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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/757,471, filed on 16 June 2022.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurokawa (JP 2002347170 A, hereinafter “Kurokawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Kurokawa teaches a resin-coated metal sheet and cans made thereof (see paragraph 0001), wherein the cans are made through a drawing and ironing process (see paragraph 0004). Kurokawa further teaches the coating as containing a polyester resin as a main component on at least an inner surface of the can (see paragraph 0003 teaching polyester; see paragraph 0017 teaching the coating as being applied to “at least one surface”, which indicates it can be applied to both surfaces and thus necessarily includes embodiments where it is applied to at least an inner surface of the can). Kurokawa fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein a water contact angle of a surface of the coating layer is 80° or more and 100° or less, but this limitation is inherent to Kurokawa’s composition.
Kurokawa teaches the polyester resin as most preferably polyethylene terephthalate (PET, see paragraph 0021), wherein the resin is mixed with 0.2–1.0 wt.% carnauba wax (see paragraphs 0022 and 0023), coated on the metal substrate to a thickness of 3–30 µm (see paragraph 0026), and heat treated at 220 °C (see paragraph 0036). In Applicants’ Specification, pg. 21, Table 1, Sample A1 has a single inner layer comprising 99% PET and 1 wt.% carnauba wax at a thickness of 21 µm. This embodiment is encompassed by Kurokawa’s disclosure. Furthermore, in Applicants’ Specification, pg. 28, Table 2, Sample A1 has a water contact angle of 90° after heat treatment, wherein the heat treatment takes place at 220 °C (see Specification, paragraph 0077). Because Kurokawa’s composition and processing conditions overlap with Applicants’ own composition and processing conditions, Kurokawa’s product is considered compositionally identical to Applicants’, and thus must inherently have the same properties, including water contact angle (see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency of compositions). Kurokawa is therefore considered to anticipate each and every limitation of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa.
Regarding claim 2, Kurokawa teaches the resin-coated drawn and ironed can according to claim 1, and further teaches the limitation wherein the coating layer has a thickness of 10 µm or more and 25 µm or less (see paragraph 0026 teaching a thickness of 3–30 µm; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). Kurokawa fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the coating layer has a surface indentation modulus of 2000 MPa or more and 3400 MPa or less, but this limitation is inherent to Kurokawa’s composition.
As detailed in the above rejection of claim 1, Kurokawa teaches a product that is compositionally identical to Sample A1 of Applicants’ disclosure (see Specification, Tables 1 and 2). Sample A1 is recited as having an inner surface indentation modulus of 2290 MPa, which indicates that Kurokawa’s composition inherently has the same surface indentation modulus (see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency of compositions). Kurokawa is therefore considered to teach each and every limitation of claim 2. Thus, claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Thu, Sat, Sun from 7 AM to 5 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights