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 with traverse of Group A, claims 1-8 and 19, in the reply filed on 29 Jun. 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues that the Office Action mailed 02 Mar. 2026 did not show that there would be a serious burden to search and examine the two groups of claims at the same time.
However, as stated in paragraph 4 of the Requirement for Restriction/Election Office Action of 02 Mar. 2026, there is an examination and search burden for the product and method, since they would require different classes/subclasses and different search queries, for example, the concepts of curtain coating, cooling, stoving, and a chromium-free pre-treatment are concepts only involving the method claims.
Given that applicant has not persuasively pointed out any errors in the restriction requirement, it is the examiner’s position that the requirement remains proper and is therefore maintained. The requirement is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 with traverse in the reply filed on 29 Jun. 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Glass transition temperature should be written out the first time it is introduced rather than simply Tg. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 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.
It is not clear how the claimed composition has a glass transition temperature of at least 85°C. The compositions of the polymers and copolymers comprising the current invention are dominated by ethylene or propylene, and the homopolymers of these olefin monomers have glass transition temperatures of -125 to -80°C and -20 to 0°C, respectively. Applicant has provided no teaching examples with glass transition temperatures of at least 85°C, and applicant teaches the preferred ethylene copolymer compositions have AA or MAA contents of 3-30 wt.%, more preferably 7-20 wt.% (Specification of the current invention, paragraph 0040). However, Wakabayashi and Register (“Micromechanical interpretation of the modulus of ethylene-(meth)acrylic acid copolymers,” Polymer, Vol. 46, pp. 8838-8845, published 23 Jun. 2005, hereinafter Wakabayashi) reports the glass transition temperature of an E-MAA copolymer with 30 wt.% MAA is about 305 K (32°C) (page 8841, Figure 3). Examiner notes that the specification of the current invention further discloses that a glass transition temperature of at least 130°C is preferable (paragraph 0028). Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morris (US Patent Application 2002/0198323 A1, published 26 Dec. 2002, hereinafter Morris).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Morris teaches a low-acid ethylene copolymer-LDPE blend for extrusion coating of aluminum foil, in which the blend contains 5 to 45 wt.% low acid ethylene copolymer, 95 to 55 wt.% LDPE, and small amounts of processing aids, and the low-acid ethylene copolymer comprises 0.1 to 4 wt.% (meth)acrylic acid (Title, Abstract and paragraphs 0010-0021).
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Walton (US Patent Application 2016/0325534 A1, published 10 Nov. 2016, hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-8, Hu teaches multi-layer film for extrusion coating of aluminum (Abstract and paragraphs 0005 and 0093), in which the tie layer of the multi-layer film comprises a crystalline block composite (CBC), a carboxylated olefin copolymer, and a polyolefin-based elastomer (paragraphs 0016), in which the carboxylated olefin copolymer is a copolymer of ethylene and acrylic or methacrylic acid (paragraphs 0028). Hu teaches the comonomers in the carboxylated olefin copolymer is present in the range of 0.05 to 30 wt.% (paragraphs 0029-0030). Hu teaches the polyolefin-based elastomer is a polypropylene-α-olefin copolymer (paragraph 0054), and this elastomer is present in the amount of 10 to 30 wt.%. Hu teaches the crystalline block composite comprises 40 to 90 wt.% of the tie layer (paragraph 0027), and the carboxylated-olefin copolymer comprises 30 to 60 wt.% of the tie layer (paragraph 0052). Hu teaches the grafted ethylene polymer is LDPE, LLDPE, MDPE, or HDPE (paragraph 0031). Hu teaches his composition comprises a UV stabilizer in the amount of 0 to 1 wt.% (paragraph 0088). Thus, Hu teaches embodiments in which the elastomer is present in an amount of less than 5 wt.% and the elastomer and UV stabilizer are present in a total amount of less than 20 wt.%.
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 relative amounts of CBC, carboxylated olefin copolymer, and elastomer and relative amount of comonomer in the carboxylated olefin copolymer from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Hu because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
In light of the overlap between the claimed polymer composition for extrusion coating of metal sheets and that disclosed by Hu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polymer composition for extrusion coating of metal sheets that is both disclosed by Hu and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US Patent Application 2002/0198323 A1, published 26 Dec. 2002, hereinafter Morris).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 8, Morris teaches a low-acid ethylene copolymer-LDPE blend for extrusion coating of aluminum foil, in which the blend contains 5 to 45 wt.% low acid ethylene copolymer, 95 to 55 wt.% LDPE, and small amounts of processing aids, and the low-acid ethylene copolymer comprises 0.1 to 4 wt.% (meth)acrylic acid (Title, Abstract and paragraphs 0010-0021).
It is the examiner’s position that Morris’s statement that small amounts of processing aids are included in the composition would mean that embodiments of Morris’s composition would have each of these additives present in an amount less than 5 wt.%, and the total amount of these processing aids would be present in a total amount of less than 20 wt.%.
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 relative amounts of low acid ethylene copolymer and LDPE and relative amount of (meth)acrylic acid monomer in the low acid ethylene copolymer from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Morris because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Claims 1-3. 5-6, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levendusky et al. (US Patent Application 2002/0102355 A1, published 01 Aug. 2002, hereinafter Levendusky) in view of Morris (US Patent Application 2002/0198323 A1, published 26 Dec. 2002, hereinafter Morris).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 19, Levendusky teaches an apparatus for coating metal strips for can ends (Abstract). Levendusky teaches the coating comprises polyethylene (paragraph 0025).
Levendusky does not disclose the use of olefin-acid functional monomer copolymer blended with another olefin polymer.
Morris teaches a low-acid ethylene copolymer-LDPE blend for extrusion coating of aluminum foil, in which the blend contains 5 to 45 wt.% low acid ethylene copolymer, 95 to 55 wt.% LDPE, and small amounts of processing aids, and the low-acid ethylene copolymer comprises 0.1 to 4 wt.% (meth)acrylic acid (Title, Abstract and paragraphs 0010-0021).
It is the examiner’s position that Morris’s statement that small amounts of processing aids are included in the composition would mean that embodiments of Morris’s composition would have each of these additives present in an amount less than 5 wt.%, and the total amount of these processing aids would be present in a total amount of less than 20 wt.%.
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 relative amounts of low acid ethylene copolymer and LDPE and relative amount of (meth)acrylic acid monomer in the low acid ethylene copolymer from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Morris because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Given that Levendusky and Morris are drawn to extrusion coating of aluminum with polyolefins, 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 low-acid ethylene copolymer-LDPE blend as taught by Morris as the polyethylene coating in the process for coating aluminum can ends taught by Levendusky. Since Levendusky and Morris are both drawn to extrusion coating of aluminum with polyolefins, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the low acid-ethylene copolymer-LDPE blend as taught by Morris as the polyethylene coating in the process for coating aluminum can ends taught by Levendusky. Further, Morris teaches his blend is suitable for coating a polar substrate in a high-speed coating process, including aluminum foil (paragraphs 0010 and 0022),
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights