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 § 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 36, 37 and 43 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 2008/0017642 A1 to 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 Siles 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 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 be segmented with a stepped shape 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 15, 17, 24, 29, 33, 35 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Go in view of US 2014/0298641 A1 to Siles (cited in 892 dated July 31, 2020) in further view of King.
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 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 be segmented with a stepped shape 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 Siles are the same as threads formed by EMF).
Regarding claim 41, modified Go teaches 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated July 15, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 15, 17, 24, 29, 33, 35-37 and 40 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2008/0017642 A1 to King (it is noted that this is a different King reference than the one cited in the previous rejection).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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