DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 11-23 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
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.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 11-23 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026.
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(s) 6 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the “modified polyester” refers to: (i) the “modified copolyester” of the first layer; or (ii) the “modified copolyester” of the second layer.
Claim 6 may be subject to new or modified rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 after the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are resolved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• HASEGAWA ET AL (US 5,885,689),
in view of LI ET AL (US 2018/0347051).
HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 discloses polyester film-covered metal plates comprising:
(I) a laminated polyester film comprising:
(A) a first layer (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claim 2) comprising:
• a first aromatic copolyester (corresponding to the recited “modified copolyester” of the second layer) derived from:
• terephthalic acid;
• ethylene glycol;
• at least one subsidiary dicarboxylic acid (e.g., but not limited to, isophthalic acid, etc.) and/or at least one subsidiary glycol (e.g., but not limited to, cyclohexanedimethanol, etc.);
wherein the first aromatic copolyester has a melting point (Tm) of 210°C to 245°C;
• optional inert fine particles;
(B) a second layer (corresponding to the recited “first layer” of claim 2) comprising:
• 90-45 wt% of a second aromatic copolyester (corresponding to the recited “modified copolyester” of the first layer) derived from:
• terephthalic acid;
• ethylene glycol;
• at least one subsidiary dicarboxylic acid (e.g., but not limited to, isophthalic acid, etc.) and/or at least one subsidiary glycol (e.g., but not limited to, cyclohexanedimethanol, etc.);
with a Tm of 210°C to 252°C;
• 55-10 wt% of a third aromatic copolyester (alternatively corresponding to the “modified copolyester” of the first layer) with a Tm of 180-223°C.
wherein the laminated polyester film has a typical thickness 6-75 micron, wherein the thickness ratio of first layer (A) to second layer (B) is 0.02-0.67;
(II) a metal plate (e.g., tin-plated steel plate, etc.).
(entire document, e.g., line 5, col. 3 to line 6, col. 4; line 52, col. 4 to line 60, col. 5; line 17-61, col.6; line 47-54, col. 7; line 7-27, col. 9; etc.) However, the reference does not specifically mention the recited passivation film.
LI ET AL ‘051 discloses that it is well known in the art to apply a chromium-free passivation film to tinplate, wherein the chromium-free passivation film comprises:
• 0.1-20 wt% zinc;
• 5-30 wt% silicon;
in order to protect the tin layer from oxidation, wherein the chromium-free passivation film is formed from an aqueous surface-treating agent (corresponding to the recited “a solvent in the passivation treatment solution is water”) containing:
• 0.1-5 wt% of a zinc salt (e.g., zinc sulfate, zinc acetate, zinc nitrate, etc.);
• 5-30 wt% of organosiloxane or polysiloxane, wherein the organosiloxane or polysiloxane is obtained by the hydrolysis of an epoxy silane coupling agent;
wherein the surface-treating agent has a pH of 3-6. (entire document, paragraph 0001-0003, 0010-0015, 0018, 0021, 0023-0024, 0041, etc.)
Regarding claims 1, 8-10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known chromium-free passivated tinplate materials (as disclosed in LI ET AL ‘051) as the metal plate in the polyester film-covered metal plate of HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 in order to produce containers with excellent corrosion resistance and formability.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• HASEGAWA ET AL (US 5,885,689), in view of LI ET AL (US 2018/0347051),
as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of JANSSENS ET AL (US 2003/0064214).
JANSSENS ET AL ‘214 discloses that it is well known in the art to blend masterbatches containing polyethylene terephthalate (PET) carrier resin and additives into polyester film compositions in order to produce polyester films containing said additives. (paragraph 0049, 0095, etc.)
Regarding claims 2-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate effective amounts of masterbatches containing additives (e.g., inert particles, etc.) and PET carrier resins (as suggested in JANSSENS ET AL ‘214) (e.g., known and/or commercially available PET homopolyesters, etc.) in at least first layer (A) (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claim 2) of the laminated polyester film of HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 in order to facilitate the uniform dispersion of inert particles and other additives in the polyester film layers.
Further regarding claims 2-3, since:
(i) HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 discloses a first layer (A) (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claim 2) containing a first aromatic copolyester with a melting point (Tm) of 210°C to 245°C; and
(ii) PET homopolymers have typical melting points of 250-260°C; and
(iii) a mixture of polyester resins with different melting points generally exhibits multiple melting points, each of which are lower than the individual melting points of the pure polyester resins (i.e., melting point depression);
the Examiner has reason to believe that the first layer (A) (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claim 2) of HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 containing minor amounts of a masterbatch containing a PET homopolyester carrier resin would exhibit a range of melting points which at least partially overlap the second layer melting point range recited in claim 2 and optionally claim 3; therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594. Additionally and/or alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the melting point of the first layer (A) (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claim 2) of HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 based on the optimal heat resistance and mechanical properties desired for the outward-facing side of the laminated polyester film.
Further regarding claims 2-3, since:
(i) HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 discloses a second layer (B) (corresponding to the recited “first layer” of claim 2) comprising: 90-45 wt% of a second aromatic copolyester with a Tm of 210°C to 252°C; and 55-10 wt% of a third aromatic copolyester with a Tm of 180-223°C; and
(ii) a mixture of polyester resins with different melting points generally exhibit multiple melting points, each of which are lower than the individual melting points of the pure polyester resins (i.e., melting point depression);
the Examiner has reason to believe that the second layer (B) (corresponding to the recited “first layer” of claim 2) of HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 would exhibit a range of melting points which at least partially overlap the first layer melting point range recited in claim 2 and optionally claim 3; therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594. Additionally and/or alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the melting point of the second layer (B) (corresponding to the recited “first layer” of claim 2) of HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 based on the optimal heat-bonding and fusion properties for the metal-facing side of the laminated polyester film.
Further regarding claim 4, since: (i) HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 discloses laminated polyester films with a typical overall thickness of 6-75 micron, wherein the thickness ratio of first layer (A) (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claim 2) to second layer (B) (corresponding to the recited “first layer” of claim 2) is 0.02-0.67; HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 discloses laminated polyester films with individual layer thicknesses which at least partially overlap the claimed layer thicknesses recited in claim 4. For example, for an overall laminated film thickness of 27 microns and a (A)/(B) thickness ratio of 0.50, first layer (A) (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claim 2) has a thickness of 9 microns and second layer (B) (corresponding to the recited “first layer” of claim 2) has a thickness of 18 microns.
Regarding claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated minor amounts of other well-known modifying diols (e.g., neopentyl glycol, etc.) in one or more of the copolyesters in the laminated polyester films of HASEGAWA ET AL ‘689 in order to further adjust the crystallization characteristics and/or thermal properties (e.g., melting point, glass transition temperature, etc.) for specific applications.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• HASEGAWA ET AL (US 5,885,689), in view of LI ET AL (US 2018/0347051),
as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of EP 3363629 (KADOWAKI-JP ‘629).
KADOWAKI-JP ‘629 discloses that it is well known in the art to form tin-plated steel sheets by applying a tin-plated layer with a tin content of 0.2-12.0 g/m2 in order to produce steel materials with adequate corrosion resistance. (paragraph 0024-0029, etc.)
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate tin plated layers containing conventional amounts of tin (as disclosed in KADOWAKI-JP ‘629) in the chromium-free passivated tinplate materials of LI ET AL ‘051 in order to provide the tinplate with adequate corrosion resistance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 3725518 and KOSUGE ET AL (US 6,071,599) and XIE ET AL (US 2021/0371644) and CN 110920172 and NIEDERST ET AL (US 2011/0220645) and SATO ET AL (US 2018/0361715) and HEYES ET AL (US 4,957,820) and YABE ET AL(US 4,362,775) disclose polyester films for lamination to metal substrates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
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.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
July 25, 2026
/VIVIAN CHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights