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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/7/2026 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 22-23 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 claims 22-23, there is no support in the original disclosure for the metal can body being sealed by a device consisting of/consisting essentially of a metal lid and thus it constitutes new matter. In particular, the original disclosure does not provide support for the limited range as recited.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0044074 to Combe et al. (Combe) in view of US Patent No. 8,657,150 to Kloss and US Patent No. 2,044,677 to Freeman.
Regarding claim 1, Combe discloses a can (Fig 9) comprising a metal can body (10) having a can body wall and a body edge defining a top opening into the body, the body further comprising an inwardly directed bead (23) extending around the body adjacent to the opening, the bead being formed in the can body wall such that the bead includes an upwardly facing sealing surface (A, Fig 9 below), an inwardly facing surface (24), and a lower surface (E, Fig 9 below) opposite the upwardly facing sealing surface, a metal lid (4) having a center panel (B, Fig 9 below), a lid wall (C, Fig 9 below) surrounding center panel, an outwardly directed curl (27) at the top of the wall, the curl defining a peripherally extending channel (D, Fig 9 below) having an opening therein, the outwardly directed curl being horizontally spaced apart from the can body wall there by forming a gap (26) sufficient to allow insertion of a lever against the curl for removing the lid (€0040), the can body and lid dimensioned to allow the lid to be press-fitted into the can body so that an outwardly facing surface of the lid wall opposes the inwardly facing sealing surface of the bead of the can body (Fig 9). Combe does not teach the metal lid having the structure as recited, in particular, Combe does not teach a sealing compound located within the channel and projecting through the opening such that the outwardly directed curl was vertically spaced apart from the bead. Kloss discloses a closure seal for a container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a sealing compound (9) located within a channel and projecting through an opening to the channel under the curl (7) at top of the lid wall such that the outwardly directed curl was vertically spaced apart from the bead (13) in order to seal the lid to the container. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a sealing compound to the Combe lid as suggested by Kloss in order to facilitate sealing of the lid to container. The modification would have resulted in the sealing compound in sealing engagement with upwardly facing sealing surface of the bead since the sealing compound is located below the curl in the channel and lies above the upwardly facing sealing surface. In addition, the outwardly directed curl would be vertically spaced apart from the bead as shown by Kloss since the sealing compound extending out from the opening would space the curl from the bead. The modified Combe does not teach uppermost portion of the curl being vertically spaced below body edge of the body. However, Freeman discloses a metal container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a lid (10) having a curl (12) and a body (5) having a body edge (9), the uppermost portion of the curl (12) being vertically spaced below the body edge (9) to facilitate opening. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to increase the height of the Combe can body such that the body edge of the can was higher than the lid as suggested by Freeman in order to facilitate opening of the lid.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Combe further teaches can body is single piece and inwardly directed bead is pressed into can body (¶0005).
Regarding claim 4, Combe further discloses end closing bottom of the can body (Fig 1). Lid being engaged with can body, can body containing a product (paint) partially vacuum present in can in order to pull lid onto can body, thereby compressing sealing compound between lid and can body and effecting a substantially air tight seal between lid and can body (¶0003). In particular, since prior art discloses the structure as recited, then it can also function as recited.
Regarding claim 6-7, Combe discloses the can of claim 1 and further discloses gap (26) between outermost edge of curl and inner surface of top opening, gap (26) between upwardly facing sealing surface of the bead and top of body edge (Fig 9) but does not teach the recited dimensions. However, Combe discloses radial depth of the inwardly directed bead ranging from 2mm to 5mm and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the dimensions of the gap to the ranges as recited in order to optimize the size of the can and lid since it has been held that where the only difference between prior art and 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).
Regarding claim 8, Combe further discloses can body further comprises sheet of metal rolled into cylinder with a welded seam joining opposed edges (¶0002).
Regarding claim 9, Combe further discloses can body further comprises sheet of metal rolled into cylinder with a welded seam joining opposed edges (¶0002) and a base secured to can body to closed bottom opening (¶0002).
Regarding claim 10, Combe further discloses edge of can body being a curled edge (25).
Regarding claim 11, Combe further discloses radially outermost region of the inwardly directed bead (23) collapsed in axis direction (B, Fig 9) to substantially closed the bead to area surrounding the body.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Comber teaches the can of claim 1 and further teaches each of the upwardly facing sealing surface and inwardly facing surface being substantially convex since it is an oval shape.
Regarding claim 14, Combe further teaches wherein outwardly facing surface (C, Fig 9 above) of the lid wall is substantially flat (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 16, Combe further discloses when the lid (4) is engage with can body (10), outwardly facing surface (C) of the lid wall abuts inwardly facing sealing surface (24) of the bead, thereby providing a metal to metal seal.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Combe further teaches when lid is engaged with can body, sealing component (9) extends over outwardly facing surface (C) of the lid wall (Fig 1-2, Kloss) to seal outwardly facing surface to inward facing sealing surface (24) of the bead (23).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Combe further teaches the oval shape defining a vertex (A, Fig 11 below) such that the inwardly facing surface (24) is located at the vertex.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Combe further teaches curl (27) of the lid spaced apart from the bead (23) such that sealing compound (9, Kloss) extends through curl opening to bead upwardly facing sealing surface since Kloss shows sealing compound (9) extending through curl opening (at 8, Kloss) and thus would keep the curl and bead spaced apart.
PNG
media_image2.png
593
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the modified Combe teaches the can of claim 1 but does not teach teach the shape of the inwardly directed bead to be substantially oval axial cross-sectional shape. However, Combe discloses an alternate embodiment (Fig 11) where bead (33) has a substantially oval cross-section shape. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape of the bead (23) to be oval as suggested by Combe in order to facilitate sealing engagement since it has been held that configuration of a claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 21, Combe further teaches each one of the upwardly facing sealing surface (A, Fig 9 above) and lower surface (E, Fig 9 above) of the bead extend from can body wall (10).
Regarding claim 22-23, Combe discloses a can (Fig 9) comprising a metal can body (10) having a body edge defining a top opening into the body, the body further comprising an inwardly directed bead (23) extending around the body adjacent the top opening, the bead defining an upwardly facing sealing surface (A, Fig 9 above) and inwardly facing surface (24), the metal can body being sealed by a device consisting essentially of/consisting of a metal lid (4) having a center panel (B, Fig 9 above), a lid wall (C, Fig 9 above) surrounding the center panel, an outwardly directed curl (27) at the top of the wall, the curl defining a peripherally extending channel (D, Fig 9 above) having an opening therein, the outwardly directed curl being horizontally spaced apart from the can body thereby forming a gap (26) sufficient to allow insertion of a lever for removing the lid the can body (€0040) and lid being dimensioned to allow the lid to be press-fitted into the can body so that an outwardly facing surface of the lid wall opposes the inwardly facing sealing surface of the bead of the can body (Fig 9). Combe does not teach the metal lid having the structure as recited, in particular, Combe does not teach a sealing compound located within the channel and projecting through the opening such that the outwardly directed curl was vertically spaced apart from the bead. Kloss discloses a closure seal for a container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a sealing compound (9) located within a channel and projecting through an opening to the channel under the curl (7) at top of the lid wall such that the outwardly directed curl was vertically spaced apart from the bead (13) in order to seal the lid to the container. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a sealing compound to the Combe lid as suggested by Kloss in order to facilitate sealing of the lid to container. The modification would have resulted in the sealing compound in sealing engagement with upwardly facing sealing surface of the bead since the sealing compound is located below the curl in the channel and lies above the upwardly facing sealing surface. In addition, the outwardly directed curl would be vertically spaced apart from the bead as shown by Kloss since the sealing compound extending out from the opening would space the curl from the bead.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combe in view of Kloss, Freeman and US 2016/0376070 to Stodd.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Combe teaches the can of claim 4 but does not teach center panel defining a pop-up button. However, Stodd discloses a lid (Fig 1) with a centre panel (20) defining a pop-up button (70) such that the button is depressed when lid is engaged with can body and raised when partial vacuum is released (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a pop-up button to the lid of Combe as suggested by Stodd in order to facilitate vacuum release.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combe in view of Kloss, Freeman and US Patent No. 4,821,911 to Lefrant.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Combe teaches the can of claim 1 but does not teach upper surface of lid below top of the can body when press-fitted. However, Lefrant discloses a can (Fig 2) and in particular discloses lid press-fitted into opening of the can body (Fig 2), upper surface of the lid being below top of the can body (Fig 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the dimensions of the can and lid such that the lid was lower than the can body when press-fitted as suggested by Lefrant in order to faciliate removal of the lid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach curl of the lid vertically below body edge of the body. However, Freeman discloses a metal can where the curl of the lid is below the body edge of the body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to increase the height of the Combe can body such that the body edge was above the lid as suggested by Freeman in order to facilitate opening of the lid.
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