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 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 8 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 8 is dependent on claim 0. Claim 0 does not exist. Therefore, it is unclear and confusing what the scope of the claim should be and which claim limitations should be included into dependent claim 8. For examination purposes, claim 8 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 1.
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) 1-5, 9-12, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn et al US 2017/0326862.
Per claim 1, Spahn teaches a process for preparing a can end stock (Fig. 1, abstract, [0009]) comprising pre-heating a metal strip (802) to a first temperature below 250C [0009]; laminating a polymer film (824) to a first side of the metal strip, wherein the first side of the metal strip and applying a lacquer to a second side of the strip [0039]; and annealing the laminated metal strip at an annealing temperature greater than 175C [0010]. Spahn exemplifies that the first side is the interior and the second side is the exterior of the can but does not explicitly teach laminating on the exterior and applying a lacquer onto the interior side. However, Spahn clearly teaches that a metal strip can be laminated on one side and lacquered on the other side [0039] (note: there are only two possible configurations where this statement can be true). Spahn then exemplifies laminate interior and lacquer exterior but states that “other configurations can be used” [0039]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have laminated an exterior facing side and lacquered an interior facing side of the can with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results, as Spahn teaches that this configuration is suitable and envisaged in the process.
Per claim 2, Spahn teaches an aluminum strip [0062].
Per claim 3, Spahn teaches polyethylene terephthalate lamination to a metal strip [0121].
Per claim 4, Spahn teaches a layer that improves adhesion between the aluminum and film (interpreted as an adhesion layer) [0057].
Per claim 5, Spahn teaches that color can be included in the film [0038].
Per claims 9-10, Spahn teaches an annealing temperature of at, for example, 250C which falls within the claimed range [0049].
Per claim 11, Spahn teaches cooling the metal strip after annealing [0050].
Per claim 12, Spahn teaches application of a lubricant after exiting the annealing furnace [0055].
Per claim 24, Spahn teaches that an adhesion coating can be applied prior to the lacquer (between the metal strip and lacquer) [0057].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn et al US 2017/0326862 in view of Kawahara et al US 4828136.
Per claim 8, Spahn teaches application of a lacquer on an interior side of a strip but is silent regarding the claimed composition. Kawahara teaches process of forming and coating a can, wherein a an epoxy thermosetting resin is coated on the inside of the can on the adhesive paint (col. 3, lines 49-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized an epoxy resin as the lacquer because Kawahara teaches that an epoxy type resin shows excellent adhesion and is suitable for coating on an interior surface of cans (col. 3, lines 64-69).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art teaches laminating on the interior facing side and applying lacquer on the exterior side. As explained above, Spahn does exemplify this orientation of coatings on the can end, but also suggests the claimed arrangement (see above). As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
