DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 9 September 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-20 as amended are pending, with claim 10 withdrawn.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 16, “The can inner surface coating material” should be “A can inner surface coating material” since it has not been previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2017-171782 A (“Enda”).
A partial machine translation is enclosed.
As to claim 16, Enda teaches an aqueous composition that is a coating agent (para. 0005), thus a coating material having an aqueous liquid medium.
Enda teaches a polyurethane resin, thus a polymer having carboxyl groups (A) (para. 0005), and a monoglycidyl ether compound (para. 0005), thus a compound having one functional group (epoxy) capable of reacting with carboxy group.
While Enda does not explicitly state that the number of functional groups f is less than the number of carboxy groups in the polymer, Enda teaches that the composition is made such that the amount of unreacted carboxyl groups that would be left after all glycidyl groups reacted the carboxyl polymer is 8-20 mg KOH/g (para. 0026). This means that Enda teaches that the amount of epoxy groups (f) is less than the number of carboxyl groups of the resin, thus leaving free carboxyl groups in the polymer once reacted.
While not exemplified, Enda teaches that the monoglycidyl ether compound may be
PNG
media_image1.png
12
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(o-phenyl phenyl glycidyl ether) (para. 0024), which is the recited compound having one epoxy functional group (f) and no ethylenic unsaturated bond.
Enda does not state that the coating material is a can inner surface coating material. However, this limitation is interpreted as an intended use. Since Enda teaches the same composition as recited, it is presumed suitable for the intended use. This is especially the case since Enda teaches that it is suitable for coating metal and provides corrosion resistance (paras. 0041-0042), which are considerations for can inner surface coating materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 11-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,387,997 (“Grolemund”).
As to claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 13, Grolemund teaches an aqueous dispersion, thus an aqueous liquid medium (abstract). Grolemund teaches the use for coating (abstract). Grolemund teaches a reaction product of polymerizable, ethylenically unsaturated monomers, and one or more reactive polyorganosiloxanes (abstract).
The reactive polyorganosiloxane is a polymer that may have functionality other than carboxyl (7:23-40), exemplifying a hydroxyl functional polysiloxane (22:5-45). As such, Grolemund suggests a polymer (B) not having a carboxyl group.
Grolemund teaches that the reaction product (A) is formed from monomers having carboxyl functional monomers and other monomers that do not have carboxyl groups (4:20-35). Specifically, Grolemund teaches acrylic acid as a carboxyl functional monomer, which produces an acrylic polymer having carboxy groups as required by claim 6. While not exemplified, Grolemund teaches that the monomer not having carboxyl group in a preferred embodiment are the product of an ethylenically unsaturated acid such acrylic acid, and an epoxy compound, including phenyl glycidyl ether (4:52-65). As such, Grolemund teaches a compound that has a functional group that is epoxy and which has an aromatiic ring and no ethylenically unsaturated bond, this compound (D) in reacted form as required by claims 1 and 2, an aromatic glycidyl ether as required by claim 7, and a glycidyl group as required by claim 13.
Grolemund does not state that the functional group (f) is used in a lower amount than carboxyl groups. However, the polymer reaction product (E) taught by Grolemund, having a polymer formed from acrylic acid, and the product of acrylic acid and the glycidyl ether, which is the same as the product produced by an acrylic acid polymer and an amount of glycidyl ether in less than equivalent amount of carboxyl groups. To the extent the polymer suggested by Grolemund does not show reaction of a carboxyl functional polymer with the aromatic glycidyl ether, such step is considered to be a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113.
Grolemund teaches the composition is in the form of a polymer emulsion (10:48-53). While not specifically exemplified, Grolemund suggests that the product of reactive polysiloxane with crosslinker, and the polymer (A) form microparticles in which the polysiloxane (non-carboxyl polymer) forms the core, and the carboxyl functional polymer forms a shell (13:52-63), and thus the core shell morphology is an obvious variant suggested by Grolemund.
Grolemund does not state that the coating material is for can inner surface coating. However, this limitation is interpreted as an intended use. Since Grolemund suggests the same composition as recited, it is presumed suitable for the intended use. Grolemund also teaches that the coating compositions can be applied to any substrate including metal (21:5-8).
As to claims 5 and 14, Grolemund teaches the composition includes a curing agent (15:35-40).
As to claims 11 and 12, Grolemund teaches a preferable Mn of the product (A) (carboxyl functional acrylic polymer) is preferably 10,000 to 50,000 (6:20-26).
As to claim 18, Grolemund teaches a Tg of the reaction product (A) (carboxyl functional polymer) of preferably 0 to 25 degrees C (6:27-36). Given that Grolemund teaches the composition is mainly composed of the carboxyl polymer (6:37-50), the Tg within that range is an obvious modification suggested by Grolemund. he coating film on a can inner surface is construed as an intended use. It is therefore presumed that the coating material of Koger can be used to make a coating film on a can in the recited Tg range.
As to claim 19, Grolemund teaches a Tg of the reaction product (A) (carboxyl functional polymer) of preferably 0 to 25 degrees C (6:27-36).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 11-13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,646,058 (“Koger”).
As to claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 13, Koger teaches a waterborne paint composition (abstract), thus a coating material including an aqueous liquid medium. Koger teaches the composition is a binder latex, thus a polymer emulsion comprised of core/shell polymer particles (2:20-25).
Koger teaches the core of the core shell polymer particle is a copolymer of acrylic ester and vinyl ester monomers (3:48-60), and is thus a polymer (B) having no carboxy group.
Koger teaches that the shell is a polymer of an acrylic acid, a vinyl ester monomer, and an acrylic ester monomer (3:49-50), thus an acrylic based polymer having carboxy groups (A) as required by claims 1 and 6.
Koger does not exemplify a compound (D) having no ethylenic unsaturation, one epoxy group, and an aromatic ring. However, Koger teaches that acrylic monomers usable include reaction products of phenyl or cresyl glycidyl ether with acrylic acid (3:10-15), both phenyl and cresyl glycidyl ether meeting the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 13. Since Koger teaches such a monomer, this is considered to be the same as (D) in the form (E) of a reaction product of (D) with polymer (A) as required by claims 1 and 2. Furthermore, since the shell polymer (A) includes an acrylic acid, the resulting polymer is the same as that produced by reacting phenyl or cresyl glycidyl ether with carboxy groups of polymer (A) where the number of epoxy functional groups is less than the carboxy groups . To the extent the polymer suggested by Koger does not show reaction of a carboxyl functional polymer with the aromatic glycidyl ether, such step is considered to be a product by process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113.
Koger does not state that the coating is for a can inner surface. However, since Koger teaches a material of the same composition, it is presumed suitable for the intended use.
As to claims 3 and 4, Koger does not exemplify the recited amount of the compound (D). However, Koger teaches the shell polymer is comprised of 10 to 50 wt % of acrylic ester, and 2 to 20 wt percent of an acrylic acid (3:60-4:5). Based on the weight of phenyl glycidyl ether and the acrylic acid derivative thereof (300 g/mol), it is calculated that Koger allows for a proportion of glycidyl ether reaction product and acrylic acid 1:8 to 1:0.16, which is equivalent to reacting the aromatic glycidyl ether to a carboxyl functional polymer in an amount from 0.10 to 0.86, which overlaps the recited ranges of claims 3 and 4. Given the wide range of acrylic monomers to acrylic acid monomers taught by Koger, the use of a glycidyl ether/acrylic acid product, including in the recited ratio, is an obvious modification suggested by Koger.
As to claims 11 and 12, Koger teaches the shell (carboxy polymer) has a Mw in the range of 5000 to 50000 (4:30-34). While Koger expresses this in Mw rather than Mn, the range would appear to overlap the recited range of claims 11 and 12, given that Mn is equal to or lower than Mw.
As to claim 18, Koger teaches the polymer having Tg in an overlapping range (4:26-29), and as such, Tg of a coating in the recited range is an obvious modification in the preferred range. The coating film on a can inner surface is construed as an intended use. It is therefore presumed that the coating material of Koger can be used to make a coating film on a can in the recited Tg range.
As to claim 19, Koger teaches the polymer having Tg in an overlapping range (4:26-29), and as such, Tg of a coating in the recited range is an obvious modification in the preferred range.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,387,997 (“Grolemund”) as applied to claim 14, further in view of US 4,351,928 (“Smith”).
As to claim 15, Grolemund teaches curing agents, but does not discuss phenol resins. However, it is known from Smith to use phenolic resins are used to cure hydroxyl bearing polymers as an alternative to aminoplast curing agents (2:1-5), including acrylic polyols, and as such, the use of phenolic curing agents is a known curing agent for such resins.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-171782 A (“Enda”) in view of US 2012/0165456 (“Kimura”).
The discussion of Enda with respect to claim 16 is incorporated by reference.
Enda teaches the composition is in the form of an aqueous emulsion (para. 0029), thus a polymer emulsion of the carboxyl functional polymer and/or a reaction product of the carboxyl polymer and monoglycidyl ether.
Enda does not explicitly discuss a polymer having no carboxy group. However, Enda teaches the composition may also include additives, including organic fillers (para. 0028). Kimura teaches organic fillers for aqueous coatings include polyethylene (para. 0044), a non-carboxyl polymer. As such, it is known to use non-carboxyl functional polymers in aqueous emulsion coating compositions as suggested by Kimura.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, including Enda, does not provide sufficient rationale to use the specific glycidyl ether in the core shell polymer emulsion composition as disclosed by the art, including Grolemund and Koger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
