DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 10/21/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 2/8/24, 3/7/24, 11/26/25 or 6/2/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hutchinson et al. US PGPub 2008/0258353 hereinafter HUTCHINSON in view of Koulik et al. US PGPub 2003/0165636 hereinafter KOULIK and Watson et al. US Patent Number 9,570,273 hereinafter WATSON as evidenced by Nation Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Pressure hereinafter NOAA on claims 1, 4-6, 9-10 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 1, HUTCHINSON teaches "This application relates to molds for producing preforms and other articles. More specifically, this application relates to methods and systems for controlling mold temperatures in the manufacturing of multi- layer preforms" (paragraph 3) and "One or more layers may be coated or otherwise disposed on the substrate" (paragraph 58, lines 8-9) and "In some embodiments, such layers include PET layers, RPET layers, other recycled materials, barrier layers, UV protection layers, oxygen scavenging layers, oxygen barrier layers, carbon dioxide scavenging layers, carbon dioxide barrier layers, water-resistant coating layers, foam layers and/or other layers as needed or desired for the particular application or use" (paragraph 58, lines 12-18), i.e. method for applying a coating layer on a preform for a container... depositing a coating layer on at least part of the preform prior to being formed into a container ... and the coating layer is intact after being formed into the container.
HUTCHINSON "Most PET bottles are made by a process that includes the blow molding of plastic preforms, which have been made by processes including injection and compression molding" (paragraph 6).
HUTCHINSON is silent on a) providing a low-energy, cold, atmospheric plasma created using a dielectric barrier discharge and discharged at a pressure of between 400 hPa and 1600 hPa; b) exposing coating precursors and the preform to said plasma, thereby chemically activating the precursors, the preform, or both; c) depositing a coating layer on at least part of the preform by reaction of the activated precursors with each other and/or with the activated preform.
KOULIK teaches "The present invention concerns a process for plasma surface treatment and a device for realization of the process. The treatment can be deposition of a barrier film or plurality of thin films" (paragraph 1, lines 1-4) and "It would be advantageous to be able to simultaneously treat the inner and outer surfaces of hollow objects (bottles, tubes, tanks). It is advantageous to be able to treat the surf ace of a complex object" (paragraph 19, lines 5-9), i.e. wherein method for applying a coating layer on ... a container.
KOULIK further teaches "A process for plasma treatment of an object's surface to be treated comprising the creation of a plasma, the application of the plasma to the surface to be treated, and the excitation of the surface to be treated" (abstract, lines 1 - 4), "The process according to the invention is very advantageous, since it permits utilization of a cold plasma while intensifying the interaction of the plasma with the surface to be treated, and hence to optimize the plasma surface treatments for a large range of applications" (paragraph 36, lines 1 -5) "The current pulse duration t2 is selected such that the plasma remains cold and develops along the surface to be treated, and that the temperature of the object to be treated will not rise above its temperature of destruction" (paragraph 91, lines 3-7), and "It would also be advantageous in many applications, moreover, to realize a process of plasma surface treatment at atmospheric pressure as well as a device for realizing the process" (paragraph 28; wherein as shown in NOAA, on page 3, line 8 is 1013.2 millibars or, converted to other units, 1013.2 hPa), i.e. i.e. a) providing a low-energy, cold atmospheric plasma ... at a pressure that falls within between 400 hPa and 1600 hPa wherein low-energy plasma is defined in paragraph 37 of the specification as a plasma of which the power density is high enough to activate the precursors and/or preform, allowing a chemical reaction to take place, but low enough to prevent the destructor the precursors, the preform and/or the container.
KOULIK describes a treatment in which a deposition takes place in paragraphs 82-87 wherein "during their departure create a situation that favors their chemical union with the particles of the medium that is ionized and activated by the plasma, for instance with silicon and oxygen atoms during deposition of a SiOx film" (paragraph 87, lines 12- 16), i.e. b) exposing coating precursors and the preform to said plasma, thereby chemically activating the precursors, the preform, or both and c) depositing a coating layer on at least part of the preform by reaction of the activated precursors with each other and/or with the activated preform.
KOULIK is silent on the plasma being created using a dielectric barrier discharge.
KOULIK does teach "For most applications the plasma is preferably created with an electrical or electro-magnetic energy source operated continuously, by unipolar or alternating pulses, or at high frequency. This may for instance be a discharge of the capacitive or inductive type, or high-frequency waves. However, the plasma can also be created by adiabatic compression or by shock waves, furnished for instance by an adiabatic-compression or shock-wave generator" (paragraph 34).
WATSON teaches "A compact cold plasma device for generating cold plasma having temperatures in the range 65 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit" (abstract, lines 1-3), "Cold temperature atmospheric pressure plasmas have attracted a great deal of enthusiasm and interest by virtue of their provision of plasmas at relatively low gas temperatures" (column 3, lines 36-39), and "For example, cold plasma can also be generated by a dielectric barrier device, which relies on a different process to generate the cold plasma. DBD plasmas are generally created in a non-equilibrium mode by passing electrical discharges over a small distance through ambient air ... By virtue of the dielectric layer, the discharge is separated from the metal electrode and electrode etching is reduced. The pulsed electrical voltage can be varied in amplitude and frequency to achieve varying regimes of operation" (column 6, lines 23-41 ), i.e. a low energy, cold atmospheric plasma created using a dielectric barrier discharge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the coating layer on the preform being formed by the method of KOULIK and WATSON in the process of HUTCHINSON such that it includes a) providing a low-energy, cold, atmospheric plasma created using a dielectric barrier discharge and discharged at a pressure of between 400 hPa and 1600 hPa; b) exposing coating precursors and the preform to said plasma, thereby chemically activating the precursors, the preform, or both; c) depositing a coating layer on at least part of the preform by reaction of the activated precursors with each other and/or with the activated preform because KOULIK teaches that "The process according to the invention is very advantageous, since it permits utilization of a cold plasma while intensifying the interaction of the plasma with the surface to be treated, and hence to optimize the plasma surface treatments for a large range of applications, including treatments of objects consisting of materials withstanding only a very slight temperature increase, such as PET and semiconductors" (paragraph 36, see all) and WATSON teaches that dielectric barrier discharge can produce a low energy, cold atmospheric plasma.
HUTCHINSON is silent on the thickness of the coating layers on the preform.
KOULIK gives examples of barrier thickness of 0.1, 180-190A, 250A (paragraph 165, 176, and 190).
HUTCHINSON also teaches thicknesses of the walls of containers depending upon the preform (paragraph 79) and "Thicker finish wall thickness will require more time to achieve a particular degree of crystallinity as compared to that needed for a thinner wall thickness. Increases in exposure time (time in mold) will increase the depth of crystallinity and the overall percentage of crystallinity in the area, and changes in the mold temperature in the region for which crystallinity is desired will affect the crystallinity rate and dimensional stability (paragraph 189, lines 18-25).
HUTCHINSON also teaches "The overall thickness 56 of the preform is equal to the thickness of the initial uncoated preform 39 plus the thickness 58 of the outer or coating layer 52, and is dependent upon the overall size and desired coating thickness of the resulting container (e.g., carbonated beverage bottle). However, the preform 50 may have any thickness depending on the desired or required thermal, structural and/or other types of properties of the container formed from the preform 50. The preforms and containers can have layers which have a wide variety of relative thicknesses" (paragraph 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the thickness of the initial coating layer such that the desired final wall thickness and coating layer properties is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 4, HUTCHINSON teaches "However, the preforms and other molded items can comprise one or more other thermoplastics" (paragraph 56, lines 5-7), i.e. wherein the preform comprises a thermoplastic material.
As for claim 5, HUTCHINSON teaches "Other suitable substrates for preforms, containers and/or other moldable items include, but are not limited to, various polymers such as polyesters (PET, PEN, PETG), polyolefins (PP and PE), polyamides (Nylon 6, Nylon 66), polycarbonates, polylactic acid (PLA), acrylics, polystyrenes, epoxies, grafted polymers, and copolymers or blends of any of the foregoing" (paragraph 57, lines 4-10), i.e. wherein the thermoplastic material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of PET, PLA, PEN, PP, and PE.
As for claim 6, HUTCHINSON teaches "In some embodiments, such layers include ... water-resistant coating layers, foam layers and/or other layers as needed or desired for the particular application or use" (paragraph 58, lines 12-18), i.e. wherein the coating layer provides the preform with hydrophobic properties.
As for claim 9, HUTCHINSON teaches "Multilayer preforms and containers can have layers which have a wide variety of relative thicknesses. In view of the present disclosure, the thickness of a given layer and of the overall preform or container, whether at a given point or over the entire container, can be chosen to fit a particular molding process or a particular end use for the container" (paragraph 74, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein the coating layer is applied on the entire surface of said preform.
As for claim 10, HUTCHINSON teaches "The preform is then heated and expanded by stretching and/or by forcing air into the interior of the preform 50 to fill the cavity within the mold 80, creating a container 82 (FIG. 7)" (paragraph 76, lines 6-9), i.e. followed by a stretching step.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hutchinson et al. US PGPub 2008/0258353 hereinafter HUTCHINSON in view of Koulik et al. US PGPub 2003/0165636 hereinafter KOULIK and Watson et al. US Patent Number 9,570,273 hereinafter WATSON as evidenced by Nation Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Pressure hereinafter NOAA as applied to claim 1 above further evidenced by On the Potential of Silicon as a Building Block for Life by Pelkowski et al. hereinafter PETKOWSKI on claim 2 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 2, HUTCHINSON, KOULIK and WATSON are silent on covalent bonds.
However, KOULIK does teach "These acoustic vibrations will subject the atoms of the object to be treated to oscillations which make them depart from and return to their positions of static equilibrium, and during their departure create a situation that favors their chemical union with the particles of the medium that is ionized and activated by the plasma, for instance with silicon and oxygen atoms during deposition of a SiOx film" (paragraph 87, lines 9-16), and "Polymerizable materials such as PET (polylethyleneterephthalate), PE (polyethylene), PP (polypropylene) and others are used in various industries for products such as containers for beverages and food" (paragraph 11, lines 1-4), wherein the object is made of carbon atoms that chemically bond with the silicon.
PETKOWSKI teaches "Both silicon and carbon are tetravalent atoms that form primarily covalent (nonionic compounds)" (page 6, section 3.1, paragraph 1, lines 1-2), i.e. wherein carbon and silicon form covalent bonds.
It is therefore inherent to KOULIK that the chemical union between the silicon atoms and the atoms of the object is a covalent bond such that when combined with TOM as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the coating layer is covalently grafted onto the preform. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. lnherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hutchinson et al. US PGPub 2008/0258353 hereinafter HUTCHINSON in view of Koulik et al. US PGPub 2003/0165636 hereinafter KOULIK and Watson et al. US Patent Number 9,570,273 hereinafter WATSON as evidenced by Nation Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Pressure hereinafter NOAA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tom et al. US PGPub 2013/0193164 hereinafter TOM on claim 3 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 3, HUTCHINSON teaches "The preform is then heated and expanded by stretching and/or by forcing air into the interior of the preform 50 to fill the cavity within the mold 80, creating a container 82 (FIG. 7)" (paragraph 76, lines 6-9) but does teach having an intact coating after stretching (paragraph 81, see multiplayer preforms).
HUTCHINSON is silent on wherein the coating layer is crosslinked, such that the layer stays intact when the preform is stretched.
TOM teaches "In some embodiments, the exterior and/or interior walls of the liner and/or overpack may have any suitable coating provided thereon. The coating may increase material compatibility, decrease permeability, increase strength, increase pinhole resistance, increase stability, provide antistatic capabilities or otherwise reduce static, etc. Such coatings can include coatings of polymers or plastic, metal, glass, adhesives, etc. and may be applied during the manufacturing process by, for example coating a preform used in blow-molding, or may be applied post manufacturing" (paragraph 320, lines 1-10), i.e. wherein a coating is applied to a preform for a bottle prior to it being stretched such that the coating remains after it is stretched, thereby remaining intact.
TOM also teaches "Further, the crosslink density of the barrier film and the surface adhesion of the barrier film may vary depending on the degree of barrier protection desired. Generally, the surface of the liner may be chemically, physically, electrochemically, or electro statically modified, such as by application of a coating, to enhance the barrier qualities of the liner"" (paragraph 176, lines 12-17), i.e. polymerizable barrier coatings of TOM are crosslinked and the degree is chosen to achieve a desired barrier protection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the treatment of KOULIK to a preform of HUTCHINSON for the reason above and further include wherein the coating layer is crosslinked, such that the layer stays intact when the preform is stretched because KOULIK teaches applying those coatings to PET bottles and TOM teaches that coatings can be applied to PET bottles either when they are preforms prior to stretching or after as fully-formed bottles and furthermore that crosslinking the coating improves the barrier protection provided by the coating.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hutchinson et al. US PGPub 2008/0258353 hereinafter HUTCHINSON in view of Koulik et al. US PGPub 2003/0165636 hereinafter KOULIK and Watson et al. US Patent Number 9,570,273 hereinafter WATSON as evidenced by Nation Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Pressure hereinafter NOAA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becker et al. EP 3446793A 1 hereinafter BECKER on claim 7 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 7, HUTCHINSON, KOULIK and WATSON are silent on the first precursor and second precursor of the claims 7.
KOULIK does teach "For instance, during deposition of a polymer film based on the plasma precipitation of a mixture of activated C, H, and CHY particles, the time interval t3 between the plasma pulses should be such that between the plasma pulses the polymerization process can be completed on the surface to be treated. This completion is advantageously accelerated by the presence of acoustic vibrations" (paragraph 94), wherein the coating is a polymer and polymerized.
HUTCHINSON also teaches "One or more layers may be coated or otherwise disposed on the substrate" (paragraph 58, lines 8-9) and "In some embodiments, such layers include PET layers, RPET layers ... water-resistant coating layers, foam layers and/or other layers as needed or desired for the particular application or use" (paragraph 58, lines 12-18), i.e. wherein the layers are hydrophobic/water resistant.
BECKER teaches "A method for depositing a coating on a substrate is disclosed" (abstract, lines 1-2) and "The invention pertains to the technical field of atmospheric pressure or reduced pressure plasma polymerization processes for the deposition of superhydrophobic coatings" (paragraph 1 ).
BECKER further teaches "The water contact angle of the coatings presented above is typically rather low. In addition to the hydrophobicity of the coating, the durability and mechanical resistance are of importance as well, and in particular the combination of a high resistance to abrasive constraints with a high elasticity of the coating" (paragraph 9, lines 1-6).
BECKER further teaches "A first precursor comprising fluoro-acrylate monomers, fluoro-alkyl acrylate monomers, fluoro-methacrylate monomers, fluoro-alkyl methacrylate monomers, fluoro-silane monomers, or a combination or derivates thereof is provided. A second precursor comprising ... cyclosiloxanes" (abstract, lines 2-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein said hydrophobic properties are imparted by a coating layer derived from a first precursor comprising fluoro-acrylate monomers, fluoroalkyl acrylate monomers, fluoro-methacrylate monomers, fluoro-alkyl methacrylate monomers, fluoro-silane monomers, or a combination or derivates thereof, and a second precursor comprising cyclosiloxanes in the process of HUTCHINSON, KOULIK and WATSON as a barrier coating because BECKER teaches that such materials produce a hydrophobic coating that has high durability, mechanical resistance and elasticity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized and addressed below:
a) Applicant argues that the modification of KOULIK would change the principle of operation of the primary reference HUTCHINSON, as HUCHINSON relies on hot-melt injection of a polymer within a mold surrounding the preform and then cooling the injected polymer to form the layer or coating on the preform.
Examiner notes that HUTCHINSON is not limited to only overmolding hot melt extrusion coating. To be perfectly clear here, HUTCHINSON explicitly states "One method of producing multi-layered articles is referred to herein generally as overmolding. Multilayer preforms can be formed by overmolding by, e.g., an inject-over-inject ("IOI") process" (paragraph 105, lines 3-6). HUTCHINSON treats overmolding coating of the preform as an optional embodiment, not its principle of operation. Its principle of operation is making a preform and then forming it into a bottle using a mold, optionally with coatings on the preform.
Further, there are explicit discussions of embodiments in which layers are dip coated onto the substrate. While these methods are also very different than plasma treatment, it shows the HUTCHINSON's 'principle of operation' is not destroyed by having multiple layers not applied by hot melt extrusion. If so, then HUTCHINSON would destroy itself by including dip coated layers. As such, Applicant's basis for their argument, that the addition of another coating using a different method would 'gut' the inventive concept of HUTCHINSON is defeated by a complete reading of HUTCHINSON itself.
Further, there is nothing to suggest that applying a layer using a plasma would destroy HUTCHINSON's principle of operation. Specifically, HUTCHINSON teaches how to form a preform from a material and KOULIK's plasma treatment teaches how to coat that material. There is nothing in KOULIK that would render HUTCHINSON's formation of a bottle impossible because the coating does not take place during the formation as taught by HUTCHINSON. How is a plasma coating the preform formed by HUTCHINSON rendering its formation process inoperable?
In Applicant's arguments, they have merely pointed out that the plasma method of KOULIK is different from the hot melt extrusion of HUTCHINSON and then constructs a combination where they are incompatible. This is erroneous. The combination does not even replace a step in HUTCHINSON, merely showing how KOULIK and WATSON provide motivate to include another one. So how can KOULIK 'gut' HUTCHINSON when its combination removes nothing?
b) Applicant's arguments are not persuasive as they do not consider the rejection that was actually made, fail to consider the flexibility provided in HUTCHINSON's teachings and hyper focus on one aspect of HUTCHINSON as a means to remove the secondary reference while ignoring the fact that all the art is concerned with forming coatings on the same plastics, as illustrated in the rejection above.
Applicant argues that there is no evidence that one of skill in would have been motivated to modify the primary reference HUTCHINSON with an external vibration generator, as well as modifying HUTCHINSON with a cold-plasma system with any reasonable expectation of success because such a modification would require a wholesale redesign gutting the mold and cooling aspects of HUTCHINSON.
This is a bold faced misrepresentation of the combination, so for clarity of record, Examiner will provide this simplified version of the combination--
Form the preform in the mold as taught by HUTCHINSON, demold the preform, coat the preform as taught by KOULIK and WATSON, put the preform into the blow molding apparatus to form the bottle as shown in HUTCHINSON.
No overhaul redesign of HUTCHINSON is necessary, as HUTCHINSON's mold remains intact. There is no gutting of any steps or structure of HUTCHINSON, merely the inclusion of KOULIK and WATSON's steps.
Applicant's argument cannot be considered persuasive as Applicant is arguing against a rejection that was not made, bending over backwards to invent an incompatible version of the combination without considering the obvious combination of the art and its teachings (as illustrated in the rejection).
c) Applicant argues that Examiner's statement of "wherein a coating is applied to a preform for a bottle prior to it being stretched such that the coating remains after it is stretched, thereby remaining intact" has not basis found in KOULIK or TOM.
Examiner disagrees. TOM explicitly states a coating "may be applied during the manufacturing process by, for example, coating a preform used in blow-molding, or may be applied post manufacturing" (paragraph 310, lines 9-10). This literally states that a coating can be applied prior to being stretched or after being stretched, meaning that it is intact after stretching. TOM would not treat these as interchangeable embodiments if the coatings were inherently destroyed during the stretching.
Applicant is nitpicking here. The statement was meant to show why the quotation from TOM was important. It was clearly not a quotation, as it immediately followed the quotation of paragraph 310, lines 1-10. There is no reason for confusion here beyond the Applicant being unwilling to consider the implication of TOM's teachings.
In summation, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive as they rely on misrepresentations of the art and the rejection so they are not relevant to the arguments actually made by Applicant.
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 KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights