DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see page 2, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the limitations individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Macor (WO
2008/152137)
Macor teaches a metal substrate, that is decorated (abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macor (WO 2008/152137).
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Macor teaches a process for decorating a metal substrate, wherein the process comprises the following steps when chosen from different embodiments:
a) Applying a coating composition to the metal substrate (page 13, lines 10-19);
b) Curing the coating composition applied in step a) at a temperature T1 for a time sufficient to obtain a tack-free coating (page 14, line 14 - line 24);
c) Printing the decoration on a polymer film using a digital printer (page 8, lines 10-11);
d) Laminating the polymer film with the decoration onto the coated metal substrate, whereby the decoration is positioned between the surface of the coated metal substrate and the polymer film (page 13, line 17 - page 14, line 2), and
e) During lamination heating to a temperature T2 and applying a pressure P1 (page 13, line 17 - page 14, line 2), and
f) After the lamination exposing the substrate to a temperature T3 a time sufficient to fully cure the coating (page 13, line 17 - page 14, line 2; claim 4).
With respect to claim 2, Macor teaches that the metal substrate is a thin metal plate (page 14, line 5).
With respect to claim 3, Macor teaches that the metal substrate, after lamination of the polymer film with the decoration, is formed into a container for food (page 13 line 19; page 15, line 19 - line 20).
With respect to claim 5, Macor teaches that the decoration is a multicolor decoration (page 8, line 10 - line 11).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macor, as applied to claim 1 above.
The teachings of claim 1 is as described above.
With respect to claim 4, as taught by Macor, the coating composition can be of any color and it would have been obvious to determine the color of the coating beforehand (Example 6).
With respect to claim 6, the particular nature of an adhesive employed, its composition, and/or physical properties would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on considerations of cost, availability, bond strength, mode of application or environmental preference. Typically, selection of the proper adhesive may be achieved in the course of routine experimentation, by reference to standard technical literature (e.g., Adhesive Age trade magazine, Adhesive Handbook), or through consultation with industrial or specialty adhesive suppliers (e.g. Dupont, Dura, Loctite, Lord, etc.)
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macor, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKinley et al. (US 3,444,732)
The teachings of claim 1 is as described above.
Although the claimed process parameters are not taught, it would have been the result of routine experimentation by a person having ordinary skill in the art because McKinley et al. teach that these are known parameters affecting adhesive strength in heat fusion bonding operations (column 1, line 61 - column 2, line 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA M SENGUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6019. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/SONYA M SENGUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights