DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2024/0336804, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 01 February 2024, 13 June 2025, 16 October 2025, and 04 March 2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and have been considered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
[claim 12] – subscript “2” constitutes a typographical error: N/m2
[claim 14] – the acronym ERV is not previously introduced/defined in the claim(s) and should therefore be accompanied by the corresponding terminology in accordance with the spec [0077]: “…in terms of enamel rater value (ERV).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the term “substantially” and the phrase “substantially identical” recited in relation to the film/metal substrate thickness ratio in the can bottom portion and can trunk portion, render the claim indefinite. The term substantially constitutes relative terminology, specifically an approximation (MPEP 2173.05(b)(I), MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(D)) – in contrast, the term identical is not an approximation, but rather, an adjective describing two or more elements which are exactly the same. The metes and bounds of the scope of the acceptable degree of variation between the thickness ratio at the can bottom portion and the thickness ratio at the can trunk portion which is encompassed within the phrase “substantially identical” is unclear. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot readily envisage or determine the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim, and the public would not be clearly informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement thereupon (see MPEP 2173).
For examination on the merits, claim 9 is interpreted wherein the scope of the thickness ratios in the can bottom and trunk portions being “substantially identical” is in a range of from 0.9 to 1.1 times, in accordance with Applicant’s spec [0213]. In order to overcome the indefiniteness issue, it is respectfully suggested to amend claim 9 to define the thickness ratio at the can bottom portion being from 0.9 to 1.1 times the thickness ratio at the can trunk portion, in accordance with/supported by the aforecited paragraph, and thereby strike “substantially identical”.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Moriga et al. (JP 2004-359759; “Moriga”) (original copy and machine translation provided herewith, translation and original copy Table 1 relied upon).
“Trimellitic Acid”, TCI Chemicals, https://www.tcichemicals.com/JP/ja/p/B0042, accessed online 09 June 2026 (hereinafter “TCI Chemicals”) (copy provided herewith) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the rejection.
It is first noted that Applicant’s specification defines the claim term “ordinary temperature” as 20° C ± 5° C [spec, 0042].
Regarding claim 1, Moriga discloses a seamless can comprising a coating film formed on an inner surface of the can from a coating composition [0001-0002, 0007-0010, 0026-0028, 0031, 0041]. Specifically, Moriga discloses the coating composition of Comparative Example 2 (see MPEP 2123(I) and (II)), said composition comprising a polyester resin and an m-cresol resol-type phenolic resin curing agent [0039; Table 1, col. 9]. The polyester of Comparative Example 2 [Table 1, col. 9] is formed from (approx.) 100 mol% terephthalic acid (TPA) [col. 9, row 2], 25 mol% ethylene glycol (EG) [col. 9 row 4], 75 mol% propylene glycol (PG) [col. 9 row 5], and 0.2 mol% trimellitic acid (TMA) [col. 9 row 9]. As evidenced by TCI Chemicals [p. 2, text line 4], the Japanese text shown below in captioned Figure 1 – corresponding to the text in Table 1 of Moriga [col. 1 row 9] – translates to “trimellitic acid”.
PNG
media_image1.png
17
104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. "Trimellitic acid" in Japanese
The polyester resin of the Comparative Example 2 composition (citations to Table 1) exhibits a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 18,000 [col. 9 row 11], an acid value of 2.0 mg KOH/g [col. 9 row 12], and a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 82° C [col. 9 row 13]. The composition comprises 90 wt.% of the polyester resin [col. 9 row 14], and 10 wt.% of the m-cresol phenolic resin curing agent [col. 9 row 17], i.e., approximately 100 parts polyester and 10 parts curing agent. The coating film, formed from the composition of Comparative Example 2 coated and dried on an aluminum plate for the purposes of test method evaluation [0036, 0039-0040], exhibited an MEK extractables value of less than 30% (indicated by the circle designation) [0034; Table 1 – col. 9 row 21].
The MEK extractables, i.e., solubles value of less than 30%, determined after 1 hour at the boiling point (80° C) of MEK in accordance with the disclosed test method [0034], corresponds to an MEK insolubles value, i.e., gel fraction, i.e., crosslinked polyester resin component after MEK boiling point, of 70% or greater.
With respect to the seamless can defined by claim 1, Moriga is silent regarding the coating film formed from Comparative Example 2 exhibiting a gel fraction (A) of less than 90% (determined after immersion in MEK at 20° C ± 5° C for 60 minutes, followed by drying).
However, the coating composition (film formed therefrom) of Comparative Example 2 is substantially identical to Applicant’s disclosed coating film in terms of the following:
(i) aromatic dicarboxylic acid of the polyester, i.e., TPA defining 70 mol% or more of the dicarboxylic acid component, in particular 90 mol% or more of said acid component [spec, 0094-0095, 0098, 0237], e.g., approximately 100 mol% [spec, 0237; Table 1, Polyester resins A and L];
(ii) residual acid component of the polyester being, inter alia TMA in an amount of 0.2 mol% [spec, 0101, 0237; Table 1, Polyester resin A];
(iii) polyhydric alcohol of the polyester consisting of EG (25 mol%) and PG (75 mol%) (no further alcohol components) [spec, 0109, 0237; Table 1, Polyester resins A and L]; the molar ratio EG:PG relative to those disclosed, e.g., 27.4:72.6 [spec, Table 1, Polyester resin A], e.g., 28:72 [spec, Table 1, Polyester resin L];
(iv) the polyester Mn, Tg, and acid values, specifically 18,000, 2.0 mg KOH/g, and 82° C relative to those disclosed [spec, 0112, 0114-0115, 0119], e.g., 18,000, 4 mg KOH/g, and 84° C [spec, Table 1, Polyester resin A], and/or, e.g., 18,000, 2 mg KOH/g, and 84° C [spec, Table 1, Polyester resin L];
(v) the curing agent being an m-cresol phenolic resin having methylol groups butylated, formaldehyde addition rate 2.5 per phenol nucleus, and exhibiting Mn of 700 [Moriga, 0039] – spec discloses 80 mol% or more alkyl-etherified with n-butanol, addition rate of 0.5 to 3, Mn of 500-3,000 [spec, 0126-0135, 0237; Table 2, Polyester resin A/Example 1];
(vi) the blending ratio of polyester resin (90 wt.%) relative to m-cresol resol-type phenolic resin curing agent (10 wt.%), i.e., approximately 100 parts to 10 parts [spec, Table 2, Polyester resin A/Example 1]; and
(vii) the MEK solubles after MEK boiling for 1 hour being 30% or less corresponding to an insolubles of 70% or greater (Gel fraction B (%)) [spec, Table 2, Polyester Resin A/Example 1].
Given that the coating composition (and film formed therefrom) of Comparative Example 2 of Moriga is substantially identical to the claimed and disclosed coating film/composition in terms of the elements/features (i)-(vii) identified above, it stands to reason – and there is a strong expectation – that the coating film of Comparative Example 2 would have necessarily exhibited a gel fraction (A), determined in accordance with claim 1 and Applicant’s specification, of less than 90% as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Applicant is respectfully directed to MPEP 2112.01(I) – Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the Applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Applicant is also respectfully directed to MPEP 2112(V) – "[T]he PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the seamless can of Moriga, having the coating film formed from the composition of Comparative Example 2 on the inner surface thereof, reads on (anticipates, or in the alternative, renders obvious) the seamless can defined by claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 2 – absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason that the seamless can of Moriga, having the coating film formed from the composition of Comparative Example 2 on the inner surface thereof, would have necessarily exhibited a gel fraction (B), determined in accordance with claim 2 and Applicant’s specification, which was higher than gel fraction (A) by 10% or more as claimed. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 3 (wherein the inner surface coating film contains a resol-type phenolic resin as a curing agent).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 4 – the polyester resin of the composition of Comparative Example 2 does not include isophthalic acid, i.e., 0 mol% isophthalic acid (wherein a content of isophthalic acid in the polyester resin is less than 21 mol%).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 4 above, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 5 – the polyester resin of Comparative Example 2 includes approximately 100 mol% TPA (when the total amount of polyvalent carboxylic acid components in the polyester resin is 100 mol%, a content of terephthalic acid is 60 mol% or more).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 12 – absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason that the seamless can of Moriga, having the coating film formed from the composition of Comparative Example 2 on the inner surface thereof, would have necessarily exhibited a heat shrinkage rate, (ΔL1/L0)x100, in accordance with Formula (5) of 30% or less, as claimed. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 13 – absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason that the seamless can of Moriga, having the coating film formed from the composition of Comparative Example 2 on the inner surface thereof, would have necessarily exhibited a heat shrinkage rate, (ΔL2/L0)x100, in accordance with Formula (6) of 50% or less, as claimed. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, though Moriga does not explicitly disclose the covering degree of the inner surface coating film being less than 200 mA in terms of ERV, that is, as determined in accordance with Applicant’s spec [0226-0227], Moriga does disclose that the coating film formed from the composition of Comparative Example 2 exhibits a processability value (indicated by the circle designation) of less than 30 mA [0035; Table 1, col. 9 row 22].
The processability test includes bending the metal substrate having the coating film thereon at a 45° angle with a 3 kg weight dropped from 30 cm height, followed by energizing of a 1 cm wide section of the bend area with a voltage of 6 V for 4 seconds [0035] (spec discloses 6.3 V for 4 seconds [0226]). As set forth/cited above, it is noted that the value of less than 30 mA exhibited by the coating film of Comparative Example 2 is nominally within the claimed range of less than 200 mA.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the coating film (inner surface of seamless can) formed from the composition of Comparative Example 2 of Moriga would have necessarily exhibited a covering degree, in terms of ERV, of less than 200 mA as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 15, the rejections of claim 1 and claim 2 above are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and, in totality, read on the coated metal sheet for a seamless can defined by each and every limitation of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the coated metal sheet defined by claim 17.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriga, in view of Nagai et al. (US 2016/0115346; “Nagai”).
The USPTO Scientific & Technical Information Center (STIC) human translation of Table 1 of Moriga (hereinafter “STIC Table 1”) (copy provided herewith) is relied upon in additional to the machine translation of Moriga.
Regarding claim 1, Moriga discloses a seamless can comprising a coating film formed on an inner surface of the can from a coating composition [0001-0002, 0007-0010, 0026-0028, 0031, 0041]. Specifically, Moriga discloses the coating compositions of Examples 2 and 3 [STIC Table 1] (and films formed therefrom), each comprising a polyester resin and a (blocked) isocyanate curing agent [0036-0038; STIC Table 1], and each exhibiting an MEK (at boiling point) extractables value of less than 30%, i.e., corresponding to an insolubles value of greater than 70%.
Example 2 comprises 95 wt.% polyester and 5 wt.% curing agent, wherein the polyester is formed from (approx.) 100 mol% TPA, 25 mol% EG, 75 mol% PG, and 0.2 mol% TMA, and exhibits Mn of 18,000, acid value of 2.0 mg KOH/g, and Tg of 82° C [STIC Table 1].
Example 3 comprises 97 wt.% polyester and 3 wt.% curing agent, wherein the polyester is formed from (approx.) 90 mol% TPA, 10 mol% isophthalic acid (IPA), 25 mol% EG, 75 mol% PG, and 0.2 mol% TMA, and exhibits Mn of 15,000, acid value of 0.9 mg KOH/g, and Tg of 75° C [STIC Table 1].
Moriga discloses that curing catalysts may be included in the coating compositions [0036].
Moriga is silent regarding the coating films of Examples 2 and 3 exhibiting a gel fraction (A) of less than 90%, determined in accordance with claimed Formula (1a).
However, Moriga recognizes, and therefore reasonably teaches, use of the m-cresol resole-type phenolic resin curing agent (set forth/cited above in the copending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, not repeated herein) as a (comparative/non-preferred) alternative to blocked isocyanate curing agents for curing the polyester resin/forming the cured coating film. See MPEP 2123(I) and (II), MPEP 2144.06, and MPEP 2144.07.
As set forth/cited above in the copending rejection under 102/103, at least Comparative Example 2 of Moriga exhibited MEK extractables, flavor sorption, and processability values which were within the requisite/acceptable/preferred ranges thereof (each indicated by circle designation in Table 1). That is, Moriga – through use of the isocyanate curing agent – actively seeks to prevent flavor sorption of contents stored within the seamless can by the coating film (typically exhibited by polyester resins cured with phenolic resins [Moriga, 0001-0005]), but achieves low flavor sorption levels with both isocyanate curing agents (Examples 2-3 [STIC Table 1] and an m-cresol phenolic resin curing agent (Comparative Example 2 [STIC Table 1]). Thus, Moriga reasonably teaches that low flavor sorption levels, i.e., the result desired/sought, are achievable with m-cresol phenolic resin curing agents, as well as isocyanate curing agents.
Nagai teaches that phenolic resins – specifically resol-type phenolic resins derived from m-cresol by methylolating the resin with formalin/formaldehyde – are functionally equivalent to amino resins and isocyanates as curing agents for the polyester resin intended/suitable for coating on the inner surface of seamless cans [0049-0053], in particular for obtaining coating films which exhibit low MEK extractables levels, e.g. 3-40% [0014, 0017, 0020-0021, 0024-0028, 0032-0034]. See MPEP 2144.06 and MPEP 2144.07.
Further, Nagai teaches that the coating composition inclusive of the polyester resin and phenolic and/or isocyanate curing agent [0049] also preferably includes a curing catalyst (acid catalyst) which is, inter alia dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, preferably dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid or dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid blocked with an amine [0054-0055, 0058-0060]. See MPEP 2144.07.
In light of the disclosures/teachings set forth above, Moriga and Nagai each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating compositions of Examples 2 and 3 of Moriga by (1) having utilized the m-cresol phenolic resin curing agent disclosed by Moriga in place of the isocyanate curing agent, as the m-cresol phenolic resin curing agent would have been readily recognized as functionally equivalent to the isocyanate curing agent (MPEP 2144.06(II)), suitable for the intended use as a curing agent for the polyester resins for formation of coating films on the inner surface of seamless cans (see MPEP 2144.07), and capable of achieving the low flavor sorption property (of the coating film) sought by Moriga (MPEP 2144.06(II); MPEP 2144.07). Further, it also would have been obvious to have modified the compositions of Examples 2 and 3 by (2) having added dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid or dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid blocked with an amine as a curing catalyst, in an amount of 0.01 to 3 parts by mass relative to 100 parts total of polyester resin and curing agent [Nagai, 0054-0055], in order to increase the rate of cure of the composition, wherein the aforesaid species of curing catalyst, preferred by Nagai, would have been readily recognized as suitable for said intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance with the foregoing modifications (1) and (2), the coating compositions of Examples 2 and 3 of Moriga (and coating films formed therefrom) would have included each of the polyester resins set forth above (see ¶42-43), wherein the curing agent would have been the m-cresol phenolic resin (see ¶23.(v) above) rather than the isocyanate, and would have further included 0.01 to 3 parts by mass per 100 parts total polyester and curing agent, of dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid or dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid blocked with an amine as a curing catalyst.
The coating compositions (and coating films formed therefrom) of Examples 2 and 3 resultant from the aforesaid modification (hereinafter “modified Moriga”) would have been substantially identical to the disclosed compositions from which the claimed inner surface coating film is formed in terms of at least the following:
(i) polyester resin acid value [spec, 0112];
(ii) polyester resin Tg [spec, 0115];
(iii) polyester resin Mn [spec, 0119];
(iv) acid and glycol components forming the polyester resin and molar amounts thereof, including
(iv.a) TPA (about 100 mol%), or TPA (90 mol%) and IPA (10 mol%), as aromatic dicarboxylic acid components,
(iv.b) 0.2 mol% of TMA, and
(iv.c) EG (25 mol%) and PG (75 mol%) as glycol components [spec, Tables 1-2];
(v) m-cresol phenolic resin curing agent (see ¶23.(v) above) [spec, 0126-0135; Tables 1-2];
(vi) dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid or dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid blocked with an amine as a curing catalyst [spec, 0152-0156];
(vii) relative mass amounts of polyester resin and curing agent [spec, 0144-0145];
(viii) mass amount of curing catalyst relative to mass of polyester resin [spec, 0154]; and
(ix) the composition being solvent-borne [Moriga, 0036] [spec, 0159, 0237-0240; Tables 1-2] and coated/cured on a metal substrate/inner surface of a seamless can by heating – e.g., 200° C, 8 min. [Moriga, 0036-0037] [spec, 0173].
Given that the coating compositions (and films formed therefrom) of Examples 2 and 3 of modified Moriga would have been substantially identical to the claimed and disclosed coating film/composition in terms of the elements/features (i)-(ix) identified above, it stands to reason – and there is a strong expectation – that the coating films of modified Moriga would have necessarily exhibited a gel fraction (A), determined in accordance with claim 1 and Applicant’s specification, of less than 90% as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I). Further, see ¶25-26 above.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the seamless can of modified Moriga, having the coating film formed from the composition of Example 2 or Example 3 in accordance with the modifications above on the inner surface, reads on the seamless can defined by claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 2 – absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason that the seamless can of modified Moriga, having the coating film formed from the composition of Example 2 or Example 3 in accordance with the modifications above on the inner surface, would have necessarily exhibited a gel fraction (B), determined in accordance with claim 2 and Applicant’s specification, which was higher than gel fraction (A) by 10% or more as claimed. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 3 (wherein the inner surface coating film contains a resol-type phenolic resin as a curing agent).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 4 – the polyester resin of the composition of Example 2 of modified Moriga does not include IPA i.e., 0 mol% isophthalic acid (wherein a content of isophthalic acid in the polyester resin is less than 21 mol%). Alternatively, the polyester resin of the composition of Example 3 of modified Moriga is formed from 10 mol% IPA, of which is within the claimed range of less than 21 mol%.
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 4 above, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 5 – the polyester resin of the composition of Example 2 of modified Moriga, and the polyester resin of the composition of Example 3 of modified Moriga, are formed from approximately 100 mol% TPA and 90 mol% TPA, respectively (when the total amount of polyvalent carboxylic acid components in the polyester resin is 100 mol%, a content of terephthalic acid is 60 mol% or more).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 6. That is, the polyester resin of the composition of Example 3 of modified Moriga is formed from 10 mol% IPA/90 mol% TPA (wherein, when the total amount of polyvalent carboxylic acid components in the polyester resin is 100 mol%, the content of isophthalic acid is 2 mol% or more and less than 21 mol%).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 7 – the polyester resin of the composition of Example 3 of modified Moriga is formed from 10 mol% IPA/90 mol% TPA (wherein a content of isophthalic acid in the polyester resin is 4 mol% or more).
Regarding claims 8-9, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Moriga discloses that the coating film thickness is generally from 1-20 µm [0025], that the seamless can is formed by subjecting a coated metal sheet (i.e., having the coating film formed thereon) to deep drawing or thin-walled deep drawing processes [0027], and that the metal (base) sheet may be any of, inter alia steel, aluminum, plated steel, plated aluminum, or chemically treated derivatives thereof [0026], e.g., 0.26 mm thick aluminum [0036-0037].
Moriga does not explicitly disclose the thickness reduction in the can trunk and coating film thickness reduction in said can trunk, respectively, relative to the can bottom and coating film thickness at the can bottom (claim 8), or the thickness ratio between the coating film and metal substrate at the can bottom and at the can trunk being substantially identical (see 112(b) above) (claim 9).
Nagai teaches that the deep drawing/thin-walled deep drawing processes result in a thickness reduction in the can sidewall of from 20 to 95% of the original thickness of the coated metal sheet [0080-0082], wherein the metal sheet exhibits an initial thickness of 0.10-0.50 mm [0077], and the cured polyester coating exhibits a thickness of at least 0.1 µm [0059].
In view of the combined teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reduced the sidewall thickness of the seamless can of modified Moriga, during the deep drawing/thinning process, to a thickness of from 20% up to 95% of the original thickness of the coated metal sheet, to achieve the predictable result of a seamless can exhibiting a desired height and/or wall thickness/flexibility/crush resistance based on a predetermined end use and/or strength requirement.
The seamless can of modified Moriga resultant from the aforesaid modification would have comprised a can bottom and central portion thereof exhibiting the original thickness of the coated metal sheet, and a can sidewall (i.e., can trunk) and central portion thereof exhibiting a thickness which would have been 20-95% of the initial thickness of the coated metal sheet, wherein the aforesaid range encompasses, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of 20-75% (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Further, the spec indicates that the claimed coating film may exhibit a thickness of 0.2-20 µm [spec, 0082], and the metal sheet may exhibit a thickness of 0.1 to 1.00 mm [spec, 0089] – the coating film thickness of modified Moriga is within the range disclosed in the spec, and the metal sheet thickness of modified Moriga is within the range disclosed in the spec.
Given that the metal sheet thickness and coating film thickness of modified Moriga are within the respective ranges disclosed in the spec; given that the seamless can of modified Moriga would have been formed by deep drawing and its sidewall thickness reduced to that of 20-95% of the initial thickness of the coated metal sheet; and given that the compositions of Examples 2 and 3 of modified Moriga from which the coating films are formed are substantially identical to the claimed and disclosed compositions/films as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, including the method of forming the films and the Tg of the polyester resin, it stands to reason that the coating film formed on the inner surface of the seamless can of modified Moriga would have necessarily exhibited a thickness at a central portion of the can trunk which would have been 20-95% of the thickness of the film at a central portion of the can bottom, as well as a thickness ratio (coating film:metal sheet) at the can bottom and can trunk which would have been substantially identical, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
The seamless can of modified Moriga set forth above reads on each seamless can defined by claims 8-9.
Regarding claims 10-11, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Moriga is silent regarding the outer surface of the seamless can including an outer surface coating film comprising a polyester resin and an amino resin curing agent (claim 10), and silent regarding said outer surface coating exhibiting a gel fraction (A) of less than 90%, determined in accordance with claimed Formula (3a) (claim 11).
As set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, Nagai teaches that amino resin are functionally equivalent to isocyanates and resol-type phenolic resin curing agents for curing the polyester resins of the can coatings. Further, Nagai teaches that the coating film applied on the inner surface of the metal sheet forming the seamless can, is suitably also formed on the outer surface of said metal sheet [0079; Fig. 2]. Thus, Nagai reasonably teaches that a polyester resin-based, amino resin-cured coating film may be formed on the outer surface of the seamless can, e.g., to impart shock, dent, and corrosion resistance to the outer surface of said can [0024-0026].
In view of the aforecited teachings of Nagai, Moriga discloses the coating composition (and film formed therefrom) of Comparative Example 3, said composition comprising a polyester resin and an amino resin curing agent [STIC Table 1; 0039], specifically, a mixture of benzoguanamine resin (Mycoat® 106) and melamine resin (Cymel® 325) [STIC Table 1; 0039]. The Comparative Example 3 coating composition (film formed therefrom) exhibited an MEK (immersion at boiling point, 1 hour) extractables value of 30% or less [STIC Table 1], i.e., an insolubles of 70% or greater, and a processability value within the acceptable/requisite/preferred range (indicated by the circle designation) – the polyester resin of Comparative Example 3 is formed from (approx.) 100 mol% TPA, 0.2 mol% TMA, 25 mol% EG, and 75 mol% PG, and exhibits Mn of 18,000, acid value of 2.0 mg KOH/g, and Tg of 82° C.
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seamless can of modified Moriga (set forth above in the rejection of claim 1) by coating the outer surface of the metal sheet with, inter alia the coating composition of Comparative Example 3, as it would have been readily recognized as an amino resin-cured, polyester resin-based coating composition suitable for coating the outer surface of the metal sheet (MPEP 2144.07) for provision of, e.g., corrosion resistance, and exhibiting the requisite degree of processability for formation of seamless cans and other metal packaging articles (e.g., dent/crack/shock resistance).
The seamless can of modified Moriga resultant from the aforesaid modification would have comprised all of the elements/features set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and would have further included a coating film on the outer surface of the metal sheet of the can, formed from the coating composition of Comparative Example 3 (claim 10, further comprising an outer surface coating film on a can outer surface side, the outer surface coating film comprising a polyester resin and an amino resin as a curing agent). Furthermore, given that Comparative Example 3 exhibits an MEK (at boiling point) insolubles value of 70% or greater, and that the polyester resin and amino resin curing agent thereof are substantially identical to those which are disclosed in the spec in terms of polyester acid and glycol components and amounts thereof, inclusion of 0.2 mol% TMA, the Mn, Tg, and acid value, mixture of benzoguanamine and melamine, and relative mass amounts of polyester and amino resin curing agent, it stands to reason that the coating film formed from Comparative Example 3 on the outer surface of the metal sheet of the seamless can of modified Moriga would have necessarily exhibited a gel fraction (A) of less than 90%, determined in accordance with Formula (3a), as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I). Further, see ¶25-26 above.
The seamless can of modified Moriga set forth above reads on each seamless can defined by claims 10-11.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 12 – absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason that the seamless can of modified Moriga would have necessarily exhibited a heat shrinkage rate, (ΔL1/L0)x100, in accordance with Formula (5) of 30% or less, as claimed. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the seamless can defined by claim 13 – absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason that the seamless can of modified Moriga would have necessarily exhibited a heat shrinkage rate, (ΔL2/L0)x100, in accordance with Formula (6) of 50% or less, as claimed. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, though Moriga does not explicitly disclose the covering degree of the inner surface coating film being less than 200 mA in terms of ERV, that is, as determined in accordance with Applicant’s spec [0226-0227], Moriga does disclose that the coating film formed from the compositions of Examples 2 and 3 exhibit a processability value (indicated by the circle designation) of less than 30 mA [0035; STIC Table 1]. The processability test includes bending the metal substrate having the coating film thereon at a 45° angle with a 3 kg weight dropped from 30 cm height, followed by energizing of a 1 cm wide section of the bend area with a voltage of 6 V for 4 seconds [0035] (spec discloses 6.3 V for 4 seconds [0226]). As set forth/cited above, it is noted that the value of less than 30 mA exhibited by the coating films of Examples 2 and 3 is nominally within the claimed range of less than 200 mA.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the coating films (inner surface of seamless can) formed from the compositions (as modified above) of Examples 2 and 3 of modified Moriga would have necessarily exhibited a covering degree, in terms of ERV, of less than 200 mA as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 15, the rejections of claim 1 and claim 2 above are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and, in totality, read on the coated metal sheet for a seamless can defined by each and every limitation of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above, the rejections of claim 10 and claim 11 above are incorporated herein by reference and, in totality, read on the coated metal sheet for a seamless can defined by each and every limitation of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the coated metal sheet defined by claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above, the rejection of claim 5 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the coated metal sheet defined by claim 18.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
JP 2019-069536 to Sakuragi et al. (copy and machine translation provided herewith) – discloses a coating composition for seamless cans comprising a polyester resin, resol-type phenolic resin curing agent, and dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid or p-toluenesulfonic acid curing catalyst [0043-0048]
US 2017/0225830 to Kashiwakura et al. – discloses coated metal sheet, coating film thereof formed from polyester resin, Tg 20-55° C, phenol resin curing agent, and an acid catalyst [Abstract; 0035-0081]
US 2018/0291232 to Kashiwakura et al. – discloses coating composition and films formed therefrom on metal substrates, said composition including polyester resin, phenol resin curing agent, and acid catalyst [Abstract; 0063-0097]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights