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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 May 2026.
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.
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the coating film" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0047065 (“Becker”).
As to claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, Becker teaches an aqueous coating composition comprising (meth)acrylate copolymer (abstract). Becker teaches the copolymer includes units that are an unsaturated acid monomer (abstract), and units from the reaction product of a monoepoxy ester and unsaturated acid functional monomer (abstract) (as required by claim 2). As such, Becker teaches an acrylic polymer (A) having carboxy groups as required by claims 1 and 6, and the monoepoxy ester is a compound (D)) having no ethylenic unsaturated bond and one functional group (epoxy as required by claim 7) capable of reacting with a carboxy group, the pair being in reacted product form as required by claim 2. The polymer is produced by polymerization of carboxy functional monomers, such as acrylic acid, with other monomers, in the presence of the monoepoxy ester (para. 0087, for example, polymerizing acrylic acid in the presence of Cardura E10 versatic acid glycidyl ester). While the equivalents are not calculated, the theoretical acid value of the composition is 29.4, which implies that the number of functional groups from the monoepoxy ester is less than the number of carboxy groups; this is borne out by the fact that the goal is to maintain a specific amount (1-8 %, abstract) of carboxy units. Becker teaches the coating composition is water dispersible, thus a liquid medium.
Becker does not state that the coating material is for a can inner surface. However, this limitation is interpreted as an intended use of the composition. Given that Becker teaches the same composition as recited, it is presumed to be useful for that purpose.
As to claim 3, Becker teaches forming the liquid polymer, then diluting in water (para. 0088), thus an emulsion.
As to claim 5, Becker teaches a crosslinking, thus curing agent (abstract).
As to claims 11 and 12, the example 4 has Mn of 5600 (para. 0088).
As to claim 13, Becker teaches the modifying compound being a monoepoxy ester (abstract).
As to claim 14, Becker teaches a crosslinking, thus curing agent (abstract).
As to claim 20, Becker teaches dispersing in water (para. 0088).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,375,227 (“Hicks”).
As to claims 1, 2, and 7, Hicks teaches compositions suitable for coating (abstract). Hicks teaches a copolymer that is a reaction product of a copolymer of a unsaturated monocarboxylic acid, thus a polymer having carboxy groups, and a monoepoxide, thus a compound having no unsaturated groups and an epoxy group as required by claims 1 and 7(1:34-45). Hicks teaches that the composition is in solvent (2:70-3:5), thus a liquid medium. Hicks teaches that the amount of monoepoxide is such that is present in an equivalent amount less than the unsaturated monocarboxylic acid (4:43-45).
Hicks does not state that the composition is for coating a can inner surface. However, since Hicks teaches the same material, it is presumed capable of coating the inner surface of a can.
As to claim 5, Hicks teaches a curing agent (4:58-61).
As to claim 6, Hicks teaches the unsaturated acid monomer may be acrylic acid, thus an acrylic based polymer having carboxy groups (3:23-26).
As to claims 8 and 9, Hicks teaches the monoepoxide may be phenyl glycidyl ether (3:20-22), which has a cyclic hydrocarbon structure/aromatic ring.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/147180 A1 (“Natsumoto”).
A machine translation is enclosed.
As to claims 1, 2, and 6, Natsumoto teaches a coating composition for coating a can inner surface (translation, p. 2). Natsumoto teaches an acrylic copolymer having carboxyl groups (translation, p. 3) as required by claims 1 and 6. Natsumoto teaches the composition is emulsifiable in water, a liquid medium (translation, p.3). Natsumoto teaches an amine compound which neutralize a part of carboxy groups (as required by claim 2), thus having a functional group having a functional group capable of reacting with a carboxy group (translation, p. 6). While a compound containing one and only one is not exemplified by Natsumoto, Natsumoto teaches numerous compounds, such as monoethylamine, trimethyleamine, dipropylamine, etc. which meet this recitation, and thus the use of a compound having one functional group capable of reacting with a carboxy group is an obvious modification suggested by Natsumoto. Further, the amount is variable, and may be used to neutralize part of the carboxy groups, thus suggesting a number of functional groups lower than the number of carboxy groups, and as such, the use of such a compound (D) with number of functional groups as recited is an obvious modification suggested by Natsumoto.
As to claim 3, Natsumoto teaches an aqueous emulsion formed by the aforementioned acrylic polymer (abstract).
As to claim 4, Natsumoto teaches polymerizing an acrylamide polymer in the presence of the carboxy functional acrylic copolymer (abstract), thus forming a second polymer having no carboxy group in emulsion with the carboxy functional polymer.
As to claim 5, Natsumoto further teaches a phenolic curing agent (abstract).
As to claims 11 and 12, Natsumoto teaches Mn of the carboxyl functional acrylic polymer in the recited range (translation, p. 4).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,818,796 (“Das”).
As to claims 1, 2, and 7, Das teaches a hydroxyl containing polymer useful in coatings (abstract). Das teaches a polymer formed from an unsaturated carboxylic acid and monoepoxy compounds (2:44-65). As such, the resulting polymer is a reaction product of a polymer having carboxy groups, and a compound having one epoxy group reactable with carboxy as required by claims 1 and 7.
While not exemplified, Das teaches an acid/epoxy equivalent ratio of 10:1 to 1:1 (3:10-16), and therefore Das suggests compositions having a number of epoxy functional groups less than the number of carboxy groups. Moreover, Das teaches that compositions having excess carboxy groups can be used to form water based compositions, a liquid medium (3:16-19). As such, both the recited amount of functional groups and liquid medium for coating composition are obvious as suggested by Das.
Das does not state that the coating is for can inner surface, but does state usefulness on metal (6:46-47), and it is thus presumed that such a coating could be used for the intended use of can inner surface coating.
As to claim 5, Das teaches the use of curing agent (5:40-6:3).
As to claim 6, Das teaches the preferred monomers being acrylic and methacrylic acid (2:41-43), thus suggesting acrylic based polymers having carboxy groups.
As to claims 8 and 9, Das teaches the epoxy compound may be phenyl glycidyl ethers (2:55-56), which is a cyclic hydrocarbon/aromatic ring structure, and as such, is an obvious modification suggested by Das.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0047065 (“Becker”).
As to claim 4, the discussion of Becker with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference. Becker teaches forming the liquid polymer, then diluting in water (para. 0088), thus an emulsion. While Becker does not exemplify an additional polymer of no carboxy group, Becker teaches the addition of other hydroxyl functional polymers, including hydroxy functional polyurethanes, which do not require carboxy groups, and thus the addition of other resins not having carboxy functionality is contemplated by Becker (para. 0068).
As to claim 17, the discussion of Becker with respect to claim 13 is incorporated by reference. Becker teaches forming the liquid polymer, then diluting in water (para. 0088), thus an emulsion. While Becker does not exemplify an additional polymer of no carboxy group, Becker teaches the addition of other hydroxyl functional polymers, including hydroxy functional polyurethanes, which do not require carboxy groups, and thus the addition of other resins not having carboxy functionality is contemplated by Becker (para. 0068). Such a composition would result in a composite polymer when coated.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,818,796 (“Das”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2006/0047065 (“Becker”).
As to claim 11, Das does not teach the recited Mn range. However, Das teaches Mw of up to 15000, which includes Mn in the recited range. Furthermore, Becker teaches aqueous compositions of similar modified resins, and teaches a Mn of 1500 to 6000 as suitable for water reducible acrylic polymers (para. 0027), and as such, the use of polymers including in the recited Mn range are an obvious modification in view of Das and Becker.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,818,796 (“Das”) as applied to claim 6, further in view of US 2006/0047065 (“Becker”).
As to claim 12, Das does not teach the recited Mn range. However, Das teaches Mw of up to 15000, which includes Mn in the recited range. Furthermore, Becker teaches aqueous compositions of similar modified resins, and teaches a Mn of 1500 to 6000 as suitable for water reducible acrylic polymers (para. 0027), and as such, the use of polymers including in the recited Mn range are an obvious modification in view of Das and Becker.
As to claim 13, Das teaches modification with monoepoxy compounds (2:44-65).
As to claim 14, Das teaches a curing agent (5:40-45).
As to claim 16, while not exemplified, Das teaches the epoxy compound may be phenyl glycidyl ether (2:55-56).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,818,796 (“Das”) in view of US 2006/0047065 (“Becker”) as applied to claim 14, further in view of US 4,351,928 (“Smith”).
As to claim 15, Das teaches curing agents, but does not discuss phenol resins. However, it is known to use phenolic resins are used to cure hydroxyl bearing polymers as an alternative to aminoplast curing agnets (2:1-5), including acrylic polyols, and as such, the use of phenolic curing agents is a known curing agent for such resins.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,818,796 (“Das”) in view of US 2006/0047065 (“Becker”) as applied to claim 13, further in view of US 2006/0099429 (“Domes’).
As to claims 18 and 19, Das in view of Becker does not discuss a Tg of a coating film of the coating material, or the polymer. However, Domes teaches coatings for metal, and teaches film forming agents having Tg in the range of 10 to 70 degrees C are suitable for forming coating films, and as such, the adjustment of the polymer and coating film in the recited range is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for preparing metal coatings (Domes, paras. 0130-0131).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights