Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/543,585

EFFECT PIGMENTS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
GREEN, ANTHONY J
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Merck Patent GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 12m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1365 granted / 1606 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1631
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
§112
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1606 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendment submitted on 18 December 2023 has been entered. After entry of the amendment claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application. Specification The substitute specification submitted on 18 December 2023 has been entered. Claim Objections Claims 2-3 and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 2, 10 and 11, line 2, the phrase “consisting of” should be inserted after the term “group” as this is proper Markush terminology. In claim 3, line 2, the phrase “flakes, Al2O3 flakes” should be – flakes, and Al2O3 flakes –. In claim 11, phrase “Cas3Si, CaSi2” should be – Ca3Si, and CaSi2 –. It is suggested that claim 12 depend from claim 15 as applicant is reciting the types of formulations that the effect pigment can be utilized in and claim 15 refers to a formulation comprising the effect pigment. It is suggested for example, that the claim can be amended in a manner such as – The formulation according to claim 15 wherein the formulation is selected from paints…..-- Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-16 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. In claim 1 it is unclear as to what the term “it” refers to. Does it refer to the pigment or the substrate? Clarification is requested. In claim 3, the phrase “the synthetic mica flakes, glass flakes, TiO2 flakes, SiO2 flakes, Al2O3 flakes” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 4, the phrase “the proportion of doping” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 5, the phrase “the degree of doping” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 12 is confusing and vague and indefinite as it is unclear as to how some of the recited items are considered to be a formulation. For example, applicant recites “coating of radar sensors”, “security printing”, “security features documents and identity papers”, “high-temperature applications”, and “laser marking” as examples of formulations however it is unclear as to how these are considered to be formulations. It appears as if “coating of radar sensors” appears to be a method of use rather than a formulation. The phrase “security printing” appears to be a method of use rather than a formulation. The phrase “security features documents and identity papers” is confusing as it is unclear as to exactly what applicant is trying to say. The phrase “high-temperature applications” appears to be a method of use rather than a formulation. Also the term “high” in the phrase “high-temperature applications” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase “laser marking” appears to be a method of use not a formulation. Clarification is requested. Claim 13 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the mixture with an organic or an inorganic dye and/or a pigment is in addition to the effect pigment of claim 1 or if the effect pigment is mixed with these materials. That is, how does the effect pigment comprise a mixture? Clarification is requested. Claim 14 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the mixture with an aluminum pigment is in addition to the effect pigment of claim 1 or if the effect pigment is mixed with these materials. That is, how does the effect pigment comprise a mixture? Clarification is requested. In claim 16, the phrase “The formulations” lacks proper antecedent basis as claim 15, the claim from which it depends, refers to “A formulation”. Information Disclosure Statement Foreign Patent Documents Reference Number 1 (DE 1467468 A1) in the IDS dated 05 March 2024 has not been considered as it fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of this reference which is not in the English language. If applicant wishes the reference to be considered a new IDS listing the document along with a statement of relevance should be submitted in response to this office action. Foreign Patent Documents Reference Number 32 (EP 0764191 A1) in the IDS dated 05 March 2024 has not been considered as it fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Note that applicant has only submitted a cover page for the document. If applicant wishes the reference to be considered a new IDS listing the document along with a complete copy of the reference should be submitted in response to this office action. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or render obvious all of the claimed limitations. While effect pigments comprising flake form substrates coated with at least one TiO2 layer are known (see for example WO 93/19131 A1) the prior art fails to teach an effect pigment in flake form which is coated with at least one layer of TiO2 and which is also doped with TiIII+ and fluoride. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5. 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 R. 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. /ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 ajg March 17, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600860
DIRT-REPELLING CLEANING COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595207
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF UTILIZING RECYCLED GLASS IN BACKFILL COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584057
GEOPOLYMER-BASED SUB-AMBIENT DAYTIME RADIATIVE COOLING COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577724
NONFLUORINATED HYDROPHOBIC WATERBORNE TREATMENTS AND COATINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578051
FINE FIBER INSULATION PRODUCTS WITH IMPROVED THERMAL PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+13.4%)
1y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1606 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month