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 Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of references do not disclose all the limitations of the present claims, specifically a method where a BPA-free powder is applied over a substrate having a BPA-free coating wherein the cured coating demonstrates optimal adhesion. This is not persuasive. As an initial matter, nothing in the claims requires a coating which “demonstrates optimal adhesion.” On the merits of this argument, however, Martinoni teaches applying a BPA-free powder coating to a region of a metal beverage container substrate including a weld seam and a sidewall coating (¶¶ 0001, 0032, 0039), but fails to discuss the composition of the sidewall coating. Anderson teaches a sidewall coating for the interior surface of a beverage can (Abst.) and explains that the sidewall coating is desirably BPA-free to avoid contamination of the foodstuff within the can (1:21-2:4). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have selected a BPA-free coating on the sidewall which is coated in Martinoni in order to have avoided contamination. In other words, the combination of Martinoni and Anderson would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to have performed the method of claim 1, specifically, where a BPA-free powder is applied over a substrate having a BPA-free coating. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.01(II).
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 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinoni et al. (WO2014/065858) in light of Jung et al. (US 6,270,855), Anderson (US 6,472,480) and Mazza et al. (US 6,916,874).
Claims 1-4: Martinoni discloses a method of forming a coating on a container (¶ 0005), the method comprising: providing a powder coating composition (¶ 0006) which is BPA-free (¶ 0058) comprising: at least one polyester having a weight-average molecular weight ranging from about 20,000 to about 50,000 (¶ 0007); applying the coating composition to at least one portion of the substrate (¶ 0025); melting the coating composition on the at least one portion of the substrate (¶ 0006); and solidifying the molten coating composition to form the coating adhered to the at least one portion of the substrate (¶¶ 0032, 0039).
Martinoni discloses that the powder composition can have blend of one or more polyester such as first and second polyesters (¶¶ 0010, 0007) but does not teach about 1-5% of a functional resin component. Martinoni also discloses that the powder composition is to be applied to the weld seam portion of a metal container (see above) suitable for food and beverage (¶ 0001). Jung teaches a process of applying a polyester powder coating to a metal beverage container (Abst.; 1:38-47) and explains that the coating composition should also include up to 25% by weight of a thermoplastic resin component having a molecular weight of 500-15,000 in order to improve the barrier properties of the polyester coating (4:10-32; 9:8-15), wherein the resin component does not crosslink during extrusion (3:12-22, e.g.). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included 1-5% by weight of a resin component having a molecular weight of 4,000-8,000 in the process of Martinoni in order to have improved the barrier properties of the polyester coating.
Martinoni also teaches that the coating is applied along a region of the metal beverage container substrate including a weld seam and a sidewall coating (¶¶ 0001, 0032, 0039), but fails to discuss the composition of the sidewall coating. Anderson teaches a sidewall coating for the interior surface of a beverage can (Abst.) and explains that the sidewall coating is desirably BPA-free to avoid contamination of the foodstuff within the can (1:21-2:4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a sidewall coating in Martinoni which was free from BPA in order to have avoided contaminating the contents of the can.
Jung teaches that the resin component should be selected as a resin which is suitable for food and beverage containers (13:47-55), but fails to teach that the resin is formed from the claimed monomers. Mazza teaches a resin component designed for use in food and beverage coatings which reduces potential contamination (1:46-64), wherein the resin is a polymer derived from a first monomeric unit from a glycidyl ester of α,β-unsaturated acid, such as glycidyl methacrylate (2:52-3:8) and a monomer having the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
103
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2:8-20). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected the resin component disclosed by Mazza as the resin component in Jung in order to have reduced the risk of contamination associated with the food or beverage container coating.
Martinoni also discloses that the coating thickness preferably has a thickness less than 40 micrometers (see ¶ 0071) but recognizes that conventionally, the coating thickness could be greater than about 50-70 micrometers (¶ 0033). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a thickness from 50-70 µm with the predictable expectation of success.
With respect to the coating demonstrating the claimed adhesion, this feature is considered inherent in the cited art as the cited art teaches the same process of forming the same coating on the same substrate as applicant discloses to have this characteristic.
Claim 5: Martinoni discloses that the blend can be compounded into pellets, crystallized and milled to attain desired fine particle sizes wherein the resulting composition may be sieved and packaged for subsequent use (¶ 0069). For example, 95-100% by weight of the particles can pass through a 63-micrometer sieve (¶ 0076).
Claim 6: Martinoni discloses that the powder coating composition can include colorants, flow control agents and inorganic fillers (¶ 0064).
Prior Art
Bariatinsky et al. (US 2005/0196629) is also cited for teaching a powder-coating for the sidewall of a beverage or food container (¶ 0102) and explaining that the coating is desirably BPA-free so that the coating does not have a deleterious effect on the contents of the container (¶¶ 0006, 0043).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights