Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 24 recites the limitation “filling the beverage can body…” and “sealing an end onto the beverage can body…”. The support for these limitations is found in [0002] and [0032] of the published application, which do not refer to the third embodiment as presented in [0033]. However, Applicant has stated that the third embodiment is a conventional beverage can, and [0002] and [0032] refer to a conventional beverage can, thus the filling and sealing steps are interpreted as being fully supported by the specification as originally filed and also applicant admitted prior art.
Claim 28 recites a psi rating for the can. This draws support from [0002], which describes a convention beverage can. Thus, Claim 28’s limitations are interpreted as applicants admitted prior art.
The structure of the base of a conventional can, specifically the inner wall, outer wall, stand annulus, and curved dome have been previously identified as applicant admitted prior art in the remarks and affidavit filed 04/29/2022. Specifically, Pages 6-8 of the remarks highlight this admission. Claims 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 contain limitations that are admitted prior art from these remarks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-19 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the response filed 02/09/2026, applicant amends Claims 16, 23 and 24 to modify the transitional phrase to “consisting of”. The remarks filed with the response do not indicate the support for this amendment. The support for the method steps comes from ¶0032 of applicant’s specification. There is no description in this paragraph of “only”, “solely”, “consisting of” or the like when discussing the method to indicate that other steps are excluded. Therefore, there is no explicit support for the exclusion of any separate method steps in the specification as originally filed and no explicit support for modifying the transitional phrases to “consisting of”.
Additionally, MPEP 2111.03(II) states “A claim which depends from a claim which “consists of” the recited elements or steps cannot add an element or step.”. Therefore, Claim 21 is improper as it adds an additional step to the “consisting of” method of Claim 16.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 23 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anthony (US 6817202) in view of Schneider (US 5232124).
Claim 23
Anthony teaches method of inserting a valve into a base (Figure 17 shows the insertion of the valve (30) into the base of the can.) of a beverage can body (Col. 2, Lines 22-23 or Col. 15, Lines 48-52 teach the invention pertains to a conventional beverage can body.), the method consisting of the steps of: positioning the beverage can body (Figure 17), the beverage can body comprising a hollow body having a base, an open top opposite the base, and a sidewall extending there between (Figure 17 shows the can has an open top opposite the base and a sidewall there between. See also Figure 11.); an aperture in the base and a valve seat disposed about the aperture (Col 15 Lines 55-58, Col. 17 Lines 34-36 and Figure 11 teach that there is a hole (108) in the center of the base. Figure 11 teaches the aerosol receptacle and valve assembly is placed on the area around the aperture, making it an analogous valve seat.), positioning a valve within the aperture so as to contact the valve seat (Anthony Col. 18 Lines 24-30 teach the insertion of the assembly of both the valve and aerosol propellant receptacle (20) as one, such that the placement of the assembly is a single step.) and wherein the base includes a concave curved dome. (Figure 11 teaches the domed bottom is curved between the stand annulus and the place where the valve is secured in the center.)
Anthony’s method includes steps of positioning a can (Figure 17) and positioning a valve assembly into the hole (108) at the bottom of the can as required by the closed transitional phrase “consisting of”.
Anthony does not disclose piercing an aperture in the base so as to form a retention barb disposed about the aperture, the aperture and the retention barb being formed in a single operation, and wherein the piercing step includes: drawing a cut edge outwards to create the retention barb.
However, Schneider teaches piercing an aperture in the base so as to form a retention barb disposed about the aperture, the aperture and the retention barb being formed in a single operation, and wherein the piercing step includes: drawing a cut edge outwards to create the retention barb. (Col. 4, Lines 48-53 teach the formation of a hole (12) in the bottom of the can body via a punching step that also forms a burr (42). Figure 3 teaches the burr (42) extends axially outward from the curved dome.) Schneider’s method includes sequential steps of positioning the container (Figure 1), piercing an opening (Col. 4, Lines 48-53), and inserting a valve (Figure 3). The method does not contain extra steps and thus meets the requirements of the closed transitional phrase “consisting of” in Claim 23.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known piercing and retention barb formation technique from Schneider to the method of Anthony in order to form both in one operation, which increases the efficiency of the process, and form a chamfer which helps to ease the movement of the device (valve) into the opening. (See Schneider Col. 4, Lines 48-53) This ‘barb’ would be helpful when snapping in the valve of Anthony into the bottom of the can. Additionally the technique of piercing and retention barb formation is interpreted as being possible whether the can is an aerosol (As in Schneider) or conventional beverage can (as in AAPA and Anthony).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known piercing and retention barb formation technique from Schneider to the method of Anthony because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
The predictable result in the combination of techniques would be that the hole in the bottom of the can material in Anthony will be formed using the technique from Schneider.
Claims 16-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Anthony (US 6817202) further in view of Schneider (US 5232124).
AAPA citations are from applicants published application US20200017283A1 unless otherwise indicated.
Claim 16
AAPA teaches method of forming a beverage can body, the method consisting of: positioning the beverage can body, the beverage can body comprising a hollow body having a base, an open top opposite the base, and a sidewall extending therebetween ([0002] teaches that the conventional beverage can body has a base and an open top (since one end is open, the other is inherently closed and has a base) that has sidewalls (the paragraph calls it a thin-walled can, such that it has walls).), the base including an annular outer wall, an annular inner wall, a stand annulus between the outer wall and inner wall, and a concave curved dome (The remarks dated 04/29/2022, Page 6 (the end) and Page 7 (the beginning) state that conventional (AAPA) cans have an outer wall, inner wall, a standing annulus, and a curved dome.)
AAPA does not disclose piercing an aperture in the base so as to form a retention barb disposed about the aperture, the aperture and the retention barb being formed in a single operation, the entirety of the dome being curved between a radial innermost point of the inner wall of the base and a radial outermost point of the retention barb, and positioning a valve within the aperture so as to engage the retention barb.
However, Anthony teaches a conventional beverage can body (Col. 2, Lines 22-23 or Col. 15, Lines 48-52) that is metal. Anthony also teaches an aperture in the base that forms a place to mount a valve (Col 15 Lines 55-58, Col. 17 Lines 34-36 and Figure 11 teach that there is a hole (108) in the center of the base that is where the valve (30) is snapped into place in the can.), the entirety of the dome being curved between a radial innermost point of the inner wall of the base and a radial outermost point of the retention barb (Figure 11 teaches the domed bottom is curved between the stand annulus and the place where the valve is secured in the center.), and positioning a valve within the aperture so as to engage the retention barb. (Anthony Col. 18 Lines 24-30 teach the insertion of the assembly of both the valve and aerosol propellant receptacle (20) as one, such that the placement of the assembly is a single step.)
Anthony’s method includes steps of positioning a can (Figure 17) and positioning a valve assembly into the hole (108) at the bottom of the can as required by the closed transitional phrase “consisting of”.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known valve of Anthony to the conventional beverage can structure as presented as prior art by applicant in order to provide a self cooling and aerosol dispensing structure to the conventional can. (See Anthony Col. 13, Lines 20-22 and Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known valve of Anthony to the conventional beverage can structure as presented as prior art by applicant because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
AAPA in view of Anthony does not explicitly disclose piercing an aperture in the base so as to form a retention barb disposed about the aperture, the aperture and the retention barb being formed in a single operation, and the retention barb extending from the curved dome axially outward.
However, Schneider teaches piercing an aperture in the base so as to form a retention barb disposed about the aperture, the aperture and the retention barb being formed in a single operation, and the retention barb extending from the curved dome axially outward. (Col. 4, Lines 48-53 teach the formation of a hole (12) in the bottom of the can body via a punching step that also forms a burr (42). Figure 3 teaches the burr (42) extends axially outward from the curved dome.) Schneider’s method includes sequential steps of positioning the container (Figure 1), piercing an opening (Col. 4, Lines 48-53), and inserting a valve (Figure 3). The method does not contain extra steps and thus meets the requirements of the closed transitional phrase “consisting of” in Claim 16.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known piercing and retention barb formation technique from Schneider to the method of AAPA in view of Anthony in order to form both in one operation, which increases the efficiency of the process, and form a chamfer which helps to ease the movement of the device (valve) into the opening. (See Schneider Col. 4, Lines 48-53) This ‘barb’ would be helpful when snapping in the valve of Anthony into the bottom of the can. Additionally the technique of piercing and retention barb formation is interpreted as being possible whether the can is an aerosol (As in Schneider) or conventional beverage can (as in AAPA and Anthony).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known piercing and retention barb formation technique from Schneider to the method of AAPA in view of Anthony because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
The predictable result in the combination of techniques would be that the hole in the bottom of the can material in AAPA in view of Anthony will be formed using the technique from Schneider.
Claim 17
AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the step of piercing the aperture in the base includes forming the aperture in a center of the base. (Anthony (Figure 11) and Schneider (Figure 1) teach that the opening for the valve is located at the center of the base.)
Claim 18
AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the sidewall has a larger radial diameter relative to a radial diameter of the stand annulus. (In the remarks dated 04/29/2022, Page 8, applicant presents a figure to disclose a conventional beverage can end. In the figure (which is interpreted as admitted prior art) shows the sidewall (38) has a greater diameter than the stand annulus (12). Alternatively, Anthony discloses a conventional can body in Figure 11, where the sidewall (101) has a greater diameter than the stand annulus (not labeled).)
Claim 19
AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the base is seamlessly connected to the sidewall. (In the remarks dated 04/29/2022, Page 8, applicant presents a figure to disclose a conventional beverage can end. In the figure (which is interpreted as admitted prior art) shows a lack of a seam between the sidewall (38) and the base. Alternatively, Anthony discloses a conventional can body in Figure 11 and Col. 2, Lines 25-30 teach a conventional unified domed bottom wall and cylindrical side container wall terminating at a sealing rim.)
Claim 21
AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: seaming a can end to the open top of the hollow body. (In [0002] of applicants published application, it is stated that it is the conventional process to seam a can end onto the open end using a double seam.)
Claim 22
AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the hollow body is a one-piece can body. (In [0032] of applicants published application, it is stated that the conventional can body is manufactured and the end is seamed onto an open end. This process produces a conventional “one-piece” body with an open end. Additionally or alternatively, Anthony Figure 17 teaches the process where a one piece can (without a lid/end) is provided then a valve is inserted.)
Claim 24
AAPA teaches method of forming a filled and seamed beverage can, the method consisting of: positioning a beverage can body, the beverage can body comprising a hollow body having a base, an open top opposite the base, and a sidewall extending therebetween ([0002] teaches that the conventional beverage can body has a base and an open top (since one end is open, the other is inherently closed and has a base) that has sidewalls (the paragraph calls it a thin-walled can, such that it has walls).), the base including an annular outer wall, an annular inner wall, a stand annulus between the outer wall and inner wall, and a concave curved dome (The remarks dated 04/29/2022, Page 6 (the end) and Page 7 (the beginning) state that conventional (AAPA) cans have an outer wall, inner wall, a standing annulus, and a curved dome.) and sealing an end onto the beverage can body at the open end of the beverage can body via a double seam. (Applicant’s published ¶0002 teaches the sealing of the end is done with a double seam.)
AAPA does not disclose piercing an aperture in the base so as to form a retention barb disposed about the aperture, the aperture and the retention barb being formed in a single operation, the entirety of the dome being curved between a radial innermost point of the inner wall of the base and a radial outermost point of the retention barb, the retention barb extending from the curved dome axially outward; positioning a valve within the aperture so as to engage the retention barb; filling the beverage can body with a beverage though an open end of the beverage can; and sealing an end onto the beverage can body at the open end of the beverage can body via a double seam.
However, Anthony teaches a conventional beverage can body (Col. 2, Lines 22-23 or Col. 15, Lines 48-52) that is metal. Anthony also teaches an aperture in the base so as to form a place to mount a valve (Col 15 Lines 55-58, Col. 17 Lines 34-36 and Figure 11 teach that there is a hole (108) in the center of the base that is where the valve (30) is snapped into place in the can.), the entirety of the dome being curved between a radial innermost point of the inner wall of the base and a radial outermost point of the retention barb (Figure 11 teaches the domed bottom is curved between the stand annulus and the place where the valve is secured in the center.), and positioning a valve within the aperture so as to engage the retention barb. (Anthony Col. 18 Lines 24-30 teach the insertion of the assembly of both the valve and aerosol propellant receptacle (20) as one, such that the placement of the assembly is a single step.) filling the beverage can body with a beverage though an open end of the beverage can (Col. 19, Line 45-47) and sealing an end onto the beverage can body at the open end of the beverage can body. (Col. 19, Line 45-47)
Anthony’s method includes steps of positioning a can (Figure 17), positioning a valve assembly into the hole (108) at the bottom of the can, filling the can and sealing the can (Col. 19, Line 45-47) as required by the closed transitional phrase “consisting of”.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known construction technique of Anthony to the conventional beverage can structure as presented as prior art by applicant in order to provide a self cooling and aerosol dispensing structure to the conventional can. (See Anthony Col. 13, Lines 20-22 and Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known construction technique of Anthony to the conventional beverage can structure as presented as prior art by applicant because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known structure/method according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
AAPA in view of Anthony does not explicitly disclose piercing an aperture in the base so as to form a retention barb disposed about the aperture, the aperture and the retention barb being formed in a single operation, and the retention barb extending from the curved dome axially outward.
However, Schneider teaches piercing an aperture in the base so as to form a retention barb disposed about the aperture, the aperture and the retention barb being formed in a single operation, and the retention barb extending from the curved dome axially outward. (Col. 4, Lines 48-53 teach the formation of a hole (12) in the bottom of the can body via a punching step that also forms a burr (42). Figure 3 teaches the burr (42) extends axially outward from the curved dome.) Schneider’s method includes sequential steps of positioning the container (Figure 1), piercing an opening (Col. 4, Lines 48-53), and inserting a valve (Figure 3). The method does not contain extra steps and thus meets the requirements of the closed transitional phrase “consisting of” in Claim 16.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known piercing and retention barb formation technique from Schneider to the method of AAPA in view of Anthony in order to form both in one operation, which increases the efficiency of the process, and form a chamfer which helps to ease the movement of the device (valve) into the opening. (See Schneider Col. 4, Lines 48-53) This ‘barb’ would be helpful when snapping in the valve of Anthony into the bottom of the can. Additionally the technique of piercing and retention barb formation is interpreted as being possible whether the can is an aerosol (As in Schneider) or conventional beverage can (as in AAPA and Anthony).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known piercing and retention barb formation technique from Schneider to the method of AAPA in view of Anthony because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Claim 25
AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the sidewall has a larger radial diameter relative to a radial diameter of the stand annulus. (In the remarks dated 04/29/2022, Page 8, applicant presents a figure to disclose a conventional beverage can end. In the figure (which is interpreted as admitted prior art) shows the sidewall (38) has a greater diameter than the stand annulus (12). Alternatively, Anthony discloses a conventional can body in Figure 11, where the sidewall (101) has a greater diameter than the stand annulus (not labeled).)
Claims 26-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Anthony (US 6817202) further in view of Schneider (US 5232124), as applied in claim 24, further in view of Fitzpatrick (EP0447104A1).
Claim 26
AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the can is filled in a conventional filling process. (See AAPA [0002] and Anthony Col. 19 Lines 45-47.)
AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider does not explicitly disclose the steps of filling the beverage can body and sealing the end onto the beverage can body leaves a headspace.
However, Fitzpatrick teaches a conventional can filling process where a thin walled can is filled with a beverage then closed and sealed. There is a headspace where elevated pressure if created after the sealing of the container. (See Page 2, Col. 1, Lines 10-25.)
The addition of Fitzpatrick’s technique is not adding any steps/structures to the method and therefore does not impact the applicability of the combination to the closed “consisting of” transitional phrase.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known filling technique of Fitzpatrick to the beverage can production method of AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider in order to create at elevated pressure in the container sufficient to prevent externally applied pressure from deforming the container during normal handling. (See Fitzpatrick Page 2, Col. 1, Lines 20-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known filling technique of Fitzpatrick to the beverage can production method of AAPA in view of Anthony and Schneider because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Claim 27
AAPA in view of Anthony, Schneider, and Fitzpatrick teaches the method of claim 26, wherein the headspace is pressurized. (Fitzpatrick Page 2, Col. 1, Lines 15-25 teaches that the headspace is pressurized.)
Claim 28
AAPA in view of Anthony, Schneider and Fitzpatrick teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the filled and seamed beverage can is rated at approximately 95 psi. (AAPA, [0002] teaches that conventional beverage cans are rated at 95 psi.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not indicate how the amendment is supported or how the modifications to the claims overcomes the previously presented and affirmed rejection(s).
Although no support was found in the specification for the amendment to include the closed ended transitional phrase “consisting of” for claims 16, 23 and 24, it is respectfully asserted that the rejection(s) presented above are applicable to the amended claims. The combination of Anthony and Schneider arrives at a method that includes the positioning, piercing and positioning steps as in the claim, without extra intermediate steps being required during the combined method. Anthony teaches that the can is filled and sealed (See Col. 19 Lines 40-49) after the positioning of the can and insertion of the valve assembly, such that the method steps of Claim 24 are taught by the prior art without requiring additional intermediate steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
US3411669A: Figure 1 teaches a can body having a valve (28) in the bottom wall that is positioned in an aperture at the center of a concave, continuously curved dome. The can also includes a stand annulus, sidewalls, and a lid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL WAYNE HOTCHKISS whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY from 0800-1600.
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, DAVID BRYANT can be reached on 571-272-4526. 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 W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights