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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: i) in line 12 “alkenyl, and” should instead be –alkenyl; -- (semicolon not comma, remove ‘and’); ii) in line 21 “4,” should be –4;-- (semicolon not comma). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a apostrophe/inverted comma after the period of the sentence which must be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8 “alkyl, and” should instead be –alkyl; and-- (semicolon not comma). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18, 30 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, as the instant claim is directed to a metalworking formulation (preamble) comprising the combination of components not recited as held separately, the recitation of a corrosion inhibitor “formulation” renders the claim indefinite as to what the claim intends (i.e. a two-part composition, a multi-part composition, an overall mixture (assumed), etc.). Further the recitation that p can be an integer of zero renders indefinite the recitation of Z which is a residue remaining after the removal of a hydroxyl group from a polyhydric alcohol (i.e. if p is zero there are no hydroxyl groups left but Z requires a polyhydric, i.e. more than one hydroxyl group must be present, which would mean at least one further hydroxyl group after the removal of a hydroxyl group thus it is not clear how p can be zero). This includes claims 2-18, 30 and 35 as they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is indefinite as it appears to be further limiting to only a portion of claim 1, i.e. the corrosion inhibitor formulation, however claim 1 is directed to an overall composition of a metalworking formulation rendering unclear what is being claimed. This includes claim 3 as it depends from claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “the formulation” is indefinite as claim 1 recites both ‘a metalworking formulation’ and ‘a corrosion inhibitor formulation’ and it is not clear what is being further limited. Further there is lack of antecedent basis for “oleyl sarcosine” and the claim fails to link the compound with any of the recited required components of claim 1 or any of the formulae therein.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is indefinite as it appears to be further limiting to only a portion of claim 1, i.e. the corrosion inhibitor formulation, however claim 1 is directed to an overall composition of a metalworking formulation rendering unclear what is being claimed. Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for any of the recited compounds of the claim and the claim fails to link any of the recited compounds with any of the required components of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “the formulation” is indefinite as claim 1 recites both ‘a metalworking formulation’ and ‘a corrosion inhibitor formulation’ and it is not clear what is being further limited.
Regarding claim 7, firstly, the phrase “does not significantly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Secondly, “the formulation” is indefinite as claim 1 recites both ‘a metalworking formulation’ and ‘a corrosion inhibitor formulation’ and it is not clear what is being further limited.
This includes claims 8-10 as they depend from claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, firstly, the phrase “substantially free of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Secondly, “the formulation” is indefinite as claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites both ‘a metalworking formulation’ and ‘a corrosion inhibitor formulation’ and it is not clear what is being further limited.
Regarding claim 9, firstly, the phrase “substantially free of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Secondly, “the formulation” is indefinite as claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites both ‘a metalworking formulation’ and ‘a corrosion inhibitor formulation’ and it is not clear what is being further limited.
Regarding claim 10, firstly, the phrase “substantially free of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Secondly, “the formulation” is indefinite as claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites both ‘a metalworking formulation’ and ‘a corrosion inhibitor formulation’ and it is not clear what is being further limited.
Regarding claim 17, there is a lack of antecedent basis for ‘block copolymers of formula IIc’ in either the instant claim or claim 1 from which it depends. It is not clear if the claim was intended to depend from claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation of “the composition” is indefinite as claim 1, , recites both ‘a metalworking formulation’ and ‘a corrosion inhibitor formulation’ but does not simply recite ‘composition’ and it is not clear what is being further limited. Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “polymeric surfactant antifoaming agent”, “water soluble succinic ester”, “amidated succinic acid derivative”, “triazole”, and “carboxylic acid”. Further, the claims contain no unit of % (i.e. wt%, mass%, vol%, etc) and it is not clear what is intended.
Regarding claim 30, the phrase “amount effective to provide lubricity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-17 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle (US 4,452,711) in view of Brady et al. (GB 2377929 A).
Regarding claim 1, Laemmle teaches aqueous metalworking compositions, particularly used in contact with aluminum (col 1 ln 1-25), comprising a water soluble mixture of i) polyoxypropylene-polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymers, ii) water-soluble carboxylic acid, iii) a water-soluble alkanolamine, and iv) water, and may further comprise v) a defoaming agent, vi) a lubricity additive, vii) and additional additives include biocides, oxidation inhibitors, corrosion inhibitors, etc. (abstract; col 2-4).
Laemmle teaches the vi) lubricity additive is selected from water-soluble polyoxyethylene or polyoxypropylene alcohols or carboxylic acid esters (instant esterified lubricity additive), preferably a combination of esters, which are present for the purpose of adding lubricity (col 4 ln 55-64).
Laemmle teaches the i) block copolymer comprises a mixture of EO-PO block copolymers containing a single EO chain and two PO chains (instant block copolymer), which are present for the purpose of functioning as an additive solubilizer, viscosity builder and antiwear agent (col 3 ln 20-58).
Laemmle teaches the iii) water-soluble alkanolamine (instant amine), selected from suitable compounds, is present for the purpose of partial or complete conversion of the carboxylic acid into an amine soap (col 4 ln 20-40).
Laemmle teaches and invites the inclusion of corrosion inhibitors but does not specifically teach an acyl amino acid derivative of the instant formulas Ia, Ib, or Ic. However, Brady teaches aqueous based compositions comprising a salt of formula (I): R1-C(O)-N(R2)-CH2-CO2- ·Az+ where R1 is a C8-C30 alkyl group which may be substituted, R2 is hydrogen or methyl, and A is a cation of charge ‘z’ selected from alkali metal ions (=instant acyl amino acid derivative of Ib, where Y=alkali metal) or primary, secondary or tertiary amines (=instant acyl amino acid derivative of Ia, where X=substituted alkyl or alkenyl) (abstract; pg-32. Brady teaches the salts of formula (I) are preferably oleic acid based compounds (pg3) and teaches they are preferably salt derivatives of oleoyl sarcosine (pg5). Brady teaches the salts of formula (I) are advantageous for exceptional activity in the inhibition of corrosion and staining, especially of aluminum (abstract; pg2). Brady and Laemmle are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely aqueous based systems in contact with aluminum, and metalworking fluids thereof. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the corrosion inhibitors of formula (I) of Brady in the compositions of Laemmle and would have been motivated to do so as Laemmle invites the inclusion of corrosion inhibitors and further as Brady teaches those of formula (I) are advantageous for exceptional activity in the inhibition of corrosion and staining of aluminum.
Regarding claim 2, Laemmle in view of Brady render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. As noted above Laemmle teaches ii) water soluble carboxylic acids of the general formula CmH2m-n-r+2(COOH-)r where m is from 11 to 36 (col 3 ln 59-68), and dimeric unsaturated fatty acids thereof (col 4 ln 1-18). Laemmle exemplifies selection of isostearic acid (instant C6-C20 branched carboxylic acid)(see Examples 8, 9 and 14).
Further, Brady teaches the combination of the corrosion inhibitors of formula (I) with additional additive components including metal deactivators such as benzotriazole and alkylated derivatives thereof (instant a triazole), dispersants/surfactants of polybutenyl succinic acid amides (instant a succinic acid derivative), rust inhibitors including imidazoline derivatives (instant an imidazoline) (pg7). Brady teaches the combination in order to improve various application properties as desired (pg7).
Regarding claim 3, Laemmle in view of Brady render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. Brady teaches the corrosion inhibitor of formula (I) is a derivative of oleoyl sarcosine (instant oleyl sarcosine)(see above; pg5; examples) and is present in aqueous systems from 0.000001 to 33 wt% (pg2), preferably 0.0001 to 5.0 wt% (pg4; pg20; 0.5wt% exemplified)(instant claim 5). Brady further teaches the combination of the corrosion inhibitors of formula (I) with additional additive components in order to improve various application properties as desired, including metal deactivators such as benzotriazole and alkylated derivatives thereof (instant a triazole)(pg7).
Brady is silent as to the amount of additives, i.e. the metal de-activators to achieve a ratio of triazole to oleyl sarcosine of from . However, in teaching the metal de-activators are optionally present Brady at least meets the ratio of 0:1 to 7:1.
Alternatively, it is further noted that the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of metal de-activator and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the desired level of performance for its known property of metal de-activation. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Regarding claims 5-7, Laemmle in view of Brady render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. Brady further teaches the corrosion inhibiting salt of formula (I) is present in aqueous systems from 0.000001 to 33 wt% (pg2), preferably 0.0001 to 5.0 wt% (pg4; pg20; 0.5wt% exemplified)(instant claim 5), and teaches the compound is a derivative of oleoyl sarcosine (instant N-oleyl sarcosine; instant claim 6)(see above; pg5; examples). Further, Brady teaches the compounds as noted are advantageous for exceptional activity in the inhibition of corrosion and staining of aluminum (see above)(instant ‘does not significantly stain aluminum’).
Regarding claims 8-10, Laemmle in view of Brady render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 7 above. Laemmle does not teach or require the presence of phosphoric acid derivatives (instant claim 8), boric acid derivatives (instant claim 9), or film-formers (instant claim 10). As such, the compositions of Laemmle, and of Laemmle in view of Brady, meet the instant negative limitations.
Regarding claims 11 and 14-17, Laemmle in view of Brady render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. As noted, Laemmle teaches the vi) lubricity additive is selected from water-soluble polyoxyethylene or polyoxypropylene alcohols or carboxylic acid esters (instant esterified lubricity additive) (col 4 ln 55-64). Laemmle further teaches the lubricity compounds of the carboxylic acid ester includes esters of polyethylene glycol, where suitable examples thereof include a monostearate of a polyethylene glycol having a Mw of about 400 and a dioleate of polyethylene glycol having a Mw of about 1000 (instant product of (1) and (2); instant claim 11).
Laemmle further teaches the vi) lubricity additive is present from about 0.5-10 wt% (col 4 ln 54-55) and the i) block copolymer is present from about 1.0-20wt% (col 3 ln 40-45) (instant ratio of 3:1 to 1:3).
Further as noted above Laemmle teaches the i) block copolymer comprises a mixture of EO-PO block copolymers (instant two or more (instant claim 17)) containing a single EO chain and two PO chains of the general formula of HO-(PO)x-(EO)y-(PO)z-H (col 3 ln 25)(instant structure of instant (IIc)(instant claims 15-16); instant R5 is H and R6 is C1-C4 where neither R5 nor R6 are required (instant claim 16)).
Regarding claim 30, Laemmle in view of Brady render obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. The teaching by Laemmle of an aqueous composition reads on the instantly claimed “diluted” in “an amount effective” where water is the diluent. Laemmle further teaches the compositions are suitable for use as lubricants in various systems/operations including rolling, drawing, ironing, machining, etc. of metals, specifically aluminum and aluminum alloys (col 1 ln 1-25; col 2 ln 20-32; col 3 ln 1-5)(instant metalworking).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle (US 4,452,711) in view of Brady et al. (GB 2377929 A), as set forth in claim 1 above, and further in view of Takata et al. (US PGPub 2016/0122679).
Regarding claim 4, Laemmle in view of Brady renders obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. As noted, Laemmle teaches the inclusion of additives known in the art (col 4 ln 65-68).
Further as noted above, Brady teaches the corrosion inhibitor of formula (I) is a derivative of oleoyl sarcosine (instant N-oleyl sarcosine; instant claim 6)(see above; pg5; examples). Brady also teaches the combination of the corrosion inhibitors of formula (I) with additional additive components including metal deactivators such as benzotriazole and alkylated derivatives thereof (a triazole; a tolyltriazole), dispersants/surfactants of polybutenyl succinic acid amides (instant amidated succinic acid derivative), rust inhibitors including imidazoline derivatives, etc. (pg7). Brady teaches the combination in order to improve various application properties as desired (pg7). At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the additives of Brady in the formulation of Laemmle and would have been motivated to do so as Laemmle readily invites further additives and further as Brady teaches to do so in order to improve various properties.
As noted above Laemmle teaches ii) water soluble carboxylic acids of the general formula CmH2m-n-r+2(COOH-)r where m is from 11 to 36 (col 3 ln 59-68), and dimeric unsaturated fatty acids thereof (col 4 ln 1-18). Laemmle does not specifically teach neodecanoic acid (C10-carboxylic acid). However, it is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities (see In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979); In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963); and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144). In the instant case the low range of C11 as taught by Laemmle is a close structural homolog to the claimed C10 (instant neodecanoic acid) selected for a similar use.
Laemmle does not specifically teach a water soluble succinic ester and does not specifically teach a sodium salt of tolyl triazole. However, Takata teaches lubricant additive compositions and teaches it is known to include rust inhibitors selected from alkenyl succinic acid half esters ([0063]) and as corrosion inhibitors selected from sodium salts of tolyl triazole ([0064]), as well as ashless dispersants selected from succinimide, succinic acid esters, and succinic acid ester-amides ([0054]) for their known properties of rust inhibition, corrosion inhibition and dispersing in lubricant compositions. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the rust inhibitor, corrosion inhibitor, and ashless dispersants of Takata in the lubricant composition of Laemmle and would have been motivated to do so as Laemmle invites known additives, Brady evidences the combination of such additives, and further as Takata teaches such additives are known and suitable for lubricant additive compositions for their known properties.
Regarding claim 18, Laemmle in view of Brady renders obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. Laemmle further teaches the i) block copolymers present from 1.0-20 wt% (col 3 ln 40-42), the ii) water soluble carboxylic acid present from 0.5-10 wt% (col 4 ln 12-13), the vi) ester lubricity additive present from 0.5 to 10 wt% (col 4 ln 54-55).
Laemmle further teaches the inclusion of an defoaming agent selected from silicone and non-silicone agents, such as the commercially available MAZU DF 2502 (instant polymeric surfactant antifoaming agent). Laemmle does not specifically teach about 1 to about 5%, however, Laemmle teaches using the defoaming agent as needed to product a desired and suitable reduction in foam as well as avoiding formation of deposits on metal surfaces (col 4 ln 50-54), where amount depends on the defoaming agent selected. The experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of defoaming agent and would have been motivated to do so in order to attain the desired reduction of foaming balanced with suitable reduction in surface depositing. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Further, Brady teaches the corrosion inhibiting salt of formula (I) is present in aqueous systems from 0.000001 to 33 wt% (pg2), preferably 0.0001 to 5.0 wt% (pg4; pg20; 0.5wt% exemplified)(instant claim 5), and teaches the compound is a derivative of oleoyl sarcosine (instant N-oleyl sarcosine; instant claim 6)(see above; pg5; examples). Brady also teaches it is known to combine the corrosion inhibitors of formula (I) with additional additive components including metal deactivators such as benzotriazole and alkylated derivatives thereof (a triazole; a tolyltriazole), dispersants/surfactants of polybutenyl succinic acid amides (instant amidated succinic acid derivative), rust inhibitors including imidazoline derivatives, etc. (pg7).
As noted, Laemmle teaches the inclusion of additives known in the art (col 4 ln 65-68) and teaches the inclusion of a defoaming agent. Laemmle does not specifically teach from about 0.1 to about 2% water soluble succinic ester, from about 0.1 to about 2% of an amidated succinic acid derivative, or from about 0.1 to about 2% of a triazole.
However, Takata teaches lubricant additive compositions and teaches it is known to include 0.01-3 mass% of rust inhibitors selected from alkenyl succinic acid half esters (instant water soluble succinic ester)([0063]), 0.01-3 mass% of corrosion inhibitors selected from sodium salts of tolyl triazole (instant triazole)([0064]), and 0.5-10 mass% of ashless dispersants selected from succinamide and succinic acid ester-amides (instant amidated succinic acid derivative)([0054]), for their known properties of rust inhibition, corrosion inhibition and dispersing in lubricant compositions. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the rust inhibitor, corrosion inhibitor, and ashless dispersants of Takata in the lubricant composition of Laemmle and would have been motivated to do so as Laemmle invites known additives, Brady evidences the combination of such additives, and further as Takata teaches such additives are known and suitable for lubricant additive compositions for their known properties.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle (US 4,452,711) in view of Brady et al. (GB 2377929 A) as set forth in claim 1 above, and further in view of Bingeman et al. (US PGPub 2015/0225666).
Laemmle in view of Brady renders obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above and, as noted, Laemmle teaches inclusion of a vi) lubricity additive selected from water-soluble polyoxyethylene or polyoxypropylene alcohols or carboxylic acid esters, where the esters serve the purpose of adding lubricity (col 4 ln 55-64).
Laemmle is silent to the lubricity ester being a reaction product of (a), (b), and/or (c) as recited. However, Bingeman teaches lubricating compositions which comprise an ester reaction product that is (a) a reaction product of a polyalkannoic or polyalkenoic acid derived from hydroxyfatty acids and block copolymers of EO-PO and reverse copolymers of PO-EO-PO, etc. and/or (b) a reaction product of (a) with maleated soybean oil (abstract; [0027]-[0038]). Bingeman teaches these ester reaction products are of particular utility in aqueous metalworking formulations ([0039]) for the purpose of providing lubricity to the formulations ([0043]-[0044]). Bingeman and Laemmle are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely aqueous metal working lubricant formulations comprising esters compounds present for the purpose of imparting lubricity. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the esters of Bingeman as the lubricity imparting esters of Laemmle and would have been motivated to do so as Laemmle teaches selecting esters for such a purpose and further as Bingeman teaches the reaction product esters are excellent lubricants for imparting lubricity to aqueous metal working fluids.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle (US 4,452,711) in view of Brady et al. (GB 2377929 A) as set forth in claim 1 above, and further in view of Cuff et al. (US PGPub 2017/0107440).
Laemmle in view of Brady renders obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above and, as noted, Laemmle teaches inclusion of a vi) lubricity additive selected from water-soluble carboxylic acid esters, where the esters serve the purpose of adding lubricity (col 4 ln 55-64).
Laemmle is silent to the lubricity ester being a partial or half-ester compound derived from the Diels-Alder reaction of a conjugated fatty acid and an acid precursor dienophile. However, Cuff teaches metalworking lubricant compositions and teaches that partial esters derived from Diels-Alder reactions of a conjugated fatty acid and a dienophile are advantageous and superior lubricity providing agents that have hard water tolerance and are non- or low-foaming, as well as increased stability ([0038]). Cuff and Laemmle are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same filed of endeavor, namely metal working lubricant formulations comprising esters compounds present for the purpose of imparting lubricity. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the partial esters of Cuff as the lubricity imparting esters of Laemmle and would have been motivated to do so as Laemmle teaches selecting esters for such a purpose and further as Cuff teaches the partial-esters have increased stability and advantageous and superior lubricity, while also having reduced foaming formation during use and better performance in hard water.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle (US 4,452,711) in view of Brady et al. (GB 2377929 A) as set forth in claim 1 above, and further in view of Simpson (WO 00/15364 A1).
Laemmle in view of Brady renders obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. Laemmle further teaches use as lubricant for metalworking operations of aluminum (col 1 ln 1-12), as does Brady (pg6).
Laemmle does not specifically teach the method of making a thin-walled can as claimed. However, Simpson teaches it is well-known to utilize lubricant compositions in the manufacture of aluminum beverage cans (instant thin-walled metal can)(pg1 ln 18-23) by the manufacturing steps of feeding aluminum sheet metal into a ‘cupper’ where the sheet metal is stamped into a round disc (instant step (a)) and pressed into a shallow cup (instant step (b)), the shallow cup is then conveyed to a ‘bodymaker’ where the cup is converted into a seamless can of extended length and decreased wall thickness via ‘redraw’ die and ‘ironing die’ (instant step (d)), followed by trimming and finishing (pg1 ln 18 to pg 2 ln 14). Simpson teaches metering of the lubricant into the manufacturing line as needed at the cupper, bodymaking (instant step (c)) and/or trimming steps (pg5-7) and teaches sending the cans to washer units (instant step (e)) (pg6; pg10-11; Fig 2). Simpson and Laemmle are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same technical feature, namely metalworking lubricant fluids for use in shaping aluminum. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the metal working lubricants of Laemmle, and of Laemmle in view of Brady, in methods of forming aluminum beverage cans of Simpson and would have been motivated to do so as Laemmle teaches the explicit use in aluminum metal shaping and further as Simpson teaches lubricant compositions are well-known for incorporation into such manufacturing methods.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767