Document zQprZRZ3R6ngLG8XG2NEKNm0n

BROOKES & M CHARTERED PATENT a g e n t s TRADE MARK AGENTS EUROPEAN PATENT ATTORNEYS RICHARD C. MARTIN, m.a .c *h t s . DAVID C. WOODCRAFT, ERIC E. 8ARNARD, C.eNO.,M. l.B.C^C.Oift A.F. JOHN F. SYMONDS. LL.S.LONO, SOLICITOR JOHN H. BLAKE, b .Sc .,(c h s m) HUGH R.WRIGHT, m.a .o mc n PETER C. SANDERS. B.3c. DONALO J. ATTF1ELO. B.3*. c .Ch im. m..B.C.{o ib min Oh a m) A&aiBTEO BY* TIMOTHY M. A. RICKARD. B.S6.PH.D. GRAHAM F. MATTHEWS, B.A-, c. Ewo. F. i. &.E. (Co n s u l t a n t ) H. NICHOLAS MATTHEWS, M.iwtr. T-M-A.(c o n s u l t a n t ) GEOFFREY E. BROOME (c o n s u l t a n t ) Of f ic e Ma ^a o c r - A. J. JELLY Ac c o u n t s -Mn S C.OLSINIA Ap r ie ?% A/Q t e l e x 267541 TELEPHONES (Ol) 242 9631 FACSIMILE (Ol) 631 0536 LDX 310 HIGH HOLBORN HOUSE 52/54, HIGH HOLBORN LONDON, WCIV 6SE DCW/VSW ^c e iv e d APR 11 jggQ Mr. David J. Gould E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY Legal Department, Patent Records Center 1007 Market Street Wilmington, Delaware 19898 U.S.A. pat ent r ecor ds c ent er 4 April 1990 Dear David, European Patent Application No. 87 303 681.8 Your reference : CH-1371 Further to my letter dated March 23, 1990, I have now received a further official action in the above matter. It seems that the Examiner has misinterpreted our supplementary response as being in answer to the second official letter. Consequently, the Examiner has issued a third official letter in which the objections as to the lack of clarity in claim 1 has been repeated. I will, of course, explain what has occurred when replying to the outstanding objections. In the meantime I look forward to receiving your comments*on the proposed amendments. Yours sincerely, FILE CHECKED nftvrn c. wnnnnRftFT MAY 2 1990 Enel: TUNBRIDGE WELLS: I BOYNE PARK, TUNBRIDGE WELLS. KENT. TN4 BEL. TEL.(OBOE] BIOSOO TELEX BB7078 FACSIMILE (OB92) SIOG66 BIRMINGHAM: PRUDENTIAL BUILDINGS, S?V^pWTCfcl's' PtACE^BIRWINGHAM, B3 2AF. TEL. (021) 23 822 TELEX 33S3GI FACSIMILE (021)2001473 MUNICH: IB ZWEieRUCKENSTRASSE,, 6000 MUNICH 22. TEL |O09) 22 20 IO N 30957 Europaisches vPatentamt Generaldirektion 2 Eurot/? n Patent Officii"' Directorate General 2 Office europAen des brevets Direction ggnSrale 2 CTC-rdErhardtstraBe 27 D-8000 Munchen 2 (0 B9) 23 99-0 Telex 5 23 656 epmu d o ;j j: tt , Cuvi.l Charles S. OC < 13 ti ci I I.v di-jh liolborn House :i2/b`i lii.ja holuorn London, n'C'i V 63E GPAADH 3-.T AGKH Datum/Date L J 28.03.90 | Zeichen/Ref/Ref j HC'4/CH-I 371 Anmeldung Nr. /Application No. /Demanden0 //PatentNr. /patentNo. /Brevet n 87303631.8-2112/ j Anmelder/Applicant /Demandeur/ZPatentinhaber /Proprietor /Titulalre j L.:. 3U ? CMT CL NE30UH3 S 80 COM PA,'IX V- < 6-cc tr.t corr.jj'c'.t, ;>cr .c*; < r. i*C'' bf ir a i com* mumcations Communication pursuant to Article 96(2) and Rule 51(2) EPC The /further/ examination of the above-identified application has revealed that it does not meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention for the reasons enclosed herewith, if the deficiencies indicated are not rectified the application may be refused pursuant to Article 97(1) EPC. You are invited to file your observations and insofar as the deficiencies are such as to be rectifiable, to correct the indicated deficiencies within a period of O______ months from the notification of this communication, this period being computed in accordance with Rules 78(3) and 83(2) and (4) EPC. Amendments to the description, claims and drawings are to be filed where appropriate within the said period in three copies on separate sheets (Rule 36(1) EPC). Failure to comply with this invitation in due time will result in the application being deemed to be withdrawn (Article 96(3) EPC). c. ^Kou^ 4P-V c. n -2 APR'990 Telephone numbers: Primary examiner (substantive examination) (0 89) 93Q9- 3> Primary examiner Formalities officer (089) 2399- SJH4 6 for the Examining Division (Formalities Including extension of time limits) Examiners1 clerk (089) 23 99-_j^L=L^ f\ (other matters) Enclosures: ,<_> page/s reasons (Form 2044/2906) Registered letter EPO Form 2001.1 07.58 N 30957.01 DUP050449540 Bescheid (Anlage) vom Communication (Annex! of Notification (Annexe) du Blatt 2 8,03,90 Sheet Feuille Anmoldi^^Ir. Applical&ivWo: Demands No: 87 303 681.fi The examination is being carried out on the following appli cation documents: Description: Pages 1, 3 to 7 as originally filed Page 3 as filed with your letter of 21/12/89 eiaiias: Nos. 1 to 8 as originally filed Nos. 9 to 10 filed with your letter of 18/01/90 ***** 1.1) The Examining Division found that the clarity objections raised in 2 in the second Official letter are com pletely ignored. 1.2) Instead the Applicant has filed two additional claims defining the method of producing the coated TiO^-particles (claims 9 and 10). However, the new claims meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC; hence, they are acknowledged by the Examin ing Division. The Applicant's attention is nevertheless drawn to Rule 86(3) EPC. 2) . The Examining Division maintains it's objection under Article 84 EPC as brought forward in the second Official communication. EPA/EPO/OEB Form 2906 08.84 DUP050449541 *--**<*JP*!* .;3aaaBSi:,rTt:.`!' t \ Bescheid (Anlage) vom Mjtej. Communication (Annex) of F( Notification (Annexe) du ^ ^r L o. 9Uf . Blatt Sheet Feuille or- Anmetd^^Nf, 2 Application No: Demande No: A second possibility to overcome the clarity objection is to be seen in the fact that the present claims 1 and 8 may be connected to the method-claim (present claim 9), e.g. "A pigment obtainable by the method of claim..." (corresponding to the present claim 1) and "A coating composition comprising a pigment obtainable by the method of claim ..." (corresponding to the present claim 8). : If such a solution is chosen, it must however be made sure that each claim is clear enough to define the sub ject matter for which a patent is being sought. 3) In the second Official letter the Examining Division stated that a patent may be granted if the objections raised were overcome (3). If the Applicant does not make a serious attempt to 'i bring the application forward to grant, the Examining sk Division will be forced to reject the application under article 84 EPC. fit, % J}. ~igf* * ^ VJ>v i ,, >**' ^1 ! jr :* M * n " 1 *!) ,r "M k S' jl v;-V * ii -* "t* . , <z3 g EPA/EPO/OEB Form 2906 08.84 DUP050449542