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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 4-8, 12, 16 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. Regarding claim 1, there is no support in the original disclosure for sheet thickness of the lower end of the tubular body section being smaller than t1 and thus it constitutes new matter. In particular, the original disclosure is silent regarding the relationship between the sheet thickness of the lower end of the tubular body section and the sheet thickness of outer circumferential bottom section. Regarding claim 12, there is no support in the original disclosure for the recitation of a refractive index, constant value, visible wavelength, incident angle and thus it constitutes new matter
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 12, 16, the term “60 degrees specular glossiness” is unclear because there is no technical definition for such a term and applicant’s provided definition in the claim is also unclear because it fails to define the metes and bounds of the claim limitation. For example, “the boundary part” lacks antecedent basis and the term “vicinity” is unclear in particular with regards to the degree.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,296,139 to Hanafusa et al. (Hanafusa) in view of US 2012/0091149 to Pedmo, US 2020/0189824 to Legresy et al. (Legresy) and US Patent No. 5,261,558 to Claydon.
Regarding claim 1, Hanafusa discloses a seamless can body made of metal sheet (col. 1, ll. 25-30) including a tubular body section (2) and a can bottom section (3), the can bottom section including an outer circumferential bottom section (5c) extending from a lower end of the tubular body section (2) such as to decrease in diameter toward an inside (Fig 6), an annular grounding section (5a) located further inside than the outer circumferential bottom section (5c), the can bottom section further includes an inside end section (5d) located further inside that the annular grounding section (5a), the can bottom section (3) includes a can bottom central part (4) which is adapted to be spaced from a horizontal surface when the annular grounding section is set on the horizontal surface since it is a dome curving upwards, wherein a first end of the annular grounding section (5a) is connected to the outer circumferential bottom section (5c) and a second end of the annular grounding section (5a) is connected to the inside end section (5d). Hanafusa does not teach the thicknesses as recited. Pedmo discloses a container (20) and in particular discloses can bottom section (Fig 8) wherein outer circumferential bottom section has a thickness (T6, 0.069 inches), annular grounding section has a thickness (T5, 0.079 inches), inside end section has a thickness (T4, 0.070 inches) and T5>T6 and T4>T6. In particular, Hanafusa discloses thickness of the annular grounding section and inside end section greater than thickness of outer circumferential bottom section. Legresy further discloses a can body (Fig 1) with a bottom section (Fig 2) and in particular discloses a can bottom central portion (61) having a sheet thickness at the center of the can bottom central part to be 0.2 to 0.4 mm (€0029, Legresy). Taken as whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions of the Hanafusa can bottom section to match the dimensions as disclosed by Pedmo and Legresy in order to facilitate manufacturing of the container since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In particular, the modification would have resulted in sheet thickness of the annular grounding section (.079 inches, Pedmo) and sheet thickness of inside end section (.070 inches, Pedmo) to be greater than sheet thickness of outer circumferential bottom section (.069 inches, Pedmo) and sheet thickness of outer circumferential bottom section (.069 inches, Pedmo) larger than sheet thickness of center of the can bottom central part (.2 to .4 mm, Legresy). The modified Hanafusa does not teach sheet thickness of lower end of the tubular body section smaller than thickness of outer circumferential bottom section. However, Claydon discloses a can body (Fig 1) where the sheet thickness of lower end (8) of tubular body section (5) is smaller than thickness of outer circumferential bottom section (4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the thickness of the lower end of the Hanafusa tubular body section less than thickness of the outer circumferential bottom section as suggested by Claydon in order to facilitate support with a thicker bottom section for a thin walled metal cup.
Regarding claim 5, Hanafusa further discloses can bottom section further including a rising section (5b) rising upward from the inside end section (5d) but does not teach the sheet thickness of an upper end of the rising section being greater than thickness of outer circumferential bottom section (0.069 inches). However, Pedmo further discloses thickness of upper end of rising section (T3, 0.07 inches) being greater than thickness of outer circumferential bottom section (0.069 inches). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions of the Hanafusa can bottom section to match the dimensions as disclosed by Pedmo in order to facilitate manufacturing of the container.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Hanafusa further discloses can bottom section further includes a dome section (4) that is connected to rising section (5b) and bulges to protrude upward, sheet thickness gradually increased from the dome section (0.2 to 0.4 mm, €0029, Legresy) to inside section (5d, .070 inches) such that t3>t4>t5 where t5 is sheet thickness of center of dome section.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hanafusa further discloses t5<t1 since t5 is 0.2 to 04mm.
Regarding claim 8, Hanafusa further discloses a ring groove (7) in which a connection section between rising section (5b) and dome section (4) protrudes toward an outside with respect to can body axis (Fig 6).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanafusa in view of Pedmo, Legresy, Claydon and US Patent No. 5,540,352 to Halasz et al. (Halasz).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Hanafusa teaches the can body of claim 1 but does not teach sheet thickness gradually increases from outer circumferential bottom section to inside end section. However, Halasz discloses a seamless can body (Fig 8) and in particular discloses sheet thickness gradually increasing from outer circumferential bottom section to inside end section (Fig 23) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the thicknesses to that as recited in order to facilitate support for the can body.
Claim(s) 12, 16, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanafusa in view of Pedmo, Legresy, Claydon and US 2007/0218226 to Tadaki et al. (Tadaki).
Regarding claim 12, 16, the modified Raj teaches the can body of claim 1 but does not teach the gloss level as recited. However, Tadaki discloses a seamless can body (Fig 1) and in particular discloses color quality of metal gloss on the can body (¶0068) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate gloss to the Raj metal can body as suggested by Tadaki to improve appearance. The modified Raj does not teach the recited range of the gloss. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the color and gloss to the level range recited in order to improve aesthetic appearance 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). Furthermore, the gloss level can be measured by the method as recited. Note that product by process limitations are given little patentable weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that support for the claim subject matter in claim 12 is described in paragraphs (0021) and (0115). However, nowhere in the recited passage does it mention any refractive index or constant value as recited in the claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Hanfusa and Pedmo is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both are directed to containers focusing on the bottom structure of the container to support the container.
Applicant argues that Pedmo discloses a plastic container and teaches away from applying its teaching to metal cans. This is not persuasive since Pedmo is only used to teach the different dimensions of the bottom part of a container and Hanafusa already discloses all the structural limitations recited besides specific dimensions. Applicant has not provided any reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to change dimensions of the Hanafusa bottom structural support to those suggested by Pedmo in order to faciliate and optimize a stronger support for the container.
Applicant further argues that the prior art does not teach the sidewall thinner than outer circumferential bottom portion. However, this limitation is taught by Claydon which discloses a can where the circumferential bottom portion is thicker than the sidewall portion in order to better support the can. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the thickness of the lower end of the Hanafusa tubular body section less than thickness of the outer circumferential bottom section as suggested by Claydon in order to facilitate support with a thicker bottom section for a thin-walled metal cup.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights