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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 26, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 15, 17, 24, 29, 33, 35 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2017/0008656 A1 to Go (cited in 892 dated September 11, 2024) in view of US 2014/0298641 A1 to Siles (cited in 892 dated July 31, 2020) in further view of US 2008/0017642 A1 to King (cited in 892 dated February 26, 2026).
Regarding claim 15, Go teaches a product (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising:
a metal container 100 (Paras. [0016]-[0017]) comprising an upper portion 106, 108 and 110, a cylindrical body 104, and a domed bottom 102, 218 (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0018]-[0019]);
wherein the metal container is configured with a thread 114, 702 configured along the upper portion of the metal container (Figs. 1 and 7; Paras. [0018] and [0031]; the threads 702 are formed in the lip portion 114 of the upper portion, i.e., the upper portion),
wherein the metal container comprises a workpiece consisting of a 3xxx series aluminum alloy (Paras. [0016]-[0017]; the aluminum alloy is a 3xxxx series, e.g., AA3003, AA3004, AA3104, AA3105 or AA3204), and
wherein the workpiece thickness ranges from at least 0.003" to not greater than 0.039" (Para. [0026]; the thickness of the bottle is between 0.006” and 0.020”).
Go fails to explicitly teach a segmented thread comprising at least one vent slot and wherein the thread comprises a thickness of 0.0164" to 0.01682”. Go teaches the entire bottle has a thickness between 0.006” and 0.020”, but is silent regarding the thickness at the thread region.
King teaches a metal container (Para. [0029]) including segmented threads comprising at least one vent slot 51 configured along the upper portion of the metal container (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0079]; it is noted that while the vent slot is on the cap, the cap is attached to the upper portion of the metal container such that the threads on the upper portion of the container and the threads of the cap engage each other and the vent slot is present).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the threads of Go to include at least one vent slot as taught by King so that the top may be connected to the container securely while also allowing a pressure vent to prevent the closure from blowing off during unscrewing of the closure (King, Para. [0004]).
Siles teaches that the thickness of the thread region is a result effective variable. In particular, Siles teaches that “[t]he thickness of the thread region 266 is greater than a thickness of the body portion 252 of the metallic bottle 250, resulting in a stronger thread region 266” (Para. [0096]), and thus the thickness of the thread region is disclosed as a result effective variable in that the thickness of the thread region affects the strength of that region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Go by making the thickness of the thread region be between 0.0164" to 0.01682” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, modified Go teaches the product of claim 15 (Fig. 1; Abstract), wherein the workpiece comprises the metal container with a sidewall thickness of at least 0.003" that is formed from a sheet having a thickness of at least 0.006" (Para. [0026]; the thickness of the bottle is between 0.006” and 0.020”, i.e., greater than 0.003”).
It is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, and, as discussed in MPEP 2113, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present claim, the container is the same product as a container made from a sheet having a thickness of at least 0.006”.
Regarding claim 24, modified Go teaches the product of claim 23 (Fig. 1), wherein the 3xxx series aluminum is selected from the group consisting of AA3104, AA3004 and a combination thereof (Paras. [0016]-[0017]; the aluminum alloy is a 3xxxx series that may be AA3004 or AA3104).
Regarding claim 29, modified Go teaches the product of claim 37 (Fig. 1), wherein the workpiece comprises the metal container with a sidewall thickness of at least 0.003" that is formed from a sheet having a thickness of at least 0.006" (Para. [0026]; the thickness of the bottle is between 0.006” and 0.020”, i.e., greater than 0.003”).
It is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, and, as discussed in MPEP 2113, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present claim, the container is the same product as a container made from a sheet having a thickness of at least 0.006”.
Regarding claim 33, modified Go teaches the product of claim 37 (Fig. 1), wherein the AA series aluminum alloy is the 3xxx series aluminum alloy selected from the group consisting of AA3104, AA3004 and a combination thereof (Paras. [0016]-[0017]; the aluminum alloy is a 3xxxx series that may be AA3004 or AA3104).
Regarding claim 35, modified Go teaches the product of claim 15 (Fig. 1), wherein the metal container is configured as a bottle (Fig. 1; Para. [0018]), and wherein the upper portion comprises a neck 106, 108, and 110 (Fig. 1; Para. [0018]; the metal container is a bottle with an upper portion comprising a neck portion 106, 108, and 110).
Regarding claim 40, modified Go teaches the product of claim 15 (Fig. 1), wherein the segmented thread comprising the at least one vent slot configured along the upper portion of the metal container is an EMF feature (Figs. 1 and 7; Paras. [0018] and [0031]; the threads 702 are formed in the lip portion 114 of the upper portion, i.e., the upper portion, and, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, thus, as discussed in MPEP 2113, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The threads in Go are the same as threads formed by EMF).
Regarding claim 41, modified Go teaches the product of claim 15 (Fig. 1), wherein the metal container is a beverage container (Para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 42, modified Go teaches the product of claim 37 (Fig. 1).
Go fails to explicitly teach wherein the thread comprises a thickness of 0.0164" to 0.01682”. Go teaches the entire bottle has a thickness between 0.006” and 0.020”, but is silent regarding the thickness at the thread region.
Siles teaches that the thickness of the thread region is a result effective variable. In particular, Siles teaches that “[t]he thickness of the thread region 266 is greater than a thickness of the body portion 252 of the metallic bottle 250, resulting in a stronger thread region 266” (Para. [0096]), and thus the thickness of the thread region is disclosed as a result effective variable in that the thickness of the thread region affects the strength of that region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Go by making the thickness of the thread region be between 0.0164" to 0.01682” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 15 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Go in view of Siles in further view of US 5,207,341 A to Yeager.
Regarding claim 15, Go teaches a product (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising:
a metal container 100 (Paras. [0016]-[0017]) comprising an upper portion 106, 108 and 110, a cylindrical body 104, and a domed bottom 102, 218 (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0018]-[0019]);
wherein the metal container is configured with a thread 114, 702 configured along the upper portion of the metal container (Figs. 1 and 7; Paras. [0018] and [0031]; the threads 702 are formed in the lip portion 114 of the upper portion, i.e., the upper portion),
wherein the metal container comprises a workpiece consisting of a 3xxx series aluminum alloy (Paras. [0016]-[0017]; the aluminum alloy is a 3xxxx series, e.g., AA3003, AA3004, AA3104, AA3105 or AA3204), and
wherein the workpiece thickness ranges from at least 0.003" to not greater than 0.039" (Para. [0026]; the thickness of the bottle is between 0.006” and 0.020”).
Go fails to explicitly teach a segmented thread comprising at least one vent slot and wherein the thread comprises a thickness of 0.0164" to 0.01682”. Go teaches the entire bottle has a thickness between 0.006” and 0.020”, but is silent regarding the thickness at the thread region.
Yeager teaches a container (Abstract) including segmented threads 8 comprising at least one vent slot 16 configured along the upper portion of the container 3 (Fig. 3; Col. 4, Lns. 58-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the threads of Go to include at least one vent slot as taught by Yeager to permit the relief of internal pressures before the lid is fully removed (Yeager, Col. 4, Lns. 63-65).
Siles teaches that the thickness of the thread region is a result effective variable. In particular, Siles teaches that “[t]he thickness of the thread region 266 is greater than a thickness of the body portion 252 of the metallic bottle 250, resulting in a stronger thread region 266” (Para. [0096]), and thus the thickness of the thread region is disclosed as a result effective variable in that the thickness of the thread region affects the strength of that region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Go by making the thickness of the thread region be between 0.0164" to 0.01682” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 44, modified Go teaches the product of claim 15 (Fig. 1), wherein the at least one vent slot is configured in an axial direction (Yeager, Fig. 3; modified Go includes the vent slots of Yeager, and Fig. 3 of Yeager shows that the vent slots are configured in an axial direction).
Claims 36, 37 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Go in view of King.
Regarding claim 37, Go teaches a product (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising:
a metal container 100 (Paras. [0016]-[0017]) comprising an upper portion 106, 108 and 110, a cylindrical body 104, and a domed bottom 102, 218 (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0018]-[0019]);
wherein the metal container is configured with an EMF feature of a thread 114, 702 configured along the upper portion of the metal container, the EMG feature obtained by an electromagnetic force acting upon a workpiece and the workpiece being directed onto a support surface (Figs. 1 and 7; Paras. [0018] and [0031]; the threads 702 are formed in the lip portion 114 of the upper portion, i.e., the upper portion, and, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, thus, as discussed in MPEP 2113, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The threads in Go are the same as threads formed by an EMF process including an electromagnetic force acting upon a workpiece and the workpiece being directed onto a support surface),
wherein the metal container comprises the workpiece consisting of a 3xxx series aluminum alloy (Paras. [0016]-[0017]; the aluminum alloy is a 3xxxx series, e.g., AA3003, AA3004, AA3104, AA3105 or AA3204), and
wherein the workpiece thickness ranges from at least 0.003" to not greater than 0.039" (Para. [0026]; the thickness of the bottle is between 0.006” and 0.020”).
Go fails to explicitly teach a segmented thread comprising at least one vent slot.
King teaches a metal container (Para. [0029]) including segmented threads comprising at least one vent slot 51 configured along the upper portion of the metal container (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0079]; it is noted that while the vent slot is on the cap, the cap is attached to the upper portion of the metal container such that the threads on the upper portion of the container and the threads of the cap engage each other and the vent slot is present).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the threads of Go to include at least one vent slot as taught by King so that the top may be connected to the container securely while also allowing a pressure vent to prevent the closure from blowing off during unscrewing of the closure (King, Para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 36, modified Go teaches the product of claim 37 (Fig. 1), wherein the metal container is configured as a bottle (Fig. 1; Para. [0018]), and wherein the upper portion comprises a neck 106, 108, and 110 (Fig. 1; Para. [0018]; the metal container is a bottle with an upper portion comprising a neck portion 106, 108, and 110).
Regarding claim 43, modified Go teaches the product of claim 37 (Fig. 1), wherein the metal container is a beverage container (Para. [0018]).
Claims 37 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Go in view of Yeager.
Regarding claim 37, Go teaches a product (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising:
a metal container 100 (Paras. [0016]-[0017]) comprising an upper portion 106, 108 and 110, a cylindrical body 104, and a domed bottom 102, 218 (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0018]-[0019]);
wherein the metal container is configured with an EMF feature of a thread 114, 702 configured along the upper portion of the metal container, the EMG feature obtained by an electromagnetic force acting upon a workpiece and the workpiece being directed onto a support surface (Figs. 1 and 7; Paras. [0018] and [0031]; the threads 702 are formed in the lip portion 114 of the upper portion, i.e., the upper portion, and, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, thus, as discussed in MPEP 2113, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The threads in Go are the same as threads formed by an EMF process including an electromagnetic force acting upon a workpiece and the workpiece being directed onto a support surface),
wherein the metal container comprises the workpiece consisting of a 3xxx series aluminum alloy (Paras. [0016]-[0017]; the aluminum alloy is a 3xxxx series, e.g., AA3003, AA3004, AA3104, AA3105 or AA3204), and
wherein the workpiece thickness ranges from at least 0.003" to not greater than 0.039" (Para. [0026]; the thickness of the bottle is between 0.006” and 0.020”).
Go fails to explicitly teach a segmented thread comprising at least one vent slot.
Yeager teaches a container (Abstract) including segmented threads 8 comprising at least one vent slot 16 configured along the upper portion of the container 3 (Fig. 3; Col. 4, Lns. 58-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the threads of Go to include at least one vent slot as taught by Yeager to permit the relief of internal pressures before the lid is fully removed (Yeager, Col. 4, Lns. 63-65).
Regarding claim 45, modified Go teaches the product of claim 37 (Fig. 1), wherein the at least one vent slot is configured in an axial direction (Yeager, Fig. 3; modified Go includes the vent slots of Yeager, and Fig. 3 of Yeager shows that the vent slots are configured in an axial direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and remarks dated June 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of prior art in the Final Rejection dated February 26, 2026, fails to explicitly teach a metal container including a segmented thread comprising at least one vent slot configured along the top portion of the metal container, as recited in claims 15 and 37. Applicant in particular argues that King teaches a vent being placed on the threads of the cap attached to the container, Go teaches no such vents, and there is no motivation for placing a vent in the threads on the container itself. Remarks, PP. 6-7. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. As discussed in MPEP 2145(IV), "[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but rather a person having ordinary creativity that could use the teachings of one reference to modify another. See MPEP 2143.03 ("A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397). While Go teaches providing a metal container including a thread configured along the upper portion of the metal container (Final Rejection, PP. 2-3), King teaches that the threads used to attach closures to such containers may include a gas vent to prevent the closure from blowing off during unscrewing (Id. at 3). In both Go and King, the threads on the top of the metal container and the closure are used to attach the closure and container to each other. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thread in Go to include at least one vent slot to prevent the closure from blowing off as taught by King because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the vent slot may go on any of the threads to provide such a benefit and a person of ordinary creativity would recognize that such a feature could be provided on the threads of the container.
It is noted that while the previous grounds of rejection are maintained for the reasons discussed above, the independent claims have also been rejected in view of Yeager which explicitly teaches the vent slot being provided on the threads formed on the upper portion of the container (Fig. 3; Col. 4, Lns. 58-65) to further illustrate that this feature is known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights