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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine the inkjet methods of Till (US 2016/0221357, hereafter Till ‘357) and Bullington et al. (US 2020/0316935, hereafter Bullington ‘935) with the screen printing method Lovern ‘727 because they are different types of printing. This is not found persuasive because Lovern ‘727, Till ‘357, and Bullington ‘935 all teach methods of coating beverage containers by printing, as discussed in the previous action and below.
Claim Rejections - 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovern (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0323727, hereafter Lovern ‘727) in view of Till (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0221357, hereafter Till ‘357), Bullington et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0316935, hereafter Bullington ‘935), and Araki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0043706, hereafter Araki ‘706).
Claims 1, 8, and 11: Lovern ‘727 teaches a method of decorating a stainless steel surface (abstract) comprising:
providing a steel surface (step 800) (abstract, claim 1, Fig. 10, [0084]);
applying a powder coating onto the steel surface (step 810) (abstract, claims 1-2, Fig. 10, [0084]), where the powder coat powder can be a polyester resin ([0062]);
curing the powder coating to obtain a powder coated steel surface (step 820) (abstract, claim 1, Fig. 10, [0084]);
applying a design layer (step 830), where the design layer can be applied by printing a curable ink onto the powder coated steel surface (Fig. 10, [0077], [0084]), and
curing the curable ink (Fig. 10, [0077], [0084]).
Lovern ‘727 further teaches that the method is for a beverage container (abstract).
With respect to claim 1, Lovern ‘727 does not explicitly teach that the curable ink is a UV curable ink, that printing occurs at 2.3 to 2.7 rotations per second, or that printing occurs at a distance of 0.8 mm to 1.1 mm.
Till ‘357 teaches a method of coating a beverage container (abstract, [0002], [0005]). Till ‘357 teaches that when printing on the beverage container, the rotational speed can be optimized for a given shape and size of the container and affects wear of the printing device and quality of the print image ([0004], [0022], [0035]). Both Till ‘357 and Lovern ‘727 teach method of coating a beverage container (‘727, abstract; ‘357, abstract, [0002], [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the rotational speed during printing in the method taught by Lovern ‘727 because, when printing on the beverage container, the rotational speed can be optimized for a given shape and size of the container and affects wear of the printing device and quality of the print image, as taught by Till ‘357. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
With respect to claim 1, the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 do not explicitly teach that the curable ink is a UV curable ink, or that printing occurs at a distance of 0.8 mm to 1.1 mm.
Bullington ‘935 teaches a method of coating drinkware (abstract, [0015]). Bullington ‘935 teaches that, during printing, the distance between a print head and object to be printed affects quality of image ([0015]). Both Bullington ‘935 and Lovern ‘727 teach methods of coating drinkware (‘727, abstract; ‘935, abstract, [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the printing distance during printing in the method taught by the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 because the distance between a print head and object to be printed affects quality of image, as taught by Bullington ‘935. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
With respect to claim 1, the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 do not explicitly teach that the curable ink is a UV curable ink.
Araki ‘706 teaches a method of coating a beverage container (abstract) comprising printing a curable ink on the beverage container (abstract). Araki ‘706 teaches that the curable ink can be a UV curable ink (abstract, [0119]). Araki ‘706 teaches that this ink provides excellent separation properties from a substrate and excellent water resistance ([0010], [0011]). Both Araki ‘706 and Lovern ‘727 teach method of coating a beverage container (‘727, abstract; ‘706, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the UV curable ink taught by Araki ‘706 as the curable ink used in the method taught by the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 because this ink provides excellent separation properties from a substrate and excellent water resistance, as taught by Araki ‘706.
With respect to claim 8, the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 also read on the stainless steel surface formed by this method.
With respect to claim 11, the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 also read on the stainless steel container made by this method, where the container has an interior surface and a decorated exterior surface (Fig. 1).
Claim 2: Lovern ‘727 teaches that applying the powder coat onto the steel surface can comprise first charging the steel surface ([0070], [0079], [0084]).
Claim 3: Lovern ‘727 teaches that the method can further comprise, after printing ink onto the powder coated steel surface, applying and curing a second powder coat (step 840) (abstract, claim 1, Fig. 10, [0084]).
Claim 5: Lovern ‘727 teaches that curing the powder coating can comprise baking the powder coating on the steel surface ([0070]).
With respect to claim 5, the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 do not explicitly teach that the baking is at a temperature of about 150°C to about 200°C.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by Lovern ‘727 only in the powder coating baking temperature, and it has been held that, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that said temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 6: With respect to claim 6, the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 do not explicitly teach that the UV light wavelength is 390 nanometers.
Araki ‘706 teaches a method of coating a beverage container (abstract) comprising printing a curable ink on the beverage container and curing it (abstract). Araki ‘706 teaches that the curable ink can be cured by UV light with a wavelength of 300 nm to 400 nm ([0339]). Araki ‘706 teaches that this cured ink provides excellent separation properties from a substrate and excellent water resistance ([0010], [0011]). Both Araki ‘706 and Lovern ‘727 teach method of coating a beverage container (‘727, abstract; ‘706, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure the UV curable ink with UV light with a wavelength of 300 nm to 400 nm as taught by Araki ‘706 in the method taught by the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 because this cured ink provides excellent separation properties from a substrate and excellent water resistance, as taught by Araki ‘706.
With respect to claim 6, the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 do not explicitly teach that the UV light wavelength is 390 nanometers.
However, the claimed UV light wavelength of 390 nanometers is obvious over the UV light wavelength of 300 nm to 400 nm taught by the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10: Lovern ‘727 teaches that the stainless steel surface can further comprise a fourth layer comprising a second powder coating (step 840) (abstract, claim 1, Fig. 10, [0084]).
Claim 12: Lovern ‘727 teaches that the exterior stainless steel surface can further comprise a third layer comprising a second powder coating (step 840) (abstract, claim 1, Fig. 10, [0084]).
Claim 14: Lovern ‘727 teaches that the container can further comprise a lid (Fig. 9, [0019]).
Claim 16: Lovern ‘727 teaches that the container can be configured to hold beverage (abstract).
Claim 17: Lovern ‘727 teaches that the container can be a tumbler ([0004], [0007], [0065]).
Claim 18: Lovern ‘727 teaches that the powder coating can be a clear powder ([0021]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovern ‘727 in view of Till ‘357, Bullington et al. ‘935, and Araki et al. ‘706 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0225212, hereafter Wong ‘212).
The modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 7, they do not explicitly teach that the method further comprises washing the stainless steel surface prior to applying the powder coat.
Wong ‘212 taches a method of coating a beverage container (title, [0008]. [0010]). Wong ‘212 teaches that the method can include washing the surfaces of the beverage container before applying coatings ([0032]). Wong ‘212 teaches that this removes contaminants such as lubricants and prepares the surface for coating ([0008], [0032]). Both Wong ‘212 and Lovern ‘727 teach methods of coating a beverage container (‘727, abstract; ‘212, title, [0008]. [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of washing the surfaces of the beverage container before applying coatings taught by Wong ‘212 to the method taught by the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 because it removes contaminants such as lubricants and prepares the surface for coating, as taught by Wong ‘212.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovern ‘727 in view of Till ‘357, Bullington et al. ‘935, and Araki et al. ‘706 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rane et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0242765, hereafter Rane ‘765).
The modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 teach the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. With respect to claim 15, they do not explicitly teach that the stainless steel container further comprises a sealed vacuum cavity between the interior surface and exterior surface.
Rane ‘765 teaches a beverage container (abstract) comprising an exterior surface and an interior surface (abstract, Fig. 2B). Rane ‘765 teaches that the beverage container can comprise a sealed vacuum cavity between the exterior surface and interior surface (abstract, Fig. 2B). Rane ‘765 teaches that the sealed vacuum cavity forms an insulated double wall structure ([0005]). Both Rane ‘765 and Lovern ‘727 teach beverage containers (‘727, abstract; ‘765, abstract) comprising an exterior surface and an interior surface (‘727, Fig. 1; ‘765, abstract, Fig. 2B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sealed vacuum cavity between the exterior surface and interior surface taught by Rane ‘765 to the container taught by the modified teachings of Lovern ‘727 because the sealed vacuum cavity forms an insulated double wall structure, as taught by Rane ‘765.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, and 13 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 fails to teach or render obvious a method of decorating a stainless steel surface wherein the polyester resin comprises a dimethylbenzene-1,3-dicarboxylate, 2,3-dimethylterephthalic acid, and ethane-1,2-diol as to the context of claim 4.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious a decorated stainless steel surface wherein the powder coating comprises a dimethylbenzene-1,3-dicarboxylate, 2,3-dimethylterephthalic acid, and ethane-1,2-diol as to the context of claims 9 and 11.
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 BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713