.01 to 5 microns (note 0080, 0082), and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the metal thickness based on the relative desired size of the overall pigment with metallic coating, that still gives the desired amount of metal, giving a value in the claimed range (note "[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)). Additionally, Fujita notes that the thickness of the metal layer on which the dielectric layer applied can be broadly greater than 5 nm, for example (note 0052-0054, figures 1-2, 0032-0033), further suggesting a first film thickness in the claimed range, when optimizing from the described ranges). As to the second metal layer, it is indicated in ‘152 that the applied metal particles have a particle size of 50 nm or less (note 0114) (which would at least give a thickness of the coating of this range). Again, it would have been obvious to optimize the thickness based from this overlapping range, giving a value in the claimed range (Note 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)). Additionally, Fujita notes that the thickness of the metal layer which can be over the dielectric layer applied can be broadly greater than 5 nm, for example (note 0052-0054, figures 1-2, 0032-0033), further suggesting a second film thickness in the claimed range, when optimizing from the described ranges).
Claim 4: in ‘152, it is understood that the different metal layers can have different morphology, as the first layer is plating and particles not required, and the second layer is in particle form (note 0084, 0111).
Claim 5: in ‘152, when the dielectric layer considered the SiO2 and intermediate oxide layer combined (that is, a dielectric layer made up of sublayers of SiO2 and niobium pentoxide, alone or with ZnO, etc.) then the thickness can include to be more than 150-1000 nm plus 0.1-10 nm, for example (note 0087, 0110), also considered as overlapping the claimed range (150 nm + 0.1 nm, for example, can still be considered about 150 nm (note how applicant describes “about” as including up to 5% variation, for example, note the present specification at 0044) . It would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note 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).
Claim 6: When using a dielectric layer made up of sublayers of SiO2 and niobium pentoxide as discussed for claim 5 above, the overall dielectric layer would comprise SiO2, for example, a material as claimed. Furthermore, the niobium pentoxide/intermediate oxide layer can also contain zinc oxide, for example, from the possible materials listed by ‘152 (note 0103) as discussed for claim 1 above. Fujita would further indicate that a single dielectric layer can also contain silicon dioxide (note 0043), and therefore, would further suggest that instead of a sublayer of niobium pentoxide/zinc oxide, etc and a sublayer of silica, a mixed layer with both niobium pentoxide/zinc oxide and silicon dioxide would be predictably and acceptably used.
Claim 7: As discussed for claim 1 above, both metal layers can comprise copper, and as discussed for claims 5 and 6 above, the dielectric layer can comprise SiO2 along with niobium pentoxide.
Claim 8: As discussed for claim 1 above, both metal layers can comprise copper, and, the niobium pentoxide comprising layer dielectric layer can also comprise TiO2 (note 0103).
Claim 12: ‘152 further provides that a second dielectric layer can be deposited over the second metal layer (giving MDMD structure), where the second dielectric layer can be silicon oxide (understood to include silicon dioxide) or aluminum oxide (note 0120).
Claim 13: ‘152 would suggest that the first plating bath can comprise copper (for copper plating) and reducing agent, from the materials for electroless plating baths (note 0098, 0084). Teng notes formaldehyde as a reducing agent for copper ions (note column 4, lines 5-25), and Adib also notes formaldehyde as a reducing agent that can be used for electroless baths, where the electroless plating can include copper plating (note 0085-0088), giving suggested materials to use. The submerging/immersing is also suggested in use (note ‘152 at 0098, and Adib at 0104 when used).
Claims 6-7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley as applied to claims 1-8, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of LeGallee (US 6686042).
Claims 6-7: As the dielectric material is a first dielectric material and the dielectric layer further comprises a second dielectric material of SiO2, as discussed for claim 1, the dielectric layer can contain a first dielectric material of niobium pentoxide, ZnO, etc., and there can be an underlayer of SiO2 below this layer. Also as discussed for claim 1, the first and second metal layers can comprise copper. Additionally, ‘152 would indicate providing the metal pigments with color shifting properties (note 0073).
LeGallee indicates providing pigment flakes with color shifting properties (note the abstract), where the pigment can have various layers including a reflector layer with metal including copper, and dielectric layers (note 16a, 16b) (note column 3, line 50 to column 4, line 20), where it is indicated that a dielectric layer can be made up of various oxides including mixtures or multiple sublayers of low and high index materials, where low index materials include SiO2 and high index materials include zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, etc. (note column 5, lines 10-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley to provide that the dielectric layer can be either in the form of two sublayers (one of SiO2 and one of niobium pentoxide, ZnO, TiO2, etc.) or a single layer with a mixture of SiO2 and niobium pentoxide, ZnO, TiO2, etc. (so replacing the two layers of ‘152 with one mixed layer) as suggested by LeGallee with an of predictably acceptable results, since ‘152 indicates providing over the first metal layer, an SiO2 layer and a further dielectric layer of ZnO and/or TiO2, etc. and Fujita further indicating the use of niobium pentoxide in the further dielectric layer, for example, when providing color shifting metal pigments, where LeGallee would indicate that such a combination of layers can be considered as a single dielectric layer made up of sublayers, or that it would further be suggested that one can combine these materials as a mixture to form a dielectric layer as well.
Claims 9-10 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley as applied to claims 1-8, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Japan 2000-138442 (hereinafter ‘442).
Claims 9-10: As to a forming the treated substrate by a first silanizing process to from a first silanized surface followed by applying palladium nanocolloids over the first silanized surface, where the silanizing comprise exposing a surface of the substrate to 3 (or gamma)-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (APTMS), ‘152 notes treating the surface with material such as Pd before electroless plating (note 0093-0094).
‘442 describes how a surface can be prepared for electroless plating by a first silanizing process, with exposing the surface of the substrate to silane, such as APTMS (note KBM-903), for example (note the abstract, translation pages 2-4), where after the silane applied, palladium colloids (considered nanocolloids given the size of colloids), are applied over the silanized surface (note abstract, translation page 4), where the plating solution can be a copper electroless plating solution (translation, page 5), where the silane treatment improves film strength and capturing of the palladium colloids, and gives good adhesion of the metal layer (note translation page 3). The substrate can be quartz glass (which would include SiO2), ceramic, plastic, copper, etc. (note translation page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley to provide the palladium for pretreatment of the substrate by a first silanizing process to form a first silanized surface followed by applying palladium nanocolloids over the first silanized surface, where the silanizing comprises exposing a surface of the substrate to APTMS as suggested by ‘442 with an expectation providing a good adhesion of the metal plating, since ‘152 indicates to provide a pretreatment such as applying Pd before plating, and ‘442 indicates to provide such a pretreatment by applying palladium nanocolloids over the a silanized surface, where the substrate can be plastic, where the silanizing comprise exposing a surface of the substrate to APTMS helps give good adhesion of the metal layer.
Claims 20, 21: Similarly, as discussed for claims 9-10 above, it would have been obvious to provide the same treatment as for claims 9-10 to the dielectric layer (a ceramic) before applying the second metal layer by electroless plating, as ‘152 indicates applying material such as palladium before electroless plating, and ‘442 indicates providing the claimed process (which can be to a ceramic surface) helps give good adhesion of the resulting electroless plating metal layer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘152 in view of Fujita, ‘442 and (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley as applied to claims 9-10 and 20-21 above, and further in view of Japan 2015-176823 (hereinafter ‘823), and as evidenced by WO 2021/145924 (hereafter ‘924).
Claim 11: as to the substrate being plastic, this is addressed for claim 1 above as to the suggestion to use a polymer/plastic substrate. As to before the first silanzing process treating the surface of the substrate with SC,
‘823 indicates making conductive fine particles (note abstract), where base substrate can be polymer/resin/plastic particles (note translation, page 5), and where the particles are electroless plated with metal (note translation, page 7), where before plating the surface can be treated with quaternary ammonium salt cationic surfactants to help capture catalyst including palladium material (note translation, page 7), and where it is noted that the particles can also be treated with a silane coupling agent (note translation page 8).
‘924 evidences that conventional cationic surfactants in the form of quaternary ammonium salts include stearyltrimethylammonium chloride (considered a stearlymethylammonium chloride (SC) as claimed, note 0071 of the present application) (note 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita, ‘442 and (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley to additionally provide that the surface of the substrate is also treated with SC before the silanizing as suggested by ‘823, as evidenced by ‘924 to help adhere the palladium, since ‘152 is electroless metal plating pigments with Pd pretreatment noted, where EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960 indicates that plastic can also be electroless metal plated to form pigments, and ‘422 indicates that the silanizing pretreatment can be done on plastic with application of Pd colloids, and ‘823 would indicate that before metal plating on plastic/polymer, cationic surfactant treatment with quaternary ammonium salts can be provided to help capture palladium, and also notes silane coupling (silanizing) treatment can be done, where ‘924 would evidence SC as a known cationic surfactant, and therefore it would be suggested to provide both treatments to help capture palladium, and it would have been obvious that the SC treatment can be provided before the silanizing with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, noting that as per In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley as applied to claims 1-8, 12 and 13, and further in view of WO 2018/189624 (hereinafter ‘624), EITHER alone OR further in view of LeGallee (US 6686042).
Claims 14-16, as to the dielectric layer comprising SiO2, and depositing the dielectric layer by contacting the first metal layer on the treated substrate with a TEOS solution for the sol-gel process, with submerging the first metal layer in TEOS solution and withdrawing at a constant rate of 250 microns/second or more and drying the dielectric layer at a temperature of about 70 degrees C or more, ‘152 provides that the metal pigment/metal coated pigment (so with the first layer) would be coated with silicon oxide ( SiO2) layer (note the discussion for claim 1 above, and 0086), where the coating can be provided with dispersing of the pigment in the material of solvent/organosilicon compound (so also contacting the metal, and where dispersing can also be considered inclusive of submerging) the particles (in slurry here) in solution with TEOS (note 0088-0091), where thickness of the coating can be above 150-1000 nm (note 0087). As discussed for claims 5-6, this SiO2 layer can be considered as a sublayer of the overall layer with SiO2 and ZnO sublayers, and thus the dielectric layer can further comprise SiO2.
‘624 further provides that when applying material including silica/SiO2 to a surface using TEOs and sol-gel processing (note page 7, page 8, pages 11-12), it is well known to provide depositing by contacting the substrate with a TEOS containing solution by submerging the substrate in the solution, and withdraw the substrate at a withdrawal rate of 600 microns/second (in the claimed range, and can be considered constant as the only rate given), and then drying at 70 degrees C (in the claimed range) and further heat sintering at 300 degrees C (in the claimed range), giving a thickness of coating in the nanometer range (note pages 11-12, with 400 nm described).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley to provide the dielectric layer comprising SiO2, and depositing the dielectric layer by contacting the first metal layer on the treated substrate with a TEOS solution for the sol-gel process, with submerging the first metal layer in TEOS solution and withdrawal at a constant rate of 250 microns/second or more and drying the dielectric layer at a temperature of about 70 degrees C or more as suggested by ‘624 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘152 indicates providing a silicon oxide (SiO2) layer using TEOS in what can be considered a sol-gel processing, and ‘624 also teaches forming nm layers (also desired by ‘152) by sol-gel processing, including with TEOS solution, where it is indicated that deposition can be by contacting the first metal layer on the treated substrate with a TEOS solution for the sol-gel process, with submerging the first metal layer in TEOS solution and withdrawal at a constant rate of 600 microns/second and drying the layer at a temperature of 70 degrees C. Optionally, as discussed for claims 6-7 above, it would further be suggested from Fujita that a combined layer with the SiO2, niobium pentoxide, etc. can be provided, where when combining the layers ‘624 indicates how SiO2 can be provided for the sol-gel process, and ‘624 further indicates how sol-gel deposition can be used for making mixed materials as well (note page 11, lines 5-20), and as discussed for claim 1, the ZnO, TiO2, etc. layer can also be made with sol gel processing, and thus use of sol-gel deposition would be expected to be predictably acceptable.
Optionally, further using LeGallee, LeGallee indicates providing pigment flakes with color shifting properties (note the abstract), where the pigment can have various layers including a reflector layer with metal including copper, and dielectric layers (note 16a, 16b) (note column 3, line 50 to column 4, line 20), where it is indicated that a dielectric layer can be made up of various oxides including mixtures or multiple sublayers of low and high index materials, where low index materials include SiO2 and high index materials include zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, etc. (note column 5, lines 10-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita,. (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley, and (4) further in view of ‘624 to provide that the dielectric layer can be either in the form of two sublayers (one of SiO2 and one of niobium pentoxide, etc.) or a single layer with a mixture of SiO2 and niobium pentoxide, etc. (so replacing the two layers of ‘152 with one mixed layer) as suggested by LeGallee with an of predictably acceptable results, since ‘152 indicates providing over the first metal layer, an SiO2 layer and a further dielectric layer of ZnO, TiO2, etc., for example, when providing color shifting metal pigments (note 0073) with Fujita suggesting the further presence of niobium pentoxide, where LeGallee would indicate that such a combination of layers can be considered as a single dielectric layer made up of sublayers, or that it would further be suggested that one can combine these materials as a mixture to form a dielectric layer as well, and when combining the layers ‘624 indicates how SiO2 can be provided for the sol-gel process, and ‘624 further indicates how sol-gel deposition can be used for making mixed materials as well (note page 11, lines 5-20), and as discussed for claim 1, the ZnO layer can also be made with sol gel processing, and thus use of sol-gel deposition would be expected to be predictably acceptable.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley as applied to claims 1-8, 12, and 13 above, and further in view of Krunks et al (US 2010/0186805).
Claims 17, 19: as to the dielectric layer comprising TiO2, and depositing comprising contacting the first metal layer on the substrate with a TTIP solution for the sol-gel process, and drying the dielectric layer at a temperature of greater than or equal to about 70 degrees C, ‘152 indicates that TiO2 can be applied with the ZnO that can be considered the dielectric layer using sol gel processing (with Fujita further suggesting the present of niobium pentoxide as well), and the discussion for claims 1 and 8 above (note 0103-0104). The thickness of the ZnO/TiO2/niobium pentoxide layer can be 30 nm or less (note 0110). As to the processing solution contacting the first metal layer, this can be either by “contacting” by way of the SiO2 layer, or alternatively ‘152 provides that the SiO2 layer does not have to cover all of the underlying metal of the pigment (so first metal layer) (note 0086) and therefore, when contacting with TiO2 plating solution, such as by immersing in solution (note 0126) the metal layer would also be contacted.
Krunks further describes that conventional application of at TiO2 layer by sol gel processing would be by immersing the substrate in a titania sol solution (so contacting the substrate surface with the solution), where the solution contains TTIP, followed by drying at 80 degrees C (in the claimed range), and also heating at about 450 degrees C, in the claimed range (note 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley to provide the dielectric layer comprising TiO2, and depositing the dielectric layer by contacting the first metal layer on the treated substrate with a TTIP solution for the sol-gel process, with submerging the first metal layer in TTIP solution and drying the dielectric layer at a temperature of 80 degrees C as suggested by Krunks with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘152 indicates providing an TiO2 layer using sol-gel processing, and Krunks also teaches forming nm layers (also desired by ‘152) by sol-gel processing, including with TTIP solution, where it is indicated that deposition can be by contacting the substrate with a TTIP solution for the sol-gel process, with submerging the first metal layer in TTIP solution and drying the layer at a temperature of 80 degrees C, and it would be understood that further ZnO, niobium pentoxide, etc. depositing sol would be used acceptably, as a mixture of layers is indicated as acceptably provided by sol-gel deposition by ‘152.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘152 in view of Fujita, Krunks and (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley as applied to claims 17 and 19 above, and further in view of WO 2018/189624 (hereinafter ‘624).
Claim 18: as the submerging the first metal layer on the substrate in the TTIP solution and withdrawing at a constant rate of 250 microns/second or more, Krunks would indicate submerging the substrate (which here would have the first metal layer) in TTIP solution for plating (note 0043).
‘624 further provides applying material including titanium oxide (note page 7, for first layer) and silica/SiO2 to a surface sol-gel processing (note page 7, page 8, pages 11-12). It is described to provide depositing by contacting the substrate with a precursor containing solution by submerging the substrate in the solution, and withdrawing the substrate at a withdrawal rate of 600 microns/second (in the claimed range, and can be considered constant as the only rate given) (described at this rate for all solutions of different materials), and then drying at 70 degrees C (in the claimed range, described for the first 2 solutions tested) and further heat sintering at 300 degrees C (in the claimed range, described for the first 2 solutions tested), giving a thickness of coating in the nanometer range (note pages 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘152 in view of Fujita, Krunks and (1) EITHER Teng OR Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley to provide withdrawal of the substrate from the TTIP solution at a constant range greater than 250 microns/second as suggested by ‘624 with an expectation of providing a desirable coating, since Krunks indicates submerging the substrate in TTIP solution and removal would be needed for use, and ’624 notes in similar treatment to remove at a range of 600 microns/second to make a nm thickness coating, where therefore this rate or faster would be suggested for even thinner coatings (since less time for reaction).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley as applied to claims 1-8, 12 and 13.
Claim 22: ‘152 would suggest that the second plating bath can comprise copper and reducing agent, from the materials for electroless plating baths (note 0113, 0098). Additionally, Adib when also notes DMAB as a reducing agent that can be used for electroless baths, where the electroless plating can include copper plating and the bath have copper (note 0085-0088). The submerging/immersing is also suggested in use (note ‘152 at 0098, and Adib at 0104). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when using ‘152 in view of Fujita, (1) Adib, (2) EITHER ‘700 OR ‘960, and (3) EITHER alone or further as evidenced by Skinley to specifically use DMAB as a known reducing agent when plating copper, and use a copper plating bath containing copper.
Morimitsu et al (US 2009/0017082) also note making colored metallic pigments where the initial pigment can be a metallic pigment, then a silicon oxide layer, then a metal layer, and then metallic particles on the metal layer (note abstract),
Argoitia et al (US 2004/0151827) also notes using niobium pentoxide as a dielectric layer for pigments (note 0044-0045). Struck et al (US 2014/0050768) notes using molybdenum oxide, like silicon oxide, titanium oxide, cerium oxide, zirconia oxide, etc. as a metal oxide layer for pigments applied over a metal layer (note 0078, 0054). Choi et al (US 2011/0081283) notes that “molybdenum oxide” is terminology also used for MoO3 that can be used for pigments (note 0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustment to the rejections, with the use of the new reference to Fujita, due to the amendments to the claims.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is argued that the cited art does not provide the use of niobium pentoxide or MoO3.
The Examiner notes these arguments, however, the new art to Fujita was provided as to the suggestion to use niobium pentoxide. Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights