DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 3/30/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1-5 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs et al (US Publication 20040146641).
Hobbs discloses aluminum flakes having a diameter of less than about 100 micrometers encapsulated in a polymer or free from encapsulation (paragraph 44). The flakes are coated (filler particles) within a transparent polymer material (paragraph 26) and are contained in a plastic matrix that is transparent (paragraph 41). The plastic matrix (base plastic) is polystyrene polymer (paragraph 54). The coating polymer can also be epoxy or polystyrene (paragraphs 34 and 35). The particles (filler particle) have an average diameter of 10 to 300 microns (paragraph 31). Hobbs discloses that the average amount of high aspect ratio material pigments with polymer wherein some of the pigment can be deliberately unencapsulated, is typically an amount necessary to achieve a desired colored, metallic sparking appearance for a particular concentration of beads in a resinous composition (paragraph 32). The amount of high aspect ratio within the polymer bead beads is present in an amount of .01 to 25 wt% (paragraph 32). As to the loading of pigments within the bead the amount is .05 to 10 wt% (paragraph 40). The filler is an aluminum flake/plate shape which can have 2 facets. Hobbs discloses that the pigment may be unencapsulated flakes such as surface laminated flakes (paragraph 55). These unencapsulated flakes that are only surface laminated can be deliberately added to the composition. As these flakes are considered to be surface lamianted flakes the polymer will be on both sides of the flakes which will read on a flat shape particle with plastic on both sides of the flat slape flake. However, this reference is silent to the specifics of the filler particle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges for the diameter of the filler particle including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have a plastic product with colored, sparkling and/or metal-like appearance. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and /n re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hobbs and had the weight concentration of the filler particles in a range of .1 to 1 % and an area occupancy of the filler particles be in an amount of .5 to 1.5% as Hobbs teaches that the average amount of high aspect ratio material encapsulated within the polymer encapsulated bead is typically an amount necessary to achieve a desired colored, metallic sparking appearance for a particular concentration of beads in a resinous composition and gives ranges of being within the claimed ranges. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the amount of filler material to be in a weight concentration of .1 to 1% and occupancy of .5 to 1.5% in order to achieve the desired color of an end user for a more aesthetically pleasing image. See MPEP 2144.04.
As to claims 2 and 3, Hobbs discloses that the aspect ratio of the flake was about 1.5:1 to greater than 40:1 (paragraph 27) while the aspect ratio of the bead was about 2:1 to 1:1 (paragraph 30). Further the beads may have an average diameter of equal to or slightly more than the flake with a max diameter of the flake being 100 microns. However, this reference is silent to the thickness of the filler particle and flake and coating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the flake size to have a thickness of 20 to 100 nm and a bead size of 1 to 3 microns and coating thickness to be from 5 to 50 microns as Hobbs teaches the flake having aspect ratios of greater than 40 and bead aspect ratios of around 2 as one would of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the thickness of the flake and bead diameter and thickness in order to obtain a desired aspect ratio to product an aesthetically pleasing image. Also, as the thickness of the coating one would know a thicker coating would cost more and a thinner coating would be cheaper. Further see MPEP 2144.04 Change in size/shape.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs et al (US Publication 20040146641) in view of Koshiro (JP 2021121514 which has been machine translated).
Hobbs renders obvious claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to an infrared-transmissive transparent base and a visible-light blocking layer.
Koshiro discloses a transparent member a glittering film of metallic luster and a back surface member in that order (abs), wherein the back surface member is made of a black resin film for use in automoibles. A black resin would read on applicant’s visible light blocking layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the metallic glittering film of Hobbs which can be used in automobiles as the metallic luster glittering film for Koshiro as it would be a suitable alternative and provide an aesthetically pleasing image. See MPEP 2144.04-06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that Hobbs fails to disclose or suggest a flat shape particle. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Hobbs discloses that some of the particles can be surface laminated flakes. Since the metal flake is flat shaped and is surface laminated the particle will have a flat shape.
As to the thickness of the filler. Hobbs teaches that the maximum dimension of the flake is less 100 microns with the average diameter of the encapsulated bead being 100 microns. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to coat the surface of the flake to have a thickness greater than that of the flake.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights