DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 12-20 in the reply filed on 2-5-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I-III are not distinct. This is not found persuasive because the Group III container claims 21-27 do not require a search for the production line of Group II claims and the production method of Group I claims including uncoiling, cutting, trimming, washing, drying, curing, necking and palletizing. Applicant’s arguments (response 2-5-2026; page 9, last paragraph and page 10, first paragraph) concerning Groups I and II are accepted and those groups (claims 1-20) are examined in this office action.
The restriction requirement is made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,6,9,10,12,13,15,18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eve et al. (WO 2023/107305) in view of Beyer et al. (3,952,698). Regarding claims 1,10 and 12, Eve discloses a method and system for manufacturing a metallic container in a production line (Fig. 1; [0021], lines 23-25) comprising an uncoiler (102) to uncoil an aluminum metallic sheet from a coil ([0021], lines 30-31), a cupper (104) to receive the metallic sheet from the uncoiler (102) and configured to cut a circular blank from the metallic sheet and form the circular blank into a cup ([0021], lines 31-33), a bodymaker (106) configured to push the cup through tooling to redraw and iron the cup to form the container body ([0022], lines 4-10), a trimmer (108) downstream from the bodymaker (106) configured to trim an open end of the container body ([0022], 22-24), a washer (110) downstream from the trimmer (108) to wash the container body ([0023], lines 25-27), a dry-off oven (112) downstream from the washer (110) to dry the container body ([0024], lines 3-5), an internal coater (118) downstream from the dry-off oven (112) configured to apply an internal coating (lacquer) to an inner surface of the container body ([0026], lines 15-19), an internal bake oven (120) downstream from the internal coater (118) configured to cure the internal coating ([0026], line 20), a necker (122) downstream from the internal bake oven (120) configured to form a neck on the open end of the container body ([0027], lines 21-25) and a palletizer (124) downstream from the necker (122) configured to place the container body onto a pallet ([0027], lines 28-30).
Eve discloses that the internal lacquer coating is applied by an applicator (118; [0026]) and that the internal coating is a corrosion inhibitor which prevents leeching and reacting with a beverage but does not disclose multiple coating application sites. Beyer teaches multiple coating applicator stations including a precoating station in a first area (post cleaning Zone B) after a washer (Zone A, col. 8, lines 9-12) and one or more internal organic spray coating stations (13; col. 4, lines 28-33 and col. 8, lines 41-48) in a second area comprising a coating station (7). Regarding claims 2,4,6,13 and 15, Beyer teaches precoating after the washing and prior to drying (section C) of the container body (col. 8, lines 9-12) and teaches that the one or more internal organic spray coating stations (13) are configured to apply an internal coating (K) into a metallic container (X), the internal coating is configured to be applied by multiple coating applicators (67) in the coating station (7; col. 13, lines 17-22). Beyer teaches three different spray coatings (col. 6, lines 18-30). Regarding claim 20, Beyer disclose applying 0.5-10 mg of coating (col. 13, lines 40-42). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present to modify the production line of Eve to include a plurality of internal coating locations configured to apply a corrosion inhibiting internal coating to the metallic container as taught by Beyer so as to apply the coating in stages for precoating and spray coating the cans at a plurality of different production line locations to promote a complete corrosion resistant coverage of the internal can body.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the claims set forth that a second area is different from a first area and Beyer teaches at least two areas (precoating and coating) that are different areas and it is an obvious matter of design choice as to which location the corrosion inhibitor is applied; precoating following the washing or main coating in the coating area as taught by Beyer.
Claim(s) 7,8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eve et al. (WO 2023/107305) in view of Beyer et al. (3,952,698) and further in view of Takegoshi et al. (7,824,750). Eve in view of Beyer does not disclose that different corrosion inhibitors are applied. Takegoshi teaches internal coating of a metal container (10) comprising internal coating with different corrosion inhibitors (12,13; col. 12, lines 18-30) wherein both of the corrosion inhibitors (12,13) are different from the lacquer coating of Eve. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to coat the internal container of Eve in view of Beyer with different corrosion inhibitors as taught by Takegoshi in order to create an internal, layered coating structure.
Claim(s) 3,5,11,14,16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eve et al. (WO 2023/107305) in view of Beyer et al. (3,952,698) and further in view of Prouvost et al. (2023/0416449). Eve in view of Beyer does not disclose applying a corrosion inhibitor comprising a polyphenol. Regarding claims 3,5,14 and 16, Prouvost teaches applying a corrosion inhibitor comprising a polyphenol ([0032]-[0034]) used as an internal coating for a metal food or beverage can (10; [0007]; [0106], lines 5-6; [0124]; [0126]) and is applicable for multi-layer coating [0125] wherein the polyphenol is applied to an internal surface of a formed metal can ([0127], lines 8-16; [0128]). Prouvost teaches curing after application of the corrosion inhibitor [0130] and the corrosion inhibitor [0137] is a coating that provides corrosion resistance when in prolonged contact with packaged food or beverage products. Regarding claims 11 and 19, Prouvost teaches [0132] multiple bonds including an oxygen containing hydroxyl group [0134] which is an (-OH) functional group, amino groups and carboxylic acid ([0143], lines 1-3) which is a (-COOH) functional group.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present to modify the production line of Eve in view of Beyer to include spray coating a corrosion inhibiting organic internal coating to the metallic container including a polyphenol as taught by Prouvost so as to coat the metallic container with a natural organic compound which is a non-pvc coating and non-bisphenol based coating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights