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 Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 8/4/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 8/4/25 is acknowledged.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/25.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 states “flaky aluminum pigments obtained by milling of aluminum or aluminum-based alloy powder;” so these are considered alternatives wherein only one needs to be present. The instant claims will be examined accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claims is objected to because of the following informalities: the “a)” appears to be out of place. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henglein (US 2008/0295737 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12, and 16, Henglein teaches a plastic part (e.g., coating made with a polyurethane binder) having a thickness containing a mixture of effect pigments comprising aluminum-based alloy powder core coated with silicon dioxide in a concentration and silvery absorbing pearlescent pigments (e.g., transparent substrate of mica coated with titanium dioxide and/or iron oxide) in a concentration (abstract, para 28, 52-53, 61-62, 92-94).
The limitations concerning the flaky aluminum pigments are based on an optional limitation and need not be suggested by the prior art of record.
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, 5-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venturini (US 2005/0252416 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12, 14, and 16, Venturini teaches a plastic part (e.g., plastic article made from PVC) having a thickness containing a mixture of effect pigments comprising flaky aluminum pigments obtained by milling of aluminum or aluminum-based alloy powder in a concentration and absorbing pearlescent pigments in a concentration (abstract, para 17, 24, 34, 45-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to pick that of a “silvery” pearlescent pigment based upon the desired color of the plastic part. Furthermore, Venturini a transparent substrate of mica coated with titanium dioxide and/or iron oxide (para 29-32) which would appear silvery in color.
Venturini teaches the flaky aluminum pigments have an average particle size of not greater than about 20 µm (para 37). This range substantially overlaps that of the D10 and D50 and values instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Venturini for the type i and type ii pigments, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the concentrations as related to the thickness of the flaky aluminum pigment and the pearlescent pigment of the instant claims, Venturini teaches a relationship between the article thickness and ratio of the pearlescent pigment to the flaky aluminum pigment as it relates to hiding power and opacifying power; and improved hiding power is achieved while maintaining the face color of the effect pigment (para 9, 17, 18, 55-60, fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of flaky aluminum pigment (type i and type ii) and the pearlescent pigment throughout the article (i.e., throughout the thickness of the article) to optimize the hiding power and opacifying power given by the flaky aluminum pigment as well as the face color given by the pearlescent pigment and/or other pigments or additives.
The limitation “obtained by milling” of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 1 and the product of Venturini .
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 11, Venturini teaches with regard to the absorbing pearlescent pigments and other pearlescent pigments:
[0029] One useful metal oxide-coated glass platelets is described in commonly assigned U.S. Pat. No. 5,753,371, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference. That patent discloses the coating of C glass in preference to A or E glasses. A glass is a soda-lime glass, commonly used to make windows and contains more sodium than potassium and also contains calcium oxide. C glass, also known as chemical glass, is a form which is resistant to corrosion by acid and moisture. E or electrical glass is, as the name implies, designed for electronic applications and although it is very stable at high temperatures, it can be susceptible to chemical attack. See also commonly assigned U.S. Pat. No. 6,045,914. Engelhard FIREMIST.RTM. pearlescent pigment (calcium sodium borosilicate substrate with tin oxide and titanium dioxide) may be used in the present invention.
[0030] The metal oxide in most widespread use is titanium dioxide, followed by iron oxide. Other usable oxides include (but are not limited to) tin, chromium and zirconium oxides as well as mixtures and combinations of oxides. Other useful combinations of metal oxides include SiO2 on calcium aluminum borosilicate and then TiO2 thereon; substrate/SiO2/Fe2O3; substrate/TiO2/SiO2; substrate/TiO2/SiO2/TiO2; substrate/TiO2/SiO2/Fe2O3: substrate/TiO2/SiO2/Cr2O3; substrate/Fe2O3/SiO2; substrate/Fe2O3/SiO2/Fe2O3; substrate/Fe2O3/SiO2/TiO2; substrate/Fe2O3/SiO2/Cr2O3; substrate/Cr2O3/SiO2/Cr2O3; and substrate/Cr2O3/SiO2/Fe2O3. Other combinations of the above mentioned layers are obvious to one skilled in the art. SnO2 may also be used on the calcium aluminum borosilicate.
[0031] An interlayer to enhance performance attributes may also be used. Useful interlayer materials include the hydroxides and oxides of Al, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mg, Si, Ti, and Zr. Essentially any organic or inorganic substance may be a useful interlayer for adhesion promotion, mechanical integrity, product enhancement, or other desirable attributes.
[0034] The metal oxide-coated pigment may, if desired, contain absorption pigments, which are water insoluble, transparent (i.e. substantially non-light scattering) and which cannot be formed in situ from a water soluble reactant(s) but which may be highly dispersed in water or water-alcohol containing anionic polymer. These include, for example, organic pigments in the following groups: azo compounds, anthraquinones, perinones, perylenes, pyrroles such as diketopyrrolo pyrroles, quinacridones, thioindigos, dioxazines and phthalocyanines and their metal complexes. The absorption pigments, depending on their color intensity, are used in a concentration range of about 0.01% to about 30% based on the weight of platy substrate, preferably 0.1% to 10%.
[0035] Colors may be adjusted if desired by mixing combination pigments. In general, it is preferred to mix pigments of the same or similar reflection color, since reflection colors mix additively and color intensity is reduced when very different reflection colors are mixed. The absorption pigment components mix subtractively, and the usual pigment blending procedures are followed.
Therefore, Venturini would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to at once envisage pigments with the compositions of the instant claims or would have rendered obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention pigments with the compositions of the instant claims, e.g., a transparent substrate coated with a first layer comprising a mixture of the oxides of titanium, iron and at least one of cobalt and chromium and a second layer on the first Layer, wherein the second layer comprises an oxide of titanium; b) pearlescent pigments of type b), wherein the titanium suboxide can be represented by the formula TinO2n-1 (I) wherein n in an integer of 1 to 10; and, a} a transparent platelet-shaped synthetic substrate, (b} a titanium oxide layer, followed by (c}a metal oxide layer comprising Ti- and Fe-ions, wherein the Fe-ions are mainly Fe(II)-ions.
Regarding claim 8, Venturini teaches adjusting the amount of pigment adjusts the opacity of the films or items formed (para 60-61), and therein its optical density; so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of pigments in the plastic part to optimize its optical density.
Regarding claim 13, Venturini teaches the use of additives or conventional pigments (i.e., organic pigments) (para 34).
Regarding claim 15, Venturini suggests film thickness of greater than 2 mils (i.e., ~50 µm) (fig. 1) which lies within the range of the instant claims. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the thickness of the part per the required application.
Claims 8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henglein.
Regarding claim 8, Henglein teaches the effect pigments contribute to opacity of the article (para 66-67, 132); so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of pigments in the plastic part to optimize its optical density.
Regarding claim 13, Henglein teaches the use of additional white pigments and/or fillers (i.e., additives) (para 124, 132).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the total amount of effect pigments and optional other pigments in the mixture to optimize the color of the final coating.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the thickness of the coating to optimize its physical and mechanical properties (e.g., abrasion or puncture resistance, overall strength, weight, etc).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783