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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 30, 2026, has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on September 28, 2023, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 24 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of these claims recites “the first domer contact the wall” which should be “the first domer contacts the wall.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-4, 6, 13, and 24-33 are 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 claim 1, this claim recites “a second domer comprising a second surface, wherein the second domer is configured to be moveable within the first domer and relative to the first domer” and then “the first domer is configured to form the second dome profile in the wall, the second surface is offset upwards from the first surface, [and] the second surface contacts the wall and forms the second dome profile” which renders the claim indefinite because it appears the second domer with the second surface forms the second dome profile and not the first domer. For the purpose of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as the second domer is configured to form the second dome profile in the wall. Claims 3-4, 6 and 13 depend from claim 1 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 24, this claim recites that the first domer is configured to form the second dome profile in the wall with a second surface that contacts the wall to form the second dome profile and therefore is indefinite for the same reasons discussed in claim 1. Additionally, the claim recites “the first surface” and “the second surface” without previously reciting that these surfaces are on the first domer or the second domer, therefore these phrases lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the first domer includes a first surface and the second domer includes a second surface. Claims 25-27 depend from claim 24 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 28, this claim recites that the first domer is configured to form the second dome profile in the wall with a second surface that contacts the wall to form the second dome profile and therefore is indefinite for the same reasons discussed in claim 1. Additionally, the claim recites “the second surface” without previously reciting that this surface is on the second domer, therefore this phrase lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the second domer includes a second surface. Claims 29-33 depend from claim 28 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 24-26, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0175258 A1 to Bowen in view of US 2012/0266644 A1 to Blei.
Regarding claim 1, Bowen recites a domer assembly for a bottom forming system (Figs. 5A-C), the domer assembly comprising:
a first domer 18 comprising a first surface (Figs. 5A-f; Para. [0058]); and
a second domer 19 comprising a second surface (Figs. 5A-F; Para. [0058]),
wherein the domer assembly 18, 19 is configured to receive a metal container 7 comprising a first end, a second end, and a wall at the second end (Figs. 5A-F show the container 7 includes a second end having a wall and a first end, i.e., the open end);
the domer assembly is configured to engage the metal container in a first configuration (Figs. 5A-C) and a second configuration (Figs. 5D-F),
in the first configuration:
the second domer 19 is configured to at least partially form a first dome profile in the wall prior to the first domer 18 contacting the wall (Figs. 5A-C; the first configuration includes the second domer 19 configured to at least partially form the first dome profile prior to the first domer 18 contacting the wall because the wall on the second end is not restricted to any particular geometry, e.g., it may protrude downwardly in the center where the second domer 19 is located, and the second domer 19 is capable of touching the wall prior to the first domer), and
the second domer 19 and the first domer 18 are configured to fully form the first dome profile in the wall after the first domer 19 contact the wall (Figs. 5A-C show the first dome profile being formed with both the first domer and the second domer after the first domer has contacted the wall),
in the second configuration:
the first domer 18 is configured to form a second dome profile in the wall (Figs. 5D-F show the second domer 19 forming the second dome profile, and as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above this limitation is interpreted as the second domer 19 forms the second dome profile), the second surface is offset upwards from the first surface (Figs. 5D-F), the second surface contacts the wall and forms the second dome profile (Figs. 5D-F), the first dome profile and the second dome profile form a double dome in the wall (Fig. 5F), and
a distance between the first end and the second end is greater than a distance between a center of the double dome and the first end (Fig. 5F shows the internal dome is closer to the first end of the metal container than the second end of the metal container is to the first end).
Bowen fails to explicitly teach wherein the second domer is configured to be movable within the first domer and relative to the first domer. Bowen teaches the first domer 19 is movable relative to the first domer 18 (Figs. 5C-F; Para. [0058]).
Blei teaches a device for forming a dome on an end surface of a container (Abstract; Figs. 1-4) including a first domer 59 and a second domer 58 (Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]) wherein the second domer 58 is movable within the first domer 59 and relative to the first domer 59 (Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the domer assembly of Bowen to include the second domer movable within and relative to the first domer so that the container body may be set in the die in which it is being formed while the domers are allowed to move thus allowing for more accurate and secure placement of the container body during the formation process.
Regarding claim 3, modified Bowen teaches the domer assembly of claim 1 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the first domer 18 is a sleeve and the second domer 19 is an insert movable within the sleeve 18 (Blei, Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]; modified Bowen includes the domer movement arrangement of Blei, which teaches the second domer is an insert moveable within a sleeve, i.e., the first domer).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bowen teaches the domer assembly of claim 1 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the second domer 19 is axially movable relative to the first domer 18 (Blei, Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]; modified Bowen includes the domer movement arrangement of Blei, which teaches the second domer is axially movable relative to the first domer).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bowen teaches the domer assembly of claim 1 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the first domer 18 and the second domer 19 are configured to form the first dome profile in the wall of the metal container during a first stage of the bottom forming process (Figs. 5A-C; the first and second domers 18, 19 are configured, i.e., capable, of forming the first dome together as seen in Figs. 5A-C in which the two domers together form the shape of the first dome), and wherein the second domer 19 is configured to form the second dome profile in the wall of the metal container during a second stage of the bottom forming process (Figs. 5D-F).
Regarding claim 24, Bowen teaches a bottom forming system (Figs. 5A-F) comprising:
a domer assembly 18, 19 comprising a first domer 18 and a second domer 19 (Figs. 5A-F; Para. [0058]); and
a container support 17 configured to support a metal container 7 relative to the domer assembly 18, 19 during a bottom forming process, , the metal container having a wall (Figs. 5A-F; Para. [0058]; as shown in Figs. 5A-F the container includes a wall at the end as well as sidewalls),
in a first configuration of the domer assembly during the forming process:
the second domer 19 is configured to at least partially form a first dome profile in the wall prior to the first domer 18 contacting the wall (Figs. 5A-C; the first configuration includes the second domer 19 configured to at least partially form the first dome profile prior to the first domer 18 contacting the wall because the wall on the second end is not restricted to any particular geometry, e.g., it may protrude downwardly in the center where the second domer 19 is located, and the second domer 19 is capable of touching the wall prior to the first domer), and
the second domer 19 and the first domer 18 are configured to fully form the first dome profile in the wall after the first domer 19 contact the wall (Figs. 5A-C show the first dome profile being formed with both the first domer and the second domer after the first domer has contacted the wall),
in a second configuration of the domer assembly during the bottom forming process:
the first domer 18 is configured to form a second dome profile in the wall (Figs. 5D-F show the second domer 19 forming the second dome profile, and as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above this limitation is interpreted as the second domer 19 forms the second dome profile), the second surface is offset upwards from the first surface (Figs. 5D-F), the second surface contacts the wall and forms the second dome profile (Figs. 5D-F), the first dome profile and the second dome profile form a double dome in the wall (Fig. 5F).
Bowen fails to explicitly teach wherein the second domer is configured to be movable relative to the first domer.
Blei teaches a device for forming a dome on an end surface of a container (Abstract; Figs. 1-4) including a first domer 59 and a second domer 58 (Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]) wherein the second domer 58 is movable within the first domer 59 and relative to the first domer 59 (Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the domer assembly of Bowen to include the second domer movable relative to the first domer so that the container body may be set in the die in which it is being formed while the domers are allowed to move thus allowing for more accurate and secure placement of the container body during the formation process.
Regarding claim 25 modified Bowen teaches the bottom forming system of claim 24 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the container support 17 comprises a punch sleeve (Figs. 5A-F; Para. [0058]; the container support is a punch sleeve that supports the interior of the container 7).
Regarding claim 26 modified Bowen teaches the bottom forming system of claim 24 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the domer assembly 18, 19 is movable into a receiving area of the container support 17 to form the double dome in the wall of the metal container (Figs. 5A-F and Blei, Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]; modified Bowen includes the domer assembly movement arrangement of Blei, and therefore modified Bowen includes the domer assembly being movable into the receiving area of the support).
Regarding claim 28, Bowen teaches a domer assembly for a bottom forming system (Figs. 5A-F), the domer assembly comprising:
a first domer 18 comprising a first surface (Figs. 5A-F; Para. [0058]); and
a second domer 19 (Figs. 5A-F; Para. [0058]),
wherein the domer assembly 18, 19 is configured to receive a metal container 7, the metal container comprising a first end, a second end, and a wall positioned at the second end (Figs. 5A-F show the container 7 has a second end with a bottom wall and a first end, i.e., the open end at the top)
in a first configuration of the domer assembly during the forming process:
the second domer 19 is configured to at least partially form a first dome profile in the wall prior to the first domer 18 contacting the wall (Figs. 5A-C; the first configuration includes the second domer 19 configured to at least partially form the first dome profile prior to the first domer 18 contacting the wall because the wall on the second end is not restricted to any particular geometry, e.g., it may protrude downwardly in the center where the second domer 19 is located, and the second domer 19 is capable of touching the wall prior to the first domer), and
the second domer 19 and the first domer 18 are configured to fully form the first dome profile in the wall after the first domer 19 contact the wall (Figs. 5A-C show the first dome profile being formed with both the first domer and the second domer after the first domer has contacted the wall),
in a second configuration of the domer assembly during the bottom forming process:
the first domer 18 is configured to form a second dome profile in the wall (Figs. 5D-F show the second domer 19 forming the second dome profile, and as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above this limitation is interpreted as the second domer 19 forms the second dome profile), the second surface is offset upwards from the first surface (Figs. 5D-F), the second surface contacts the wall and forms the second dome profile (Figs. 5D-F), the first dome profile and the second dome profile form a double dome in the wall (Fig. 5F).
Bowen fails to explicitly teach wherein the second domer is configured to be movable relative to the first domer.
Blei teaches a device for forming a dome on an end surface of a container (Abstract; Figs. 1-4) including a first domer 59 and a second domer 58 (Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]) wherein the second domer 58 is movable within the first domer 59 and relative to the first domer 59 (Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the domer assembly of Bowen to include the second domer movable within and relative to the first domer so that the container body may be set in the die in which it is being formed while the domers are allowed to move thus allowing for more accurate and secure placement of the container body during the formation process.
Regarding claim 29, modified Bowen teaches the domer assembly of claim 28 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the second domer 19 is movable within the first domer 18 (modified Bowen includes first domer being movable within and relative to the first domer, as taught by Blei at Figs. 1-4 and Para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Bowen teaches the domer assembly of claim 28 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the first domer 18 is a sleeve and the second domer 19 is an insert movable within the sleeve (Blei, Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]; modified Bowen includes the domer movement arrangement of Blei, which teaches the second domer is an insert moveable within a sleeve, i.e., the first domer).
Regarding claim 31, modified Bowen teaches the domer assembly of claim 28 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the second domer 19 is axially movable relative to the first domer 18 (Blei, Figs. 1-4; Para. [0030]; modified Bowen includes the domer movement arrangement of Blei, which teaches the second domer is an axially moveable relative to the first domer).
Regarding claim 32, modified Bowen teaches the domer assembly of claim 28 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein the first surface comprises a non-linear curvature and the second domer 19 comprises a second surface with a non-linear curvature (Figs. 5A-F; Para. [0058]; as shown in Figs. 5A-F, each domer includes a surface with curves on the outer edges and a relatively flat center, i.e., surfaces with non-linear curvature).
Regarding claim 33, modified Bowen teaches the domer assembly of claim 28 (Figs. 5A-F), wherein, in the first configuration, a first non-linear surface of the first domer 18 and a second non-linear surface of the second domer 19 are continuous (Figs. 5A-C), and wherein, in the second configuration, second non-linear surface of the second domer 19 is offset outwards from the first non-linear surface 18 (Figs. 5D-F).
Claim 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen in view of Blei in further view of US 4,790,169 to Johansson (cited in 892 dated December 14, 2023).
Regarding claim 13, modified Bowen teaches a bottom forming system (Figs. 5A-F) comprising:
the domer assembly of claim 1 (Figs. 5A-F) further comprising:
a punch 17 positioned relative to the domer assembly 18, 19 and configured to engage an inner surface of the metal container 7 during the bottom forming process (Figs. 5A-F) and such that the metal container is between the punch and the domer assembly (Figs. 5A-F; the container is between the punch and domer assembly, as best seen in Figs. 5C-E).
Bowen fails to explicitly teach a retainer configured to engage an outer surface of the metal container during the bottom forming process at least partially defining the receiving area for the metal container and such that the metal container is between the punch and the retainer, the retainer positioned opposite from the punch and defining a receiving area, and wherein the domer assembly is positionable and movable within the receiving area of the retainer.
Johansson teaches a bottom forming system (Abstract, Fig. 10) including a domer assembly 336, 342 (Figs. 10-13), a punch 320 that engages the inner surface of the container (Figs. 10-13) and a retainer 330 configured to engage an outer surface of the metal container during the bottom forming process at least partially defining the receiving area for the metal container and such that the metal container is between the punch and the retainer (Figs. 10-13 show the metal container positioned between the retainer and punch as well as the retainer defining a receiving area for the container), the retainer 330 positioned opposite from the punch 320 and defining a receiving area (Figs. 10-13; the retainer defines a receiving area at a location opposite the punch, i.e., below the punch and in the direction it is moving) and wherein the domer assembly 336, 342 is positionable and movable within the receiving area of the retainer 330 (Figs. 10-13 show the domer assembly is positioned within and moveable within the receiving area defined by the retainer 330, i.e., the area within the opening at the top of the retainer in which the workpiece is positioned and the domer moves).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a retainer to the bottom forming system of Bowen as taught by Johansson so that the container may be held in position and the exterior surface may be shaped by the surface of the retainer to ensure the bottom of the container has a desired shape.
Regarding claim 27, modified Bowen teaches the bottom forming system of claim 24 (Figs. 5A-F).
Bowen fails to explicitly teach a retainer configured to engage the outer surface of the metal container during the bottom forming process, wherein the domer assembly is axially movable from within the retainer.
Johansson teaches a bottom forming system (Abstract, Fig. 10) including a domer assembly 336, 342 (Figs. 10-13), a punch 320 that engages the inner surface of the container (Figs. 10-13) and a retainer 330 configured to engage an outer surface of the metal container during the bottom forming process at least partially defining the receiving area for the metal container (Figs. 10-13), and wherein the domer assembly 336, 342 is axially movable from within the retainer 330 (Figs. 10-13 show the domer assembly being movable within the area defined by the retainer 330).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a retainer to the bottom forming system of Bowen as taught by Johansson so that the container may be held in position and the exterior surface may be shaped by the surface of the retainer to ensure the bottom of the container has a desired shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated April 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the newly added feature in the independent claims regarding the second domer contacting the bottom wall prior to the first domer. Remarks, PP. 9-11. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to be relying on the wall at the second end being flat, as shown in the Figure from their own application provided on P. 9 of the remarks. However, the claims are apparatus claims directed to a domer assembly configured to work on a metal container with no restrictions on the shape of the walls of the metal container. Thus, the wall at the second end may be shaped such that it protrudes towards the center of the domer assembly, and in such a configuration the second domer is capable of contacting the wall prior to the first domer.
Applicant further argues that the rejection improperly relies upon the drawings to teach a dimension regarding the limitation “a distance between the first end and the second end is greater than a distance between the center of the double dome and the first end.” Remarks, PP. 11-12. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. As stated in MPEP 2125, “[d]rawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed.” In the present application, the drawings (and specification) of Bowen show that a double dome is being formed in the bottom wall and the dome projects into the interior space of the metal container, i.e., the dome projects upwardly from the bottom wall of the second end of the container towards the first end. It is clear that any portion on the dome formed in the wall at the second end and projecting into the interior space towards the first end is closer to the first end than the portions of the second wall that are not part of the dome. Accordingly, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights