DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 18/653,617 filed 2 May 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 14 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the generic allegations are insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case of a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive.
In the case of the restriction between groups I and II, the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product, i.e., structure consisting of an aluminum core, chromium layers on one surface of the aluminum core, and an encapsulating layer formed by a sol-gel process. The product of Group I necessarily requires a core, metal barriers at least partially encapsulating the core layer, and a set of dielectric layers at least partially sandwiching the set of metal barrier layers. A serious search burden exists because the product and process require different fields of search (e.g., product vs. method, searching of components present in the product by not in the process, and searching different subgroups relating to products and processes), and prior art references that read on the claimed process may not read on the claimed product.
In the case of the restriction between Groups I and III, the products are distinct because (1) they have a materially different design due to their different flake structure (i.e., Group I requires metal barrier layers encapsulating the core layer; (2) they do not overlap in scope based on their differing structure; and (3) they are not obvious variants based on the differing flake structure A serious search burden exists because the products require different fields of search (e.g., products comprising different components), and prior art references that read on the claimed process may not read on the claimed product.
In the case of the restriction between Groups II and III, the process of Group II as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product, i.e., structure consisting of an aluminum core, chromium layers on one surface of the aluminum core, and an encapsulating layer formed by a sol-gel process. The product of Group III necessarily requires a set of dielectric spacer layers not provided by the process of Group II. A serious search burden exists because the product and process require different fields of search (e.g., product vs. method, searching of components present in the product by not in the process, and searching different subgroups relating to products and processes), and prior art references that read on the claimed process may not read on the claimed product.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4 August 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coulter et al. (US Patent Application No. US 2003/0207113 A1) (Coulter).
Reference is made to FIG. 1A and FIG. 3B of Coulter, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
289
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
523
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claim 1:
Coulter discloses flake based-pigment particles composed of a composite reflective flake (CRF) <10>, a dielectric layer <25> that surrounds the CRF <10>, an absorber <26> that surrounds dielectric <25>, and a dielectric layer <35> that surrounds absorber <26>, and an absorber layer <36> that surrounds the dielectric layer <35> (FIG. 3B; paragraph [0075]).
Coulter further discloses that the CRF <10> comprises reflector layers <12> and <16> (paragraph [0042]).
The CRF <10> comprising reflector layers meets the limitation “wherein the core layer is a reflector layer”.
Coulter further discloses that the absorber layer <26> encapsulates the dielectric layer and is composed of suitable materials inclusive of all metals (paragraph [0070]).
The disclosure of an absorber layer <26> that surrounds the at least the dielectric layer <25> and CRF <10> is construed to meet the claimed set of metal barrier layers that encapsulate the core layer.
The dielectric layer <35> meets the claimed “set of dielectric layers at least partially sandwiching the set of metal barrier layers” (i.e., the absorber layer <26>).
The outermost layer absorber layer <36> meets the broadly claimed encapsulation material.
Regarding instant claim 3:
Coulter further discloses the reflector layers <12> and <16> are composed of aluminum (paragraph [0053]). Said reflector layers that are a component of composite reflective flake (CRF) meet the broadly claimed aluminum core layer.
Regarding instant claim 4:
Coulter further discloses that the absorber coating <26> are composed of chromium (paragraph [0070]), wherein said absorber coating <26> meets the claimed set of metal barrier layers.
The “passivating” limitation recited by the claims is an intended use/effect of the claimed chromium layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the chromium of Coulter as capable of performing the intended “passivating” use/effect.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding instant claims 5 and 11:
Coulter further discloses that the dielectric layer <25> is composed of materials inclusive of several metal oxides (paragraph [0073])
The direct contact between dielectric layer <25> and absorber layer <26> is construed to meet the claimed “set of metal barrier layers includes an oxidized metal material”.
Regarding instant claim 6:
Coulter further discloses that the absorber coating <26> encapsulates those layers beneath it (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding instant claim 8:
FIG. 3B illustrates that the flake structure is formed from a plurality of layers oof material formed in a corresponding plurality of parallel lines.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 12-14:
The properties recited by the claims are intended uses/effects of the claimed structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the structure of Coulter, being substantially identical to the structure of the claims, capable of performing the intended uses/effects.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
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, 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter.
Regarding instant claim 10:
Coulter further discloses that the absorber coating <26> has a thickness of 2 nm to about 80 nm (paragraph [0070]), wherein said absorber coating <26> meets the claimed set of metal barrier layers. It is noted that the thickness range disclosed by Coulter overlaps the claimed range; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter in view of Winkelmann et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0058988 A1) (Winkelmann).
Regarding instant claims 1-2 and 7:
Coulter discloses flake based-pigment particles composed of a composite reflective flake (CRF) <10>, a dielectric layer <25> that surrounds the CRF <10>, an absorber <26> that surrounds dielectric <25>, and a dielectric layer <35> that surrounds absorber <26>, and an absorber layer <36> that surrounds the dielectric layer <35> (FIG. 3B; paragraph [0075]).
Coulter further discloses that the CRF <10> comprises reflector layers <12> and <16> (paragraph [0042]).
The CRF <10> comprising reflector layers meets the limitation “wherein the core layer is a reflector layer”.
Coulter further discloses that the absorber layer <26> encapsulates the dielectric layer and is composed of suitable materials inclusive of all metals (paragraph [0070]).
The disclosure of an absorber layer <26> that surrounds the at least the dielectric layer <25> and CRF <10> is construed to meet the claimed set of metal barrier layers that encapsulate the core layer.
The dielectric layer <35> meets the claimed “set of dielectric layers at least partially sandwiching the set of metal barrier layers” (i.e., the absorber layer <26>).
The outermost layer absorber layer <36> meets the broadly claimed set of absorption layers at least partially sandwiching the set of dielectric layers as recited by claim 7.
Coulter does not explicitly disclose an encapsulation material that includes a sol-gel material.
However, Winkelmann discloses SiO2-coated aluminum effect pigments wherein the coating is accomplished by sol-gel process to encapsulate the effect pigments with a silicon dioxide coating that provides barrier effect that prevents the migration of water or other corrosive substances at the surface of the pigment.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to encapsulate the structure of Coulter with the sol-gel-based silicon dioxide coating of Winkelmann. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a barrier effect that prevents the migration of water or other corrosive substances at the surface of the pigment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Winkelmann with Coulter to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/03/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights