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 .
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.
Claims 2, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams et al. (“Williams” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2004/0063600).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Williams discloses a method of stabilizing and storing a solution in a container (items 10, 14, figure 1) containing an aqueous composition comprising one or more peroxides (paragraph [0016]),
wherein an internal surface of the container is coated with a polyamide-imide (PAM) coating (paragraph [0013]),
wherein the container is sealed with a valve (items 12, 16, figure 2) in which valve surfaces facing into the container do not contain a metal (valves are made of polymer materials, paragraph [0012]); and
wherein the container is made of aluminum (paragraphs [0011], [0013]).
(NOTE: Only the limitation “the container is obtainable of aluminum or aluminum alloy” from the limitation “the container is obtainable by extrusion of a billet of aluminum or aluminum alloy” is given patentable weight. The rest of the language is product-by-process limitation because it describes how a product is manufactured and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 14, Williams discloses that the internal pressure of the container is higher than the external, ambient pressure (container chamber is pressurized to 45 psi, which is higher than atmospheric pressure, paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 15, Williams discloses that the container is suitable for expelling the composition as an aerosol (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Williams discloses that the one or more peroxides comprises at least one of hydrogen peroxide (paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Williams discloses that the container contains a propellant (paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 19, Williams discloses that the coating can be applied by spraying (sprayed on coatings, paragraph [0013]).
(NOTE: Only the limitation “the coating” from the limitation “the coating is applied by spray coating and/or spin spray coating” is given patentable weight. The rest of the language is product-by-process limitation because it describes how a coating is applied and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP § 2113).
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Williams teaches a container made of aluminum and having a coating of polyamide-amide on its internal surface but does not explicitly teach that the coating has a thickness of from 0.1 μm to 5 μm.
However, such coatings are extremely thin as only a sufficient amount is needed to cover the internal surface of the container.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Williams such that that PAM coating has a thickness from 0.1 μm to 5 μm or any other suitable thickness desired by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it is obvious that coating of such material will fall into the claimed range because how thin theses coatings have to be to prevent having a caked-on layer of PAM material on the internal surface of the containers.
Regarding claim 4, Williams teaches that the internal pressure of the container is higher than the external, ambient pressure (container chamber is pressurized to 45 psi, which is higher than atmospheric pressure, paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Williams teaches that the container is suitable for expelling the composition as an aerosol (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Williams teaches that the one or more peroxides comprises at least one of hydrogen peroxide (paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Williams teaches that the container contains a propellant (paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Williams teaches the PAM coating but is silent to it having a number average molecular weight of from 1000 to 60,000.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the PAM coating with appropriate molecular weight in the invention of Williams in the range of 1000 to 60,000 or any other suitable value since doing so only requires a routine skill in the art. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure recites that PAM coatings with appropriate molecular weight are preferred for optimal stabilizing effect on the peroxide. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would choose a PAM coating with such suitable values for optimizing the invention.
Regarding claim 9, Williams teaches that the coating can be applied by spraying (sprayed on coatings, paragraph [0013]).
(NOTE: Only the limitation “the coating” from the limitation “the coating is applied by spray coating and/or spin spray coating” is given patentable weight. The rest of the language is product-by-process limitation because it describes how a coating is applied and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP § 2113).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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, 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights