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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on March 23, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 16 recites “translatable deflectable” and “deflectable” was already in the claim. 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 22 and 37 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 22, the claim recites “the eddy current sensors comprise four eddy current sensors spaced approximately equiangular about the axis” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is “approximately equiangular about the axis,” i.e., exactly at the same angle with respect to the axis or each at an angle within a few degrees of each other relative to the axis. For the purposes of examination, this phrase is interpreted as the angles are the same with respect to the axis.
Regarding claim 37, the claim recites “the hold down ring is spaced from the hold down ring about the entire circumference of the die” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the hold down ring can be spaced from itself. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as at least a portion of the hold down ring is at spaced from the circumference of the die.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19, 23-27, 30-33 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0207706 A1 to Pride Engineering (hereinafter “Pride”).
Regarding claim 16, Pride teaches an apparatus for forming a base profile on a metal container carried on a punch 45 moving along an axis (Abstract, Figs. 1 and 3), the apparatus comprising:
a die 5 for forming the base profile on the container (Paras. [0015], [0016], and [0038]; Figs. 1 and 3);
a hold down ring 4 surrounding the die 5 and radially spaced apart therefrom (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0016] and [0038]; “the fit between the clamp ring and the dome die 5 may be a taper” as discussed in Para. [0016] and “the clamp ring 4 travels into the bottom former…[until] [t]he clamp ring then strikes the dome die 5” as discussed in Para. [0038] i.e., the hold down ring is radially spaced from the die at the narrower portions of the taper until the ring moves into a wider portion of the die that it strikes) such that the hold down ring is capable of radial translation relative to the die in response to the impact of the punch (Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0016] and [0038]; the hold down ring 4 is capable of radial translation relative to the die 5 at the narrower portion of the tapered die prior to the ring 4 striking the die during the forming operation), the hold down ring 4 being translatable against a restoring force 41 along said axis to contact a container base ahead of the die (Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0014]-[0016], [0034] and [0038]); and
a resilient support 8 for holding the hold down ring 4 in a resting position surrounding the die 5 whilst allowing the hold down ring 4 to be translatable deflectable perpendicular to said axis and providing a restoring force perpendicular to said axis to return the hold down ring 4 to the resting position (Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0014]-[0016]; “[b]y being able to compress radially, elastomer spring 8 provides the flexibility required to allow contact from a misaligned punch to move the clamp ring 4 in a direction that improves its axial alignment with the punch”).
Regarding claim 17, Pride teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the hold down ring is deflectable perpendicular to said axis by more than 100 µm (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0014]; the gap 46 determines the amount the clamp ring 4 can deflect perpendicular to the axis, and the gap is at least 0.005 inches, i.e., 127 µm).
Regarding claim 18, Pride teaches the apparatus according to claim 16 (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein said die 5 is not moveable by the punch (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0016]; “the fit between the clamp ring and the dome die 5 may be a taper…[which] allows the clamp ring to rock on the fixed dome die 5 to facilitate the alignment feature,” i.e., the hold down ring is moveable relative to a fixed, i.e., not moveable, die).
Regarding claim 19, Pride teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising one or more sensors for measuring deflection of the hold down ring perpendicular to said axis (Paras. [0019] and [0025]; Figs. 1 and 3; “strain sensors remain functional and continue to sense die set 4 & 5 position changes applied to them by punch 45”).
Regarding claim 23, Pride teaches a can bodymaker comprising the apparatus of claim 16 (Abstract, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Pride teaches a method for forming a base profile on a metal container (Figs. 1 and 3; Abstract) and comprising
locating a container on a punch 45 (Fig. 1 shows the container on the punch),
using the punch 45 to drive the container base, in an axial direction, against a hold down ring 4 surrounding a die 5 defining said base profile, the hold down ring 4 being translatable relative to the die 5 against a restoring force 41 in said axial direction to contact the container base ahead of the die (Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0014]-[0016], [0034] and [0038]; “the fit between the clamp ring and the dome die 5 may be a taper” as discussed in Para. [0016] and “the clamp ring 4 travels into the bottom former…[until] [t]he clamp ring then strikes the dome die 5” as discussed in Para. [0038] i.e., the hold down ring is radially spaced from the die at the narrower portions of the taper where it may move in the radial direction in a translating motion), wherein the hold down ring 4 is translatable relative to the die upon impact of the container base against the hold down ring 4, perpendicular to said axial direction against a restoring force perpendicular to said axial direction (Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0014]-[0016], [0034] and [0038]; the hold down ring is translatable relative to the die at the narrower portions of the taper and “[b]y being able to compress radially, elastomer spring 8 provides the flexibility required to allow contact from a misaligned punch to move the clamp ring 4 in a direction that improves its axial alignment with the punch,” i.e., a restoring force in the perpendicular direction).
Regarding claim 25, Pride teaches the method according to claim 24 (Figs. 1 and 3), further comprising measuring the deflection of the hold down ring perpendicular to said axial direction by the punch (Paras. [0019] and [0025]; Figs. 1 and 3; “strain sensors remain functional and continue to sense die set 4 & 5 position changes applied to them by punch 45”).
Regarding claim 26, Pride teaches the method according to claim 24 (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the die remains stationary while the punch drives the container base (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0016]; “the fit between the clamp ring and the dome die 5 may be a taper…[which] allows the clamp ring to rock on the fixed dome die 5 to facilitate the alignment feature,” i.e., the hold down ring moves relative to the fixed, i.e., stationary, die).
Regarding claim 27, Pride teaches the method according to claim 24 (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the hold down ring is deflectable perpendicular to the axial direction by more than 100 pm (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0014]; the gap 46 determines the amount the clamp ring 4 can deflect perpendicular to the axis, and the gap is at least 0.005 inches, i.e., 127 µm).
Regarding claim 30, A method for forming a base profile on a metal container, the method comprising the steps of:
locating a container on a punch 45 (Fig. 1 shows the container on the punch),
moving the container on the punch 45 in an axial direction to contact a hold down ring 4 surrounding a die 5 defining a base profile such that a container base contacts the hold down ring 4 before the container base contacts the die 5 (Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0014]-[0016] and [0034]), and
driving the hold down ring in the axial direction via the punch, after the container base contacts the hold down ring, until the container base contacts the die (Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0014]-[0016] and [0034]);
wherein the hold down ring translating, during said driving step, is translating in a direction perpendicular to said axial direction and relative to the die, against a restoring force perpendicular to said axial direction upon misalignment of the punch relative to the die (Figs. 1 and 3; Paras. [0014]-[0016] and [0038]; “the fit between the clamp ring and the dome die 5 may be a taper” as discussed in Para. [0016] and “the clamp ring 4 travels into the bottom former…[until] [t]he clamp ring then strikes the dome die 5” as discussed in Para. [0038] i.e., the hold down ring is radially spaced from the die at the narrower portions of the taper where it may move in the radial direction in a translating motion, and the elastomer ring 8 provides a radial restoring force that the ring acts against).
Regarding claim 31, Pride teaches the method according to claim 30 (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the step of the hold down ring deflecting includes the hold down ring deflecting by more than 100 pm (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0014]; the gap 46 determines the amount the clamp ring 4 can deflect perpendicular to the axis, and the gap is at least 0.005 inches, i.e., 127 µm).
Regarding claim 32, Pride teaches the method according to claim 30 (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein during the step of driving the hold down ring, the die remains stationary (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0016]; “the fit between the clamp ring and the dome die 5 may be a taper…[which] allows the clamp ring to rock on the fixed dome die 5 to facilitate the alignment feature,” i.e., the hold down ring moves relative to the fixed, i.e., stationary, die).
Regarding claim 33, Pride teaches the method according to claim 30 (Figs. 1 and 3), further comprising the step of measuring the deflection of the hold down ring perpendicular to said axial direction (Paras. [0019] and [0025]; Figs. 1 and 3; “strain sensors remain functional and continue to sense die set 4 & 5 position changes applied to them by punch 45”).
Regarding claim 36, Pride teaches the apparatus of claim 16 (Figs. 1 and 3) further comprising a housing 3 (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0014]; the retainer ring 3 surrounds and houses the die set), wherein the die is configured to be fixed relative to the housing while the hold down ring translates (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0016]; “the fit between the clamp ring and the dome die 5 may be a taper…[which] allows the clamp ring to rock on the fixed dome die 5 to facilitate the alignment feature,” i.e., the hold down ring is moveable relative to a fixed, i.e., not moveable, die).
Regarding claim 37, Pride teaches the apparatus of claim 16 (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the hold down ring 4 is spaced apart from the hold down ring 4 about the entire circumference of the die 5 (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0016] and [0038]; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, this claim is interpreted as the hold down ring is at least partially spaced apart from the die about the circumference of the die, and the top of the hold down ring 4 would be spaced apart from the circumference of the die prior to striking the die 5 during the forming process, i.e., if the hold down ring 4 strikes the die then it was previously not in contact with the die).
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.
Claims 20-22 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pride in view of U.S. 4,578,981 to Nishikawa.
Regarding claim 20, Pride teaches the apparatus according to claim 19 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Pride fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more sensors are eddy current sensors.
Nishikawa teaches an apparatus for monitoring the deflection of components in metal forming operations where a punch 4 strikes a die 5a (Abstract, Col. 6, Lns. 34-63) wherein the one or more sensors are eddy current sensors 26a-d (Fig. 11; Col. 6, Lns. 43-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensors of Pride with the sensors of Nishikawa as these components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of measuring the deflection and position of the components being deflected by the punch.
Regarding claim 21, modified Pride teaches the apparatus according to claim 20 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Modified Pride fails to explicitly teach further comprising a housing surrounding the hold down ring and deflectable in conjunction with the hold down ring 4 perpendicular to said axis, the eddy current sensor(s) being configured to measure deflection of the housing perpendicular to said axis.
Another embodiment of Pride teaches the apparatus further comprising a housing surrounding the hold down ring 4 and deflectable in conjunction with the hold down ring 4 perpendicular to said axis (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1; Para. [0016]; Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 below shows the housing is the flanges extending out from the die 5 that surround the hold down ring in the direction the punch travels, and the die 5 floats with the clamp ring 4 which would cause the flanges of the die to also move in conjunction with the clamp ring 4), the sensor(s) being configured to measure deflection of the housing perpendicular to said axis (Figs. 1 and 3; it is noted that the sensors measure the deflection of clamp ring 4 and die 5, and measuring the deflection of die 5 will also measure the deflection of the flanges attached to the die that form the housing).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tapered die and hold down ring set up of the first embodiment of Pride to include a housing surrounding the hold down ring and deflectable in conjunction with the hold down ring and die perpendicular to said axis as taught by the second embodiment of Pride so that the hold down ring and die are still deflectable to compensate for any alignment issues with the punch after the hold down ring has reached the widest areas of the taper, thus reducing wear on the components and reducing error in the punching operation due to misalignment.
Regarding claim 22, modified Pride teaches the apparatus according to claim 21 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Pride fails to explicitly teach wherein the eddy current sensors comprise four eddy current sensors spaced approximately equiangular about the axis.
Nishikawa teaches an apparatus for monitoring the deflection of components in metal forming operations where a punch 4 strikes a die 5a (Abstract, Col. 6, Lns. 34-63) wherein the eddy current sensors comprise four eddy current sensors 26a-d spaced approximately equiangular about the longitudinal axis of the die (Fig. 11; Col. 6, Lns. 34-63; Fig. 11 shows the eddy sensors are in an equiangular arrangement).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pride to include four eddy sensors in an equiangular arrangement as taught by Nishikawa so that the positional changes of the component in any direction may be measured with a high degree of accuracy.
Regarding claim 34, Pride teaches the method according to claim 33 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Pride fails to explicitly teach wherein the step of measuring the deflection includes measuring the deflection via one or more eddy current sensors.
Nishikawa teaches an apparatus for method for monitoring the deflection of components in metal forming operations where a punch 4 strikes a die 5a (Abstract, Col. 6, Lns. 34-63) wherein the step for measuring the deflection includes measuring via one or more eddy current sensors 26a-d (Fig. 11; Col. 6, Lns. 43-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensors of Pride with the sensors of Nishikawa as these components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of measuring the deflection and position of the components being deflected by the punch. It is noted that substituting the sensors of Pride with the eddy current sensors of Nishikawa results in the step of measuring the deflection including measuring the deflection via one or more eddy current sensors.
Claims 28, 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pride.
Regarding claim 28, Pride teaches the method according to claim 24 (Figs. 1-3)
Pride fails to explicitly teach wherein the hold down ring is deflectable perpendicular to the axial direction by more than 500 µm.
Pride discloses that a gap surrounds the hold down ring 4 that allows it to be deflectable perpendicular to the axial direction by 0.005” (127 µm) to 0.015” (381 µm) and that the “gap determines the amount of potential offset adjustment obtainable within the mechanism.” Pride, Para. [0014]. As such, Pride teaches that the gap is a result effective variable which affects the degree to which the hold down ring can deflect and potentially adjust for any offset within the mechanism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Pride to make the gap around the hold down ring 4, and therefore the amount of deflection, greater than 500 µm as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding claim 29, Pride teaches the apparatus according to claim 16 (Figs. 1-3).
Pride fails to explicitly teach wherein the hold down ring is deflectable perpendicular to said axis by more than 500 pm.
Pride discloses that a gap surrounds the hold down ring 4 that allows it to be deflectable perpendicular to the axial direction by 0.005” (127 µm) to 0.015” (381 µm) and that the “gap determines the amount of potential offset adjustment obtainable within the mechanism.” Pride, Para. [0014]. As such, Pride teaches that the gap is a result effective variable which affects the degree to which the hold down ring can deflect and potentially adjust for any offset within the mechanism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Pride to make the gap around the hold down ring 4, and therefore the amount of deflection, greater than 500 µm as a matter of routine optimization 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).
Regarding claim 35, Pride teaches the method according to claim 30 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Pride fails to explicitly teach wherein the step of the hold down ring deflecting includes deflecting a housing surrounding the hold down ring in the direction perpendicular to the axial direction
Another embodiment of Pride teaches the method comprising the step of the hold down ring deflecting including deflecting a housing surrounding the hold down ring 4 in the direction perpendicular to said axis (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1; Para. [0016]; Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 provided above shows the housing is the flanges extending out from the die 5 that surround the hold down ring in the direction the punch travels, and the die 5 floats with the clamp ring 4 which would cause the flanges of the die to also move in conjunction with the clamp ring 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tapered die and hold down ring set up of the first embodiment of Pride to include a housing surrounding the hold down ring and deflectable in conjunction with the hold down ring and die perpendicular to said axis as taught by the second embodiment of Pride so that the hold down ring and die are still deflectable to compensate for any alignment issues with the punch after the hold down ring has reached the widest areas of the taper, thus reducing wear on the components and reducing error in the punching operation due to misalignment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on March 23, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the limitations regarding the hold down ring being radially spaced apart from the die and the hold down ring being translatable or translating in claims 16, 24 and 30. Remarks, PP. 5-6. In particular, Applicant argues that translation is defined as “the linear movement of a point in space without any rotation” and Pride fails to teach the hold down ring moving in such a manner. Id. These arguments have been carefully considered and they are not persuasive. It is noted that in the present application the system claims are interpreted as the hold down ring is capable of a translating motion and the method claims are interpreted as translation movement occurs sometimes during the forming process because interpreting the claims to require the hold down ring to exclusively move in a translating motion would lack written description support as the specification describes the ring being “deflected” (e.g., P. 2, Lns. 23-35 and P. 9, Lns. 10-22) or moving “radially” (e.g., P. 8, Ln. 31 through P. 9, Ln. 8) which are much broader motions than a translating motion due to allowing rotation. Pride discloses that “the fit between the clamp ring and the dome die 5 may be a taper” (Para. [0016]) and “the clamp ring 4 travels into the bottom former…[until] [t]he clamp ring then strikes the dome die 5.” Para. [0038]. Thus, at the narrow portion of the taper and before the ring strikes the die, the ring is spaced apart from the die and may translate during the forming process depending on the movement of the punch.
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 on (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