DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 27 and 37 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.
Claim 27 recites the limitations "the functional section" in line 2 and “the non-functional section” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The specification ([0015], lines 6 and 7) describes a functional section as having a thread but the claim does not set forth any limitations structurally or locationally which would make a functional section different from a non-functional section since the scope of the claim is a drawn and ironed cylinder with a closed end and an open end.
Claim 37 recites the limitations "the functional section" in line 10 and “the non-functional section” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The specification ([0015], lines 6 and 7) describes a functional section as having a thread but the claim does not set forth any limitations structurally or otherwise which would make a functional section different from a non-functional section since the scope of the claim is a drawn and ironed cylinder with a closed end and an open end.
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.
Claim(s) 17,18,23,25,26,29 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowes (4,522,049) in view of Katsuhiro et al. (5,433,099). Clowes discloses a method of forming a drawn and ironed cylindrical member (12) comprising a first step of draw forming a cup having a base, a cup wall and an open end (col. 4, lines 38-41) from a planar blank (col. 5, lines 52-54) with a first draw reduction of not more than 40% (col. 5, lines 48-50), performing a first redrawing of the cup (col. 5, lines 63-65 and col. 6, lines 30-32) with a second draw reduction of about 25% to form a first redrawn cup and passing the first redrawn cup through an ironing die (14) to reduce a thickness of the first redrawn cup wall (22) adjacent to the open end (Fig. 2). Clowes discloses that a thickness (0.0080 inches; col. 6, lines 66-68) of the redrawn cup wall (22) adjacent to the open end (Fig. 3) after ironing is less than a thickness (0.0088 inches; col. 8, lines 55-56) of the redrawn cup wall (30) adjacent to the cup base (28). Regarding claim 18, the cylindrical member is aluminum (col. 4, lines 52-54). Regarding claim 23, Clowes discloses that the ironed cup wall (22) adjacent the cup open end has a thickness of 0.0080 after ironing (col. 6, lines 66-68 and col. 8, lines 58- 60) which is a thickness that is reduced from a maximum thickness of 0.0097 after the first redraw (col. 6, lines 35-37) which is thickness reduction of less than 70%. Regarding claim 25, a thickness of the cup wall adjacent the cup base (0.0088 inches; col. 6, lines 60-64) is substantially the same as a base thickness (.009 inches; col. 6, line 23) of the planar sheet of metal material. Regarding claim 26, a thickness (0.0080 inches; col. 6, lines 66-68) of the redrawn cup wall (22) adjacent to the open end (Fig. 3) after ironing is less than a thickness (0.0088 inches; col. 8, lines 55-56) of the redrawn cup wall (30) adjacent to the cup base (28). Regarding claim 29, Clowes discloses forming a stiffening bead (26) extending circumferentially in a cup wall (Fig. 4) adjacent to the open end.
Clowes discloses a lubricant coating (col. 4, lines 50-52) and a lacquer coating (electrophoretic coating; col. 3, lines 43-48) but does not disclose that the coating is applied to the blank prior to drawing the first cup. Katsuhiro teaches drawing and redrawing of a metal sheet blank (col. 6, lines 21-25 and 28-35) wherein the metal sheet blank (21; Fig. 3) is coated (23,24,25) prior to draw forming a first cup (Fig. 1C). Regarding claim 36, Katsuhiro teaches that the coating (24,25) extends to an outside of the cup (col. 8, lines 65-68) since the sheet is coated on both side of the metal sheet blank that are drawn as the inner and outer surfaces of the drawn cup. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to coat the blank of Clowes prior to drawing as taught by Katsuhiro in order to manufacture a drawn cup with a coating on an inner surface and an outer surface of the drawn cup.
Claim(s) 19,20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowes (4,522,049) in view of Katsuhiro et al. (5,433,099) and further in view of Hepner et al. (2005/0126247). Regarding claim 19, Clowes discloses a redraw press (col. 6, lines 3-5) but does not disclose first redraw tooling as claimed. Hepner teaches first redraw tooling comprising a first redraw die (34), a first redraw pad (12) and a first redraw punch (22) movable between an extended position cooperating with the first redraw die (Fig. 4A) and a retracted position (Fig. 3A), wherein a portion of a draw formed cup base (base material M of first cup C’) is engaged between the first redraw pad (12) and the first redraw die (34; Fig. 3A), wherein a predetermined first force acts on the first cup base ([0031], lines 15-17), wherein the first redraw pad (12) cooperates with the first redraw die (34) for constraining the metal material of the first cup to bend across a radius of the first redraw die (34) wherein Fig. 3A shows sidewalls (where C’ is pointing) are bent over shoulders of the first redraw die (34), the first redraw punch (22) is moved to the extended position (Fig. 4A) to draw the metal material of the first cup (C’) through the first redraw die (34) and define the redrawn cup wall. Regarding claim 20, the draw forming to form the cup (C’, Fig. 3A) and first redrawing (Fig. 4A) are performed in a reverse drawing method ([0032], lines 1-4). Regarding claim 30, Hepner teaches that the first redraw die (34) comprises a nesting die (32) defining an annular recess ([0028], lines 9-11) adjacent to a radius (shoulder) of the first redraw die (Fig. 1), and wherein the first redraw pad (12) comprises an annular surface (11) configured to cooperate with the annular recess of nesting die (32) to define a gap (Fig. 3A) configured for passage of the metal material (C’) to the radius. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to draw form the cylindrical cup of Clowes in draw forming tooling as taught by Hepner in order to form a cup with a draw and redrawing punch stroke.
Claim(s) 24 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowes (4,522,049) in view of Katsuhiro et al. (5,433,099) and further in view of Nakamura et al. (10,500,626). Regarding claim 24, Clowes discloses that the ironed cup wall (22) adjacent the cup open end has a thickness of 0.0080 after ironing (col. 6, lines 66-68 and col. 8, lines 58-60) which is a thickness that is reduced from a maximum thickness of 0.0097 after the first redraw (col. 6, lines 35-37) and is a reduction of about 20% (about 20% is about 25% as claimed on a lower end of the range) but Clowes does not disclose a thickness reduction of between about 25% and about 40%. Nakamura teaches (col. 8, lines 14-17) that an ironing thickness reduction is equal to or less than 30%. Regarding claim 35, Nakamura teaches draw forming a first cup (10) from a planar sheet to define a flange (11) extending laterally from the cup wall. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to adjust an iron thickness reduction amount to 30% as taught by Nakamura for maximum thickness reduction without scratching marks on the workpiece as it slides against the drawing punch and drawing die to produce a cup with a flange.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowes (4,522,049) in view of Katsuhiro et al. (5,433,099) and further in view of Mackenzie (GB 1598428). Clowes does not disclose forming a score between the open end and the base to separate a functional section and a non-functional section. Mackenzie teaches manufacturing a drawn and ironed cylindrical cap (6; Fig. 4) by deep drawing a sheet (1) into a cup (2; Fig. 2), ironing the cup (page 2, col. 1, lines 4-9) to produce a thin-walled cup (5; Fig. 3) having a skirt (3A) and a head (4) and then forming a score (10; page 2, col. 1, lines 19-20 and 29-30) between a non-functional region (11) toward an open end of the cap and a functional region (9) toward the head.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form a score between the base and the open end of the drawn cup of Clowes as taught by Mackenzie in order to define a frangible section of the cylinder.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowes (4,522,049) in view of Katsuhiro et al. (5,433,099) and further in view of King (4,462,235). Clowes does not disclose forming a thread adjacent to the cup base. King teaches threading a side wall (12) of a cup (10) adjacent to a base (14). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to thread a portion of the sidewall adjacent the base of the drawn cup of Clowes as taught by King in order to provide a threaded connection to a threadable member.
Claim(s) 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowes (4,522,049) in view of Katsuhiro et al. (5,433,099) and Hepner et al. (2005/0126247) and further in view of Bulso, Jr. et al. (4,696,177). Regarding claim 31, Clowes (col. 5, line 68 and col. 6, lines 1-3) in view of Hepner discloses that multiple redraws are performed but does not disclose second redrawing tooling. Bulso teaches that a cylindrical member is formed in one or more double acting presses wherein Figs. 4-8 show first redraw tooling and Figs. 9-12 show second redraw tooling. It would have been obvious to provide additional redraw tooling as taught by Bulso to accomplish more than one redrawing step as it only involves a repetition of existing drawing tooling as taught by Hepner. Regarding claim 32, Clowes discloses a draw reduction of not more than 40% (col. 5, lines 48-50), performing a first redrawing of the cup (col. 5, lines 63-65 and col. 6, lines 30-32) with a second draw reduction of about 25% to form a first redrawn cup and a second redrawing with a reduction of about 18% (col. 6, lines 42-43).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowes (4,522,049) in view of Mackenzie (GB 1598428). Clowes discloses a method of forming a drawn and ironed cylindrical member (12) comprising a first step of draw forming a cup having a base, a cup wall and an open end (col. 4, lines 38-41) from a planar blank (col. 5, lines 52-54) with a first draw reduction of not more than 40% (col. 5, lines 48-50), performing a first redrawing of the cup (col. 5, lines 63-65 and col. 6, lines 30-32) with a second draw reduction of about 25% to form a first redrawn cup and passing the first redrawn cup through an ironing die (14) to reduce a thickness of the first redrawn cup wall (22) adjacent to the open end (Fig. 2). Clowes discloses that a thickness (0.0080 inches; col. 6, lines 66-68) of the redrawn cup wall (22) adjacent to the open end (Fig. 3) after ironing is less than a thickness (0.0088 inches; col. 8, lines 55-56) of the redrawn cup wall (30) adjacent to the cup base (28). Clowes does not disclose forming a score to separate a functional section from a non-functional section of the drawn and ironed cylinder. Mackenzie teaches manufacturing a drawn and ironed cylindrical cap (6; Fig. 4) by deep drawing a sheet (1) into a cup (2; Fig. 2), ironing the cup (page 2, col. 1, lines 4-9) to produce a thin-walled cup (5; Fig. 3) having a skirt (3A) and a head (4) and then forming a score (10; page 2, col. 1, lines 19-20 and 29-30) between a non-functional region (11) toward an open end of the cap and a functional region (9) toward the head. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form a scoreline in the drawn cylinder of Clowes between the open and closed end of the cap as taught by Mackenzie to define one region of the drawn cylinder from another region of the drawn cylinder by a frangible tear line.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21,22,33 and 34 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9-16-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (response 9-16-2025; page 10, paragraph 1) that since Clowes suggests that an organic coating is not economical that it is not obvious to provide one. Claim 17 does not claim what the coating is and Clowes at least discloses (col. 4, lines 50-52) that a lubricant coating is applied to the sheet before drawing and ironing. The reference to Katsuhiro teaches that a coating is applied to a sheet before drawing and ironing without regard to cylinder size and it would be obvious to do so in Clowes, although it is more expensive as discussed in Clowes background (col. 2, lines 46-48). The new reference to Mackenzie is used to respond to Applicant’s amendment of claim 17 and new claim 37.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stoppiglia teaches [0062] that a cap (4; Fig.1) has a cap functional region (head, 5) having a thickness of 0.15-0.35 mm [0062] and the cap (4) has a non-functional region (skirt, 8) having a thickness of 0.12-0.27 mm ([0060], lines 6-8) with a score (bridge, 2) between the skirt (8) and the head (5).
Granger et al. (2010/0282707) teaches a metallic cap (1; [0025],[0046]) comprising a head (20) and a skirt (21) including a score (230) separating a functional region (skirt portion 21; Fig. 2) extending toward the head (20) from a non-functional region (skirt portion, 23) extending toward an open end of the cap. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form a score in the drawn cup of Clowes as taught by Granger in order to define two regions that extend toward the head and toward the open end of the cylinder on opposing axial sides of the score.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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 at 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725