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 .
Drawing Objections
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abram, et al. (“Abram”) (U.S. Pat. 8,758,728).
Regarding claim 2, Abram discloses a container (col. 17, lines 42-45: “pressurized aluminum can”) containing an aqueous composition comprising one or more peroxides, wherein an internal surface of the container is coated with a polyamide-imide (PAM) (col. 17, line 44: “polyaminde-imide-lined aluminum can”), wherein the container is sealed with a valve (col. 22, lines 21-22) in which valve surfaces facing into the container do not contain a metal or are coated with a polyamide-imide (PAM) coating (col. 23, lines 47-48: “Among the materials that can be used in the manufacture of the various valve parts are plastic”).
Regarding claim 12, Abram discloses an apparatus capable of performing the following steps during normal use:
stabilizing a foam-forming aqueous composition comprising one or more peroxides (col. 1, lines 14-15: “benzoyl peroxide, in an aqueous, foamable suspension gel”) in a container (col. 17, lines 42-45: “pressurized aluminum can”), wherein the method comprises storing the composition in a container comprising a polyamide-imide (PAM) coating col. 17, line 44: “polyaminde-imide-lined aluminum can”).
Regarding claim 14, Abram discloses that the can contains a propellant. (col. 17, lines 42-56)
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, 3, 5, 7-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abram, et al. (“Abram”) (U.S. Pat. 8,758,728) in view of Sypula, et al. (“Sypula”) (U.S. Pat. 4,952,293).
Regarding claim 1, Abram discloses a pressurized container (col. 17, lines 42-45: “pressurized aluminum can”) containing a foam-forming aqueous composition comprising one or more peroxides (col. 1, lines 14-15: “benzoyl peroxide, in an aqueous, foamable suspension gel”), wherein an internal surface of the container is coated with a polyamide-imide (PAM) coating (col. 17, line 44: “polyaminde-imide-lined aluminum can”), wherein the container is obtainable by extrusion of a billet of aluminium or aluminium alloy (col. 17, lines 42-45: “pressurized aluminum can”).
Abram discloses that the can is coated with a polyamide-imide (PAM) coating but does not specify the thickness of the coating.
Sypula discloses that “polymer coatings of thicknesses which are less than about 51 micrometers are typically used in the metal finishing industry to protect the metals from corroding and to give them a decorative appearance” (col. 1, lines 11-14) and that the coating may be “poly(amide-imide)” (col. 5, lines 38-39)
Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teachings of Sypula to select a thickness of the polyamide-imide coating less than 51 micrometers, such as 0.1 micrometers to 5 micrometers, since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 3, Abram discloses that the can is coated with a polyamide-imide (PAM) coating but does not specify the thickness of the coating.
Sypula discloses that “polymer coatings of thicknesses which are less than about 51 micrometers are typically used in the metal finishing industry to protect the metals from corroding and to give them a decorative appearance” (col. 1, lines 11-14) and that the coating may be “poly(amide-imide)” (col. 5, lines 38-39) and the PAM coating has a number average molecular weight of from 1000 to 60,000. (Sypula: col. 26, lines 6-10: “35,000”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teachings of Sypula to select a thickness of the polyamide-imide coating less than 51 um, such as 0.1 um to 5 u, since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 5, Abram discloses that the can contains a propellant. (col. 17, lines 42-56)
Regarding claim 7, Abram, as modified by Sypula, discloses the PAM coating has a number average molecular weight of from 1000 to 60,000. (Sypula: col. 26, lines 6-10: “35,000”)
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Abram, as modified by Sypula, discloses the coating is applied by spray coating. (Sypula: col. 25, lines 5-6)
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Abram discloses that the foam-forming aqueous composition further comprises surfactants. (col. 3, line 53)
Regarding claim 16, Abram discloses that the can is coated with a polyamide-imide (PAM) coating but does not specify the thickness of the coating.
Sypula discloses that “polymer coatings of thicknesses which are less than about 51 micrometers are typically used in the metal finishing industry to protect the metals from corroding and to give them a decorative appearance” (col. 1, lines 11-14) and that the coating may be “poly(amide-imide)” (col. 5, lines 38-39) and the PAM coating has a number average molecular weight of from 1000 to 60,000. (Sypula: col. 26, lines 6-10: “35,000”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teachings of Sypula to select a thickness of the polyamide-imide coating less than 51 um, such as 0.1 um to 5 u, since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abram and Sypula as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kritzler (U.S. Pat. 10,010,072).
Regarding claim 4, Abram dispenses antifungal and antibacterial agents, which include benzoyl peroxide. Kritzler discloses a bactericidal and fungicidal compound wherein a peroxide may be hydrogen peroxide. (abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Abram’s peroxide with Kritzler’s peroxide, which is hydrogen peroxide, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known component of an bactericidal and fungicidal compound for another known component of an bactericidal and fungicidal compound with the expected results that the compound would by bactericidal and fungicidal. (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abram and Sypula as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meshberg (U.S. Pat. 2,867,358).
Regarding claim 6, Abram discloses that the container is an aluminum can (col. 17, lines 42-45: “pressurized aluminum can”) but does not specify the method of manufacture of the container; however, Meshberg teaches that aerosol cans may also be made from a process known as impact extrusion. (col. 2, lines 19-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to extrude the can from a piece of aluminum since the can would be seamless (col. 2, lines 19-25).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abram as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kritzler (U.S. Pat. 10,010,072).
Regarding claim 13, Abram dispenses antifungal and antibacterial agents, which include benzoyl peroxide. Kritzler discloses a bactericidal and fungicidal compound wherein a peroxide may be hydrogen peroxide. (abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Abram’s peroxide with Kritzler’s peroxide, which is hydrogen peroxide, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known component of a bactericidal and fungicidal compound for another known component of an bactericidal and fungicidal compound with the expected results that the compound would by bactericidal and fungicidal. (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abram as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Meshberg (U.S. Pat. 2,867,358).
Regarding claim 15, Abram discloses that the container is an aluminum can (col. 17, lines 42-45: “pressurized aluminum can”) but does not specify the method of manufacture of the container; however, Meshberg teaches that aerosol cans may also be made from a process known as impact extrusion. (col. 2, lines 19-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to extrude the can from a piece of aluminum since the can would be seamless (col. 2, lines 19-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights