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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on September 28, 2023, is acknowledged.
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 bottom wall at the second end (Figs. 5A-F show the container 7 includes a second end having a bottom wall and a first end, i.e., the open end) and engage the metal container in a first configuration (Figs. 5A-C) and a second configuration (Figs. 5D-F) and form an internal double dome in the bottom wall comprising a first dome profile and a second dome profile (Fig. 5F shows the internal double dome) and such that a distance between the first end and the second end is greater than a distance between a center of the internal 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),
wherein, in the first configuration, the first surface is continuous with the second surface and the first surface and the second surface together contact the bottom wall and form the first dome profile of the internal double dome (Figs. 5A-C; it is noted that this is an apparatus claim and the first and second domers 18, 19 are configured to, i.e., capable, of forming the first dome), and
wherein, in the second configuration, the second surface is offset upwards from the first surface and the second surface contacts and forms the second dome profile of the internal double dome (Figs. 5D-F show the second surface of the second dome 19 extending upward from the surface of the first dome 18 such that it forms the second dome profile of the internal double dome).
Bowen fails to explicitly teach wherein the second domer is movable within the first domer and relative to the first domer and the first dome profile comprises a first non-zero radius of curvature and the second dome profile comprises a second non-zero radius of curvature. Bowen teaches wherein 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]) and the first dome profile comprises a first non-zero radius of curvature and the second dome profile comprises a second non-zero radius of curvature (Figs. 4-5).
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.
Further, Blei teaches that it is known to utilize a domers that form first and second domes with a non-zero radius shape in a container forming operation so as to efficiently shape the container. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowen to include or have the shape of a non-zero radius dome profile as taught by Blei, since Blei teaches that such shape allows for sufficient functionality. Further selecting from known shapes allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
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 together form the first dome profile in the bottom 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 bottom 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, wherein the container support 7 is configured to engage an inner surface of the metal container 7 (Figs. 5A-F; (Para. [0058]),
wherein the domer assembly 18, 19 is configured to engage an outer surface of the metal container 7 and form an internal double dome in a bottom wall of the metal container concurrently having a first dome profile and a second dome profile (Figs. 5A-F).
Bowen fails to explicitly teach wherein the second domer is movable relative to the first domer and the first dome profile comprises a first non-zero radius of curvature and the second dome profile comprises a second non-zero radius of curvature.
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]) and the first dome profile comprises a first non-zero radius of curvature and the second dome profile comprises a second non-zero radius of curvature (Figs. 4-5).
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.
Further, Blei teaches that it is known to utilize a domers that form first and second domes with a non-zero radius shape in a container forming operation so as to efficiently shape the container. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowen to include or have the shape of a non-zero radius dome profile as taught by Blei, since Blei teaches that such shape allows for sufficient functionality. Further selecting from known shapes allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
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 internal double dome in the bottom 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 comprising a first end, a second end, and a bottom wall 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) and to engage the bottom wall and define an internal double dome in the bottom wall concurrently comprising a first dome profile and a second dome profile and comprising a dome depth such that a center of the internal double dome is between the first end and the second end (Figs. 5A-F show the domer assembly engaging the bottom wall of the container to form an internal double dome in which the dome depth is such that the internal double dome is between the first end and the second end).
Bowen fails to explicitly teach wherein the second domer is movable relative to the first domer and the first dome profile comprises a first non-zero radius of curvature and the second dome profile comprises a second non-zero radius of curvature.
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]) and the first dome profile comprises a first non-zero radius of curvature and the second dome profile comprises a second non-zero radius of curvature (Figs. 4-5).
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.
Further, Blei teaches that it is known to utilize a domers that form first and second domes with a non-zero radius shape in a container forming operation so as to efficiently shape the container. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bowen to include or have the shape of a non-zero radius dome profile as taught by Blei, since Blei teaches that such shape allows for sufficient functionality. Further selecting from known shapes allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
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 domer 19 comprises a first surface with 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 the domer assembly 18, 19 is controllable to be in a first configuration and a second configuration (Figs. 5A-F show the two configurations), 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 May 6, 2025, with respect to the rejections of under 35 USC 102, 103 and 112, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Regarding the 102 and 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments regarding Bowen failing to teach the dome profiles having a non-zero radius of curvature (Remarks, PP. 6-7) are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, the secondary reference relied upon in the previous rejection (US 2012/0266644 A1 to Blei) teaches this feature, as discussed above. It would have been obvious to change the shape of the dome profiles in the apparatus of Bowen to have non-zero radius of curvature as Blei teaches that it is known to utilize such a shape in forming domes on containers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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