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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group A, claims 1-8 without traverse in the reply filed on 15 Jan. 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 15 Jan. 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 2 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 2 recites “the can end stock exhibits no visible crazing” in line 1. It is not clear to what conditions the can end stock is subjected before evidence of crazing is to be assessed nor how “visible” crazing is to be assessed.
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan (EP 1165317 B1, published 04 Aug. 2004, hereinafter Brennan) in view of Wefers et al. (US Patent 5,103,550, published 14 Apr. 1992, hereinafter Wefers).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-8, Brennan teaches a metal sheet laminated with polymeric materials for a can component (paragraphs 0002 and 0061), comprising a metal layer, a heat-sealable layer (pretreatment coating), and a substrate layer (polymer film) (paragraph 0018 and Figures 1-2). Brennan teaches the substrate layer is a copolyester composed of 60-99 mol.% terephthalic acid of the diacid component and 100 mol.% ethylene glycol of the glycol component (paragraph 0021-0022). Brennan teaches the copolyesters of the substrate layer is in the range of 180 to 270°C (paragraph 0024), and the metal sheet of the laminate is aluminum (paragraph 0060). Brennan teaches that the resultant laminate is reheated (annealed) to a temperature in the range of 200 to 300°C (paragraph 0060).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a reheat (annealing) temperature from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Brennan because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Brennan teaches that the aluminum of the laminated sheet needs protection from food; therefore, it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would use Brennan’s laminate with the polymer film on the interior side of the can formed from Brennan’s can components.
Brennan does not disclose a pretreatment coating on his aluminum sheet.
Wefers teaches the inclusion of intermediate layer and a functional layers (pretreatment coating) on an aluminum alloy body for use in food or beverage containers (Abstract).
Given that Brennan and Wefers are drawn to aluminum-polymer laminates for food containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply intermediate and functional layers as taught by Wefers onto the aluminum sheet taught by Brennan. Since Brennan and Wefers are both drawn to aluminum-polymer laminates for food containers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying intermediate and functional layers as taught by Wefers to the aluminum sheet taught by Brennan. Further, Wefers teaches that his layers provide resistance to corrosion equivalent to conventional chromate conversion coatings (col. 10, lines 48-52), and his layers have high levels of adherence to the aluminum, which permits drawing and redrawing of the laminate for food containers (col. 3, lines 2-5).
Brennan in view of Wefers does not specifically disclose whether or not his can end stock exhibits visible crazing; however, Brennan does teach that his laminate may be subjected to high degrees of drawing without cracking or delamination of the film (paragraph 0061). It is the examiner’s position that Brennan’s (in view of Wefers) laminate’s lack of cracking and delamination would indicate that the laminate of Brennan in view of Wefers would not exhibit visible crazing.
Further, given the can component of Brennan in view of Wefers has the same polymer film, the same metal layer, the same pretreatment coating, and his can end stock is formed by the same process as the claimed invention, within the overlapping ranges, the can component of Brennan in view of Wefers would inherently have the same lack of crazing as the claimed invention, and therefore, would satisfy the claimed lack of visible crazing.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyes and Brown (US Patent 5,582,319, published 10 Dec. 1996, hereinafter Heyes) in view of Wefers et al. (US Patent 5,103,550, published 14 Apr. 1992, hereinafter Wefers).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-8, Heyes teaches a can end laminated metal sheet comprising an aluminum alloy sheet and a polyester coating (Abstract), and the polyesters used in his invention include polyethylene terephthalate and closely related copolyesters (col. 3, lines 64-65); his polyester film has an inner layer and an outer layer (polymer film) with a melting point of 230 to 260°C (col. 4, lines 45-50); his laminate is reheated (annealed) to a temperature 5 to 20°C below the melting point of the polyester in the outer layer (col. 5, lines 15-22); and embodiments of his laminate do not show crazing (col. 19, lines 38-40). Heyes teaches the polyester film (composed of inner and outer layers) are on both surfaces of his aluminum sheet (Figure 2A); therefore, the first side of the aluminum sheet is an interior-facing side of a can end.
Heyes does not disclose a pretreatment coating on his aluminum sheet.
Wefers teaches the inclusion of intermediate layer and a functional layers (pretreatment coating) on an aluminum alloy body for use in food or beverage containers (Abstract).
Given that Heyes and Wefers are drawn to aluminum-polymer laminates for food containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply intermediate and functional layers as taught by Wefers onto the aluminum sheet taught by Heyes. Since Heyes and Wefers are both drawn to aluminum-polymer laminates for food containers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying intermediate and functional layers as taught by Wefers to the aluminum sheet taught by Heyes. Further, Wefers teaches that his layers provide resistance to corrosion equivalent to conventional chromate conversion coatings (col. 10, lines 48-52), and his layers have high levels of adherence to the aluminum, which permits drawing and redrawing of the laminate for food containers (col. 3, lines 2-5).
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0326862 A1, published 16 Nov. 2017, hereinafter Spahn).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8, Spahn teaches an improved aluminum can end stock includes a laminated polymer coating on an interior-facing side, wherein the metal strip is raised to an annealing temperature above the melting point of the polymer; and the polymer film laminated to the metal strip is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (Abstract). Spahn teaches his aluminum is pretreated with a conversion coating (pretreatment coating) (paragraphs 0009 and 0111). Spahn teaches laminated aluminum strips annealed at or above 250°C (paragraph 0037). Spahn teaches that a polymer film can be applied to the surface of the metal strip or metal blank having the conversion layer (paragraph 0072); thus, Spahn teaches that his pre-treatment coating comprises a polymer film.
The only deficiency of Spahn is that Spahn disclose annealing at a temperature at or above 250°C, whereas the present claims require annealing at a temperature less than 250°C.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed annealing temperature and that taught by Spahn are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the annealing temperature disclosed by Spahn and the annealing temperature disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the annealing temperature disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the annealing temperature disclosed in Spahn, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Spahn does not disclose whether or not his can end stock exhibits visible crazing. However, given the can end stock of Spahn has the same polymer film, the same metal layer, and his can end stock is formed by the same process as the claimed invention, within the overlapping ranges, the can end stock of Spahn would inherently have the same lack of crazing as the claimed invention, and therefore, would satisfy the claimed lack of visible crazing.
In light of the overlap between the claimed process for preparing a crazing-resistant can end stock and that disclosed by Spahn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a process for preparing a crazing-resistant can end stock that is both disclosed by Spahn and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujii et al. (US Patent Application 2019/0351652 A1, published 21 Nov. 2019) teaches a polyester-aluminum laminate for beverage can ends, wherein the polyester has a melting point of 180 to 245°C. Heyes and Middleton (US Patent 5,059,460, published 22 Oct. 1991) teaches a polymer/metal/polymer laminate in which the laminate is annealed at a temperature below the melting of the polyester in an outer layer and the laminate does not show crazing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787