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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. (EP 0493133 A2) (previously cited) in view of Hirano et al. (US 20130146594 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Imazu teaches a can body formed from a metal plate and having a bottom cylindrical shape, the metal plate including a base material of steel, a Sn-plated layer provided on the base material, and a Cr-plated layer provided on the Sn-plated layer, and a coating layer (organic resin coating) laminated on the Cr-plated layer (Imazu, Abstract, Page 2 Lines 5-9, Page 2 Line 55 – Page 3 Line 12, Page 4 Lines 42-50, Claim 1, and Fig. 5). Imazu teaches the Sn plated layer includes 100 to 4000 mg/m2 Sn and the Cr-plated layer includes 10 to 200 mg/m2 Cr (Imazu, Page 4 Lines 57-58 and Page 5 Lines 17-21). Imazu teaches the coating layer is made of a thermoplastic resin (Imazu, Page 5 Lines 25-33). Imazu teaches the film may be printed and heat treated (baked) (Imazu, Page 7 Lines 40-44), but does not state that this is required, and therefore, satisfies the limitation of the metal plate having not been heat-treated. Imazu teaches the can has a reduction in thickness of the side wall compared to the bottom portion of about 5 to 45% (Imazu, Page 6 Lines 31-48), resulting in a plate thickness reduction rate (according to Applicant’s formula) of about 5% to 45%. The range of about 5% to about 45% would include values slightly over 45%. Imazu’s Sn content, Cr content, and plate thickness reduction rate overlaps the claimed ranges of 100 mg/m2 or more and 1500 mg/m2 or less; 6 mg/m2 or more and 100 mg/m2 or less; and greater than 45% and less than or equal to 60%, respectively, and therefore, establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Imazu is silent regarding the metal plate including a Ni-plated layer between the base material and the Sn-plated layer.
Hirano teaches a can comprising a metal plate including a base material of steel (26), a Ni-plated layer (25) provided on the base material, a Sn-plated layer (27) provided on the Ni-plated layer, and a Cr-plated layer (24) provided on the Sn-plated layer, and a thermoplastic (PET) coating layer (23) provided on the Cr-plated layer (Hirano, Abstract, Par. 0073-0077, 0083, 0103-0105, and Fig. 2B).
Imazu and Hirano are analogous art as they both teach cans formed from metal plates including a base material of steel, a Sn-plated layer, a Cr-plated layer, and a thermoplastic coating layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the Ni-plated layer of Hirano between the base material and the Sn-plated layer of Imazu. This would allow for improved appearance, corrosion resistance, and adhesiveness (Hirano, Par. 0069 and 0074). Furthermore, as stated above, modified Imazu teaches that the metal plate may optionally be heat treated (baked) (Imazu, Page 7 Lines 40-44), but does not state that this is required. Therefore, this further results in can body satisfying the limitation of the metal plate, including the base material, Ni-plated layer, the Sn-plated layer, the Cr-plated layer, and the coating layer having not been heat-treated.
Regarding claim 7, modified Imazu teaches the Sn-plated layer is uniformly coated in granular form on the base material, at a coating ratio of 20-80% (Imazu, Abstract, Page 3 Lines 13-17, Page 3 Lines 41-44, Page 4 Lines 8-18, and Page 5 Lines 7-10), which overlaps the claimed range of 44% or more and 63% or less and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Imazu teaches a portion of the Sn-plated layer is alloyed with Fe of the base material (Imazu, Page 3 Lines 13-17 and Page 8 Lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 8, modified Imazu teaches the metal plate includes the Ni-plated layer of from 10 to 200 mg/m2 between the base material and the Sn-plated layer (Hirano, Par. 0019-0024, 0026, 0069, 0074, and 0103), which lies within the claimed range of less than 200 mg/m2 and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. in view of Hirano et al. and Machii et al. (US 6025056 A) (newly cited).
To note, the following rejections are given as an alternative to the rejections in view of Imazu and Hirano above.
Regarding claim 6, Imazu teaches a can body formed from a metal plate and having a bottom cylindrical shape, the metal plate including a base material of steel, a Sn-plated layer provided on the base material, and a Cr-plated layer provided on the Sn-plated layer, and a coating layer (organic resin coating) laminated on the Cr-plated layer (Imazu, Abstract, Page 2 Lines 5-9, Page 2 Line 55 – Page 3 Line 12, Page 4 Lines 42-50, Claim 1, and Fig. 5). Imazu teaches the Sn plated layer includes 100 to 4000 mg/m2 Sn and the Cr-plated layer includes 10 to 200 mg/m2 Cr (Imazu, Page 4 Lines 57-58 and Page 5 Lines 17-21). Imazu teaches the coating layer is made of a thermoplastic resin (Imazu, Page 5 Lines 25-33). Imazu teaches the film may be printed and heat treated (baked) (Imazu, Page 7 Lines 40-44), but does not state that this is required, and therefore, satisfies the limitation of the metal plate having not been heat-treated. Imazu teaches the coating layer is formed of a polyester resin (polyethylene terephthalate) (Imazu, Page 5 Lines 25-33).
Imazu is silent regarding the metal plate including a Ni-plated layer between the base material and the Sn-plated layer.
Hirano teaches a can comprising a metal plate including a base material of steel (26), a Ni-plated layer (25) provided on the base material, a Sn-plated layer (27) provided on the Ni-plated layer, and a Cr-plated layer (24) provided on the Sn-plated layer, and a thermoplastic (PET) coating layer (23) provided on the Cr-plated layer (Hirano, Abstract, Par. 0073-0077, 0083, 0103-0105, and Fig. 2B).
Imazu and Hirano are analogous art as they both teach cans formed from metal plates including a base material of steel, a Sn-plated layer, a Cr-plated layer, and a thermoplastic coating layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the Ni-plated layer of Hirano between the base material and the Sn-plated layer of Imazu. This would allow for improved appearance, corrosion resistance, and adhesiveness (Hirano, Par. 0069 and 0074). Furthermore, as stated above, modified Imazu teaches that the metal plate may optionally be heat treated (baked) (Imazu, Page 7 Lines 40-44), but does not state that this is required. Therefore, this further results in can body satisfying the limitation of the metal plate, including the base material, Ni-plated layer, the Sn-plated layer, the Cr-plated layer, and the coating layer having not been heat-treated.
Modified Imazu is silent regarding a plate thickness reduction rate from the metal plate including the Ni-plated layer between the base material and the Sn-plated layer to the bottomed cylindrical shape being set as greater than 45% to less than or equal to 60%.
Machii teaches a seamless metal can comprising a polyester layer, wherein the seamless can is formed to have a wall thickness that is from 10 to 70% of the original thickness, and thus has a thickness reduction rate of 30-90% using the claimed equation (Machii, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 5-12, Col. 5 Line 57 – Col. 6 Line 7, Col. 7 Lines 40-48, Col. 9 Lines 50-65, and Col. 10 Line 34 – Col. 11 Line 5), which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 45% and less than or equal to 60% and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Modified Imazu and Machii are analogous art as they both teach seamless cans comprising a polyester layer wherein the side wall has a lower thickness than the original sheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the can of modified Imazu to have a thickness reduction rate within the claimed range. This would allow for less material to be used and for improved balance of the orientation of the polyester (Machii, Col. 10 Line 34 – Col. 11 Line 5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Imazu teaches the Sn-plated layer is uniformly coated in granular form on the base material, at a coating ratio of 20-80% (Imazu, Abstract, Page 3 Lines 13-17, Page 3 Lines 41-44, Page 4 Lines 8-18, and Page 5 Lines 7-10), which overlaps the claimed range of 44% or more and 63% or less and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Imazu teaches a portion of the Sn-plated layer is alloyed with Fe of the base material (Imazu, Page 3 Lines 13-17 and Page 8 Lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 8, modified Imazu teaches the metal plate includes the Ni-plated layer of from 10 to 200 mg/m2 between the base material and the Sn-plated layer (Hirano, Par. 0019-0024, 0026, 0069, 0074, and 0103), which lies within the claimed range of less than 200 mg/m2 and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Claim 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. in view of Hirano et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Namekawa et al. (US 20160221064 A1) (previously cited) as evidenced by Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced (Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced, 2024, Matweb, Pgs 1-4) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Imazu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 6. Modified Imazu further teaches the coating layer has a thickness of 3-50 µm, including from 5-40 µm (Imazu, Page 5 Lines 25-33), which overlaps the claimed range of 2 µm or more and 14 µm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modified Imazu teaches the coating layer is formed of a polyester resin (polyethylene terephthalate) (Imazu, Page 5 Lines 25-33), which has a melting point of 200-260°C as evidenced by Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced (Page 3), which is the same as the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified Imazu is silent regarding the coating being formed of an amorphized polyester resin as required by claim 9. Modified Imazu is silent regarding 35% or more and 100% or less of the coating layer being amorphized as required by claim 10.
Namekawa teaches a can formed of a metal sheet having a thermoplastic, PET coating thereon, wherein the PET coating is an amorphous PET coating having a thickness of 5-50 µm (Namekawa, Abstract, Par. 0014-0017, 0019, 0023-0024, 0036-0040). The PET coating thickness overlaps the claimed range of 2 µm or more and 14 µm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Namekawa does not teach that any other materials must be present in the PET coating, and thus, the PET coating has 100% amorphous PET, which lies within the claimed range of 35% or more and 100% or less, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Namekawa teaches the thermoplastic, PET coating has a melting temperature of 220-250°C (Namekawa, Par. 0023), which lies within the claimed range of 200-260°C, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified Imazu and Namekawa are analogous art as they both teach cans formed from metal sheets coated with a PET coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the coating layer of Namekawa as the coating layer of modified Imazu. This would allow for good corrosion and impact resistance (Namekawa, Par. 0019 and 0036).
Claim 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. in view of Hirano et al. and Machii et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Namekawa et al. as evidenced by Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced.
To note, the following rejections are given as an alternative to the rejections in view of Imazu, Hirano, and Namekawa above.
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Imazu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 6. Modified Imazu further teaches the coating layer has a thickness of 3-50 µm, including from 5-40 µm (Imazu, Page 5 Lines 25-33), which overlaps the claimed range of 2 µm or more and 14 µm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modified Imazu teaches the coating layer is formed of a polyester resin (polyethylene terephthalate), which has a melting point of 200-260°C as evidenced by Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced (Page 3), which is the same as the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified Imazu is silent regarding the coating being formed of an amorphized polyester resin as required by claim 9. Modified Imazu is silent regarding 35% or more and 100% or less of the coating layer being amorphized as required by claim 10.
Namekawa teaches a can formed of a metal sheet having a thermoplastic, PET coating thereon, wherein the PET coating is an amorphous PET coating having a thickness of 5-50 µm (Namekawa, Abstract, Par. 0014-0017, 0019, 0023-0024, 0036-0040). The PET coating thickness overlaps the claimed range of 2 µm or more and 14 µm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Namekawa does not teach that any other materials must be present in the PET coating, and thus, the PET coating has 100% amorphous PET, which lies within the claimed range of 35% or more and 100% or less, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Namekawa teaches the thermoplastic, PET coating has a melting temperature of 220-250°C (Namekawa, Par. 0023), which lies within the claimed range of 200-260°C, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified Imazu and Namekawa are analogous art as they both teach cans formed from metal sheets coated with a PET coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the coating layer of Namekawa as the coating layer of modified Imazu. This would allow for good corrosion and impact resistance (Namekawa, Par. 0019 and 0036).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. in view of Hirano et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Grims (US 4723433 A) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 15, modified Imazu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 6. Modified Imazu is silent regarding the bottom portion having a dome shape.
Grims teaches a metal can that is formed to have a bottom portion with a dome shape to resist the tendency of the bottom portion to deform excessively under pressure (Grims, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 5-20, and Col. 2 Lines 6-21).
Modified Imazu and Grims are analogous art as they both teach metal cans. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bottom portion of modified Imazu to have a dome shape. This would allow for a bottom portion which resists the tendency to deform excessively under pressure (Grims, Col. 1 Lines 5-20).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. in view of Hirano et al. and Machii et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Grims.
Regarding claim 15, modified Imazu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 6. Modified Imazu is silent regarding the bottom portion having a dome shape.
Grims teaches a metal can that is formed to have a bottom portion with a dome shape to resist the tendency of the bottom portion to deform excessively under pressure (Grims, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 5-20, and Col. 2 Lines 6-21).
Modified Imazu and Grims are analogous art as they both teach metal cans. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bottom portion of modified Imazu to have a dome shape. This would allow for a bottom portion which resists the tendency to deform excessively under pressure (Grims, Col. 1 Lines 5-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 16 October 2025 have been fully considered.
On pages 6-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Imazu teaches a heat melting method and further heat being applied to adhere the coating and the steel plate and thus does not teach that the metal plate has not been heat-treated. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Imazu teaches the film may be laminated via a heat melting method, but also teaches other methods that do not use heat-treating such as a dry lamination (Imazu, Par. 0029). Further, while Imazu teaches that an adhesive agent and primer may be used including heat, Imazu does not state that this is required (Imazu, Par. 0029-0030). In fact, Imazu states that an adhesive or adhesive primer can be utilized when adhesion is poor, and when an adhesive or adhesive primer is used, additional heat can be utilized (Imazu, Par. 0029-0030). This shows that the adhesive, primer, and additional heat are optional, specific embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), see MPEP 2123. Modified Imazu thus teaches embodiments wherein the film is laminated without heat treating (i.e. dry lamination) without any additional adhesive or heat). Therefore, modified Imazu satisfies the limitation of the metal plate not being heat treated and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Secondly, on page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Hirano requires heat treatment. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The grounds of rejection above does not include the Sn-plated layer of Hirano in the metal plate of Imazu. Instead, the grounds of rejection above relies upon including the Ni-plated layer of Hirano in between the Sn plated layer and the base material of Imazu. The Sn-reflow processing taught by Hirano is thus not utilized in the metal plate of Imazu. Hirano does not state that any heat treatment on the Ni-plated layer is required. Therefore, the metal plate of Imazu in view of Hirano does not undergo an Sn-reflow process and does not undergo any heat treatment.
Furthermore, even if the Sn-reflow process was incorporated into the metal plate of Imazu, the Sn-reflow process occurs after the Sn-plated layer is formed. As more layers, such as the Cr-plated layer and the coating layer, are formed after this step as stated above, the metal plate including all of the base material, the Ni-plated layer, the Sn-plated layer, the Cr-plated layer, and the coating layer has not been heat-treated, satisfying the claimed limitation.
In view of the above, Imazu in view of Hirano render obvious a metal plate including a Ni-plated layer, an Sn-plated layer, a Cr-plated layer, and a coating layer that has not been heat treated and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thirdly, on pages 9-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Hirano does not teach the claimed plate thickness reduction rate. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Note that while Hirano does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Hirano is used as a secondary reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the other applied prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the presently claimed invention. Hirano teaches that it is well known and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to include an Sn-plated layer in a can body as stated above for claim 6. Meanwhile, either Imazu or Machii is utilized to render obvious the claimed thickness reduction rate as stated above. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782