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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 26 are amended in view of applicant’s response filed 4/16/2026. Claims 3-5, 13, 15-19, 22 and 30 are canceled. New claims 31-32 are added. Therefore, claims 1-2, 6-12, 14, 20-21, 23-29 and 31-32 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejection of claims 22 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s persuasive arguments in the response filed 4/16/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-12, 14, 20-21, 23-29 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1992718 (EP718), and further in view of Shimizu et al. US 2020/0332419 A1(Shimizu), and as evidenced by JPH07310189(JP189).
EP718 teaches a surface treatment method for treating a surface of an aluminum alloy, which is used to make beverage cans(abstract,[0002]), comprising treating the surface of Al alloy with a conversion coating solution comprising phosphate ions and/or phosphoric acid [0022], hexafluorozirconic acid[0009], free fluoride[008, 0022], and an electropositive metal [0011], followed by a layer of epoxy based paint[0025].
However, EP718 does not explicitly teach that the electropositive metal is Cu, Ni or a combination thereof as claimed.
Shimizu et al. teaches a surface treatment agent for aluminum alloys used in making cans(abstract), wherein the surface treatment agent comprises metal ions such as Ni, in addition to hexafluorozirconic acid as a source of Zr[0032,0041].
Furthermore, EP718 teaches that Cu containing Al alloys are suitable materials for its Al alloy. JP189 teaches that copper from the Al alloy would elute in the surface treatment solution which can be chelated by using organic acids[0021]. Therefore, the examiner concludes that at least some of Cu from the Al alloy of EP718 in view of Shimizu would have also be present in the surface treatment solution of EP718 in view of Shimizu as evidenced by JP189, which would implies some of the Cu in the surface treatment solution would have made it into the conversion coating formed.
Regarding claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 21, 26 and 29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the Ni ions as taught by Shimizu into the conversion coating solution of EP718 in order to improve the adhesion to the top resin film as taught by Shimizu[0041].
Additionally, although EP718 teaches the presence of Cr ions in its conversion coating composition[0006,0008,0010], the broadest scope of Cr ion concentration as taught by EP718 can be as lower as 0.1ppm, which would have produced a conversion coating layer that is essentially free of Cr as recited in amended claims 1 and 26.
Therefore, the aluminum can manufactured by the method of EP718 in view of Shimizu comprises the claimed conversion coating and the epoxy based paint as taught by EP708 reads on the claimed film forming layer on top of the conversion coating layer. Additionally, EP718’s aluminum can is used for storing beverages, which encompasses common drinks such as soft drinks, juices and alcoholic beverages such as wine and beer, which reads on the claimed hydrogen sulfide producing liquid deposited inside the metal can as claimed. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have store drinks such as sodas, juices and alcoholic beverages such as wine and beer (i.e. hydrogen sulfide producing liquid) into the aluminum beverage cans of EP718 with expected success.
Regarding claim 7, EP718 further teaches a conversion coating thickness of 5-200mg/m2[0024](i.e. 0.0032-0.129 msi, a.k.a.mg/in2), which overlaps the claimed average thickness. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed conversion coating thickness from the conversion coating thickness of EP718 in view of Shimizu would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wince EP718 in view of Shimizu teach the same utilities in their disclosed conversion coating thickness.
Regarding claim 9, EP718 further teaches that the paint coating layer having a thickness of 20µm[0025].
Regarding claim 20, since the aluminum beverage can as taught by EP718 in view of Shimizu has the same treated surface as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the hydrogen sulfide producing liquid stored within to maintain the same hydrogen sulfide concentration over time as claimed after the can is sealed with expected success.
Regarding claims 23-25 and 27-28, Shimizu further teaches applying a resin composition layer on top of the surface-treated coating layer, wherein the resin composition layer may comprises epoxy resin, acrylic resin and/or polyester resin[0077, 0079]. From the teaching of Shimizu, the Examiner concludes that the epoxy resin, acrylic resin and polyester resin to be used in a top resin layer of a conversion coated can are functionally equivalent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the epoxy paint layer of EP718 with the acrylic resin which encompasses the claimed acrylic latex, and/or the polyester resin as taught by Shimizu with expected success.
Regarding claims 31-32, the claimed copper compounds in the conversion coating composition used to produce the claimed conversion coating layer on the claimed metal are merely related to a coating composition used in a process to produce the claimed metal can, and does not materially change the composition of the conversion coating layer on the metal can produced. Additionally, instant claims 31-32 neither recite the concentration of the copper compounds, nor recite that the copper compounds are present in the conversion coating layer. Therefore, the examiner maintains that claimed metal can is obvious over the metal can manufactured by the process of EP718 in view of Shimizu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the same reasons set forth in the rejection with respect to the amended feature of “wherein the conversion coating layer is essentially free of chromium” in section 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
