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 .
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H10-137861 to Akira in view of JP 2008-36677 to Fukunaga (cited in 892 dated August 28, 2024) as evidenced by US 2020/0055147 A1 to Shiroishi.
Regarding claim 1, Akira teaches a method for manufacturing a bottomed cylindrical body (Abstract), comprising:
a lubricant application step (Paras. [0036] and [0039]; a lubricant is applied for the drawing step);
a drawing step of drawing the metal sheet by use of forming members each of which has a hardness of more than hardness of Hv 1500 and less than or equal to 12000 at a processing surface thereof, wherein the metal sheet is formed into a workpiece (Paras. [0019]-[0021] and [0039]; the forming members have a hardness of Hv2500, i.e., between 1500 and 12000);
an ironing step of ironing the workpiece into the bottomed cylindrical body by using a coolant (Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0035]-[0036], [0039] and [0060]; the workpiece is subjected to ironing to form a bottomed cylindrical body and a coolant is used during the ironing process) and by use of forming members each of which has a hardness of HV 8000 to 12000 at a processing surface thereof (Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0012]-[0014] and [0021]; the forming members used in the ironing process have a DLC film on the processing surface which is known to have a hardness of over Hv 8000 depending on the ratio of diamond to graphite, as evidenced by US 2020/0055147 A1 which teaches that in ironing operations a film of diamond and graphite, i.e., a DLC film, has a hardness of over Hv 8000 when more diamonds are used relative to the graphite);
wherein the coolant is a coolant of lower than 4.0 vol% concentration (Para. [0039; the coolant has 2% oil by volume).
Akira fails to explicitly teach, a lubricant application step of applying liquid lubricant having a viscosity of lower than 200 mPa-s to a surface of a metal plate.
Fukunaga teaches a method for manufacturing a bottomed cylinder body (Abstract) comprising a lubricant application step of applying liquid lubricant having a viscosity of lower than 200 mPa-s to a surface of a metal plate (Paras. [0032]-[0034] and [0055]; a lubricant is applied to the workpiece, and the lubricant is 8 mPa-s, i.e., less than 200 mPa-s).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the lubricant in the method of manufacturing a cylindrical body of Akira with the lubricant of Fukunaga as those 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 providing lubrication between the workpiece and forming tools during the drawing and ironing steps.
Regarding claim 2, modified Akira teaches the method for manufacturing a bottomed cylindrical body according to claim 1 (Abstract), wherein the bottomed cylindrical body is a seamless can body (Paras. [0038]-[0039]; the workpieces are formed to size for the cylindrical body and then drawn and ironed, i.e., the products are seamless).
Regarding claim 3, modified Akira teaches the method for manufacturing a bottomed cylindrical body according to claim 1 (Abstract), wherein the metal sheet is made of an aluminum alloy (Para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Akira teaches the manufacturing method of claim 1 (Abstract), further comprising a washing step of removing a lubricant and/or coolant attached on a surface of the bottomed cylindrical body (Para. [0051]; the body is cleaned, i.e., foreign substances on the body are removed).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira in view of Fukunaga as evidenced by Shiroishi in further view of US 5,020,350 to Knepp.
Regarding claim 6, modified Akira teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1 (Abstract).
Akira fails to explicitly teach the coolant contains a preservative and/or a corrosion inhibitor.
Knepp teaches a manufacturing method of a cylindrical body including drawing and ironing steps (Abstract) wherein the coolant used in the processes contains a corrosion inhibitor (Col. 8, Lns. 14-18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coolant of Akira to include a corrosion inhibitor as taught by Knepp so that the equipment used in the drawing and ironing processes are protected from corrosion and thus have longer working lifespans.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira in view of Fukunaga as evidenced by Shiroishi in further view of US 4,535,615 to Ebben.
Regarding claim 8, modified Akira teaches the manufacturing method a bottomed cylindrical body according to claim 1 (Abstract).
Akira fails to explicitly teach a purification step of purifying effluent discharged in the ironing step and/or a washing step.
Ebben teaches a method of producing cans (Abstract) including a purification step of purifying effluent discharged in the ironing step and/or a washing step (Col. 4, Lns. 13-17).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of producing cylindrical bodies of Akira to include the purification step of Ebben so that the waste water may be cleaned to such an extent that it may be used in other processes, thus reducing waste and increasing efficiency of the process.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira in view of Fukunaga as evidenced by Shiroishi in further view of US 2018/0318900 to Takao.
Regarding claim 15, modified Akira teaches the manufacturing process of claim 1 (Abstract), wherein the forming members in the ironing step include an ironing punch and an ironing die (Paras. [0012] and [0019]; the ironing apparatus includes a die and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a punch is used to move the workpiece through the die), and the ironing die has a diamond film at the processing surface thereof (Paras. [0012]-[0013]; the ironing die has a diamond film on the processing surface).
Akira fails to explicitly teach a thickness of the diamond film is 5 to 30 um.
Takao teaches a method for forming a bottomed cylindrical body (Fig. 4; Para. [0002]) using forming members having a diamond film that is 5 to 30 um (Figs. 2A, 3A, and 4A-D; Para. [0039]-[0040]; the diamond film is between 5 and 15 um).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the diamond film to have a thickness between 5 and 30 um as taught by Takao so that the film is not too thin, thus making it difficult to uniformly coat the tool, or too thick, thus degrading the peeling resistance (Takao, Para. [0040]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira in view of Fukunaga as evidenced by Shiroishi in further view of US 4,581,152 to Hotta.
Regarding claim 16, modified Akira teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1 (Abstract).
Akira fails to explicitly teach wherein an ironing ratio of a first ironing step is set at 10 % or higher and the ironing ratio of a last ironing step is set at 30 % or higher, wherein the ironing ratio = 100 x (tO – t1)/t1, tO is a thickness of the workpiece before ironing and t1 is a thickness of the workpiece after ironing at a portion of 60 mm from a bottom of the body. Akira teaches that the ironing process includes at least two ironing passes (Para. [0060]), but is silent regarding the ironing ratio for the passes.
Hotta teaches a method of drawing and ironing a workpiece into a can shape (Abstract) including multiple ironing passes in which wherein an ironing ratio of a first ironing step is set at 10 % or higher and the ironing ratio of a last ironing step is set at 30 % or higher (Col. 6, Lns. 6-19; the first ironing ratio is 38.2%, i.e., higher than 10%, and the last ironing pass has a ratio of 39.4%, i.e, higher than 30%), wherein the ironing ratio = 100 x (tO – t1)/t1, tO is a thickness of the workpiece before ironing and t1 is a thickness of the workpiece after ironing at a portion of 60 mm from a bottom of the body (Col. 6, Lns. 6-19; the ironing is performed on the length of a can that is 145 mm long, and therefore the ratio would be present at a location 60 mm from the bottom of body as the entire can body is ironed according to the ratio).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ironing passes of Akira to have the ironing ratios of Hotta so that the ironing is performed in such a manner that the thickness is not reduced too much on each pass which could result in damage to the can body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated December 4, 2025, with respect to the rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive. It is noted that while the rejection has changed from a 102 to a 103 to address the newly added claim features, the portions of the claim argued in the remarks are rejected on the same grounds.
Applicant argues that Akira fails to teach a hardness between Hv 8000 and 12000 because the reference teaches a DLC film with a hardness of over Hv 2500 and the examples provided do not have a hardness between Hv 8000 and 12000. Remarks, PP. 5-6. Applicant further points to the criticality of the hardness being over Hv 8000 in ironing tools due to the appearance of the surface being ironed as well as less defects on the surface with the higher hardness. Id. These arguments have been carefully considered and they are not persuasive. While Applicant is correct that Akira broadly states that the DLC has a hardness of over Hv 2500, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the range of hardness of the DLC film includes a hardness of over Hv 8000, as evidenced by US 2020/0055147 A1 to Shiroishi. Shiroishi teaches that DLC films include a diamond component and a graphite component, and the hardness of the film may be adjusted by increasing the ratio of diamonds relative to the graphite (Paras. [0039]-[0040]). In particular, Shirioshi discusses that in ironing operations a DLC film with a high ratio of diamonds is preferable because it has a hardness of over Hv 8000. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the DLC film in Akira includes hardness values between Hv 8000 and 12000. While Applicant has pointed to the criticality of the hardness via the remarks and affidavit, Akira teaches the DLC film performing the same function on the processing surface of an ironing tool and teaches the range is over Hv 2500, i.e., a range that includes Hv 8000 to 12000. Further, Akira also recognizes “the relationship between the material of the die and the occurrence of galling, and found that the surface hardness of the die is closely related to the occurrence of galling” (Para. [0020]). Thus, Akira recognizes that a DLC with higher hardness is preferable for ironing operations.
Response to Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed December 4, 2025, is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 15-16 based upon the 102 rejection (and the new 103 rejection relying on same reference to teach these features) as set forth in the last Office Action because: the affidavit does not include a sufficient number of tests to show criticality (MPEP 716.02(d)(II)) because it appears only 7 test runs were performed (Figs. A and B show results for 7 cans) and the tests were only performed for hardness values of Hv 4000 and Hv 10000 (Paragraph 5) without any tests for Hv 8000 or Hv 12000 within the claimed range or hardness values under Hv 8000 besides Hv 4000. Further, as discussed in the response to arguments section above, even if the claimed hardness were to be critical, the claims would still be rejected using the same reference because DLC films are known to have a hardness value over Hv 8000 as evidenced by Shiroishi and Akira teaches the general conditions of the claimed invention while recognizing that it is preferable to have a higher hardness of the die during ironing.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
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 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