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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/7/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP 2017030210 A, hereafter JFE Steel).
Regarding claim 1
JFE Steel discloses a resin coated metal sheet for containers, provided with resin coating layers on both surfaces of the metal sheet, wherein the resin coating layers are mainly composed of a polyesters resin with ethylene terephthalate units of 90-96 mol % (claim 1).
It is noted that the resin layer will necessarily have an outmost surface that is outermost from the surface of the metal sheet.
JFE steel does not explicitly disclose a mobile amorphous content of 85 % or more. However, JFE Steel discloses a method wherein a film-shaped resin-coated layer produced by biaxial stretching method was bonded to a metal sheet by thermocompression bonding using a laminate roll, thereby producing the resin-coated metal sheet; at the time the resin-coated metal sheet was produced by water colling after a lapse of 1.5 second from the thermocompression bonding; and that the resin has a melting point of 235 C was laminated at a metal sheet temperature of 256 C (examples). Further, the description in the instant specification indicates at paras 0026-0028 that regarding the condition for controlling the amount of mobile amorphous to 80% or more, the metal sheet is required to be held at a temperature higher than the melting point of the resin-coated layer for 0.5 to 3.0 second and thereafter rapidly cooled by water cooling or the like, and the heating temperature of metal sheet is preferably made about 20 to 50 C higher than the melting point of the resin-coated layer. Thus, since the resin-coated layer of JFE Steel is produced in a condition suitable for controlling the amount of mobile amorphous to 85% or more with the remained being crystalline, this limitation is thought to implicitly found within the reference and obvious.
Further the crystalline and amorphous content is a property of the composition and since the reference teaches the other limitations, and a similar/identical method it would be expected to possess the same properties. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
JFE Steel discloses a lubricant present in an amount of 0.05 to 1.0 PHR (i.e., 0.05 to 1.0 mass %). Although 1.0 does not overlap with the claimed 1.2 to 1.5 mass %, there is not such a difference between 10. And 1.2 that the skilled artisan would have expected a difference in properties, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 3 and 5
JFE Steel discloses the presence of 8-30 wt % titanium dioxide (i.e., inorganic pigment) (para 0033).
Regarding claims 4 and 6
JFE Steel discloses that the resin-coated layer may have a three layer structure consisting of the outermost surface layer (i.e., upper layer), an intermediate layer, and a lowermost layer (i.e., lower layer); that the film thickness of the outermost surface layer and the lowermost layer should be within the range of 105 microns, and the film thickness of the intermediate layer should be 6-30 microns; and that the outermost and lowermost layers should contain titanium dioxide in the range of 0- wt %, and the intermediate layer should contain titanium dioxide in the range of 10-30 wt % (para 0036).
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that the reference does not teach or suggest the claimed range of the lubricant. While this may be true it is not persuasive as it has not been shown that using 1.2 mass % lubricant will provide different properties than using 1.0 mass %.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
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 JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734