DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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:
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.
Claims 1-6 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa (US 2018/0345317).
Re claims 1-6, Hirasawa discloses lubricated stainless steel sheet [14(6)] comprising lubricating coating material on steel sheet [17] where the lubricating coating comprises acrylic resin [18] and polyethylene wax [19]. The coating amount after drying is 0.8 – 2 g/m2 [35].
Given that the lower limit of the coating amount is 0.8 g/m2, the area fraction of thin film portions in which the coating weight is 0.14 g/m2 or less is 0% and there would be no (0 µm2) area that had such thin films portions. Further, absence of evidence of criticality regarding how the area fraction is determined and give that Hirasawa meets the area fraction as claimed, claims 3-4 are considered met.
In light of the overlap between the claimed resin-coated steel sheet and that disclosed by Hirasawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a resin-coated steel sheet that is both disclosed by Hirasawa and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Re claims 7-15, the wax has a mean particle diameter of less than 1 micron [21] and is present in the lubricated coating material in an amount of 20-50 parts with respect to 100 parts acrylic resin [22]. Therefore, the amount of wax in the composition would necessarily overlap that claimed.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa (US 2018/0345317) in view of Kikuchi JP2000254583.
Hirasawa is relied upon above.
Re claims 16-18, There is no disclosure in Hirasawa of dispersant as claimed.
Kikuchi discloses resin coated steel sheet [1] comprising 5-40 wt.% anionic resin in order to produce composition with good adhesion and corrosion resistance [22].In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
In light of the motivation for using anionic resin disclosed by Kikuchi as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include the anionic resin in lubricating coating material of Hirasawa in order to produce material with good adhesion and corrosion resistance.
In view of the forgoing, the above claims have failed to be patently distinguishable over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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 at 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights