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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 6, 2026, has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-22 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered NPL reference(s) to Delta Technology (cited by Applicant). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
1. Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swedberg (US 2018/0133770) in view of Rukat (GB 2552533; cited by Applicant).
In reference to claim 15, Swedberg discloses a method of operating a can production line that includes a can bodymaker to mitigate effects of tool wear, damage and/or misalignment during production of can bodies, the method comprising:
obtaining, from one or more load cells (31), output signals indicative of an axial force exerted on tools by a cup passing there through during a ram stroke, the load cells being located in or on plate assemblies (20A-20E) attached to a bolder plate (18) fixed to a tool pack,
processing the output signals to obtain indicative of one or more of the tools being work, damaged and/or misaligned with respect to a ram of the bodymaker, and
adjusting one or more operating parameters of the can bodymaker, based on the data to mitigate the effects of the tools being worn, damaged and/or misaligned with respect to the ram [see paragraph 0007].
Swedberg discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a single plate with one or more load cells is provided for generating output signals indicative of the force exerted on the tools.
However, Delta-H Technology teaches of a single adapter plate (gauge ring) that is fitted behind the last ironing die comprising of three load cells (piezo-electric load sensors) that are configured to generate an output signal indicative of an axial force (load) exerted on the tools by a cup passing there through [see NPL].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the multiple sensor plate assemblies of Swedberg with a single sensor plate assembly (i.e. adapter plate with load cells) as taught by Delta-H Technology in order to simplify the overall invention and still allow for force monitoring of each tool within the tool pack.
In reference to claim 16, Swedberg further discloses wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise one of an operating temperature of the tool pack [see paragraph 0007].
In reference to claim 17, Swedberg further discloses the one or more operating parameters comprise a parameter of a component of the production line of the bodymaker [see paragraph 0011].
2. Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9-14 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swedberg (US 2018/0133770) in view of Rukat (GB 2552533; cited by Applicant) and Delta-H Technology (NPL; cited by Applicant).
In reference to claim 1, Swedberg discloses a can bodymaker for producing can bodies from cups and comprising
a ram configured to reciprocate along an axis [see paragraph 0021].
a punch mounted on the ram [see paragraph 0021],
a tool pack (10) comprising a cradle and a plurality of tools (12-14) located in the cradle for drawing and ironing a cup mounted on the punch during a forward stroke of the ram [see figure 1; paragraphs 0025-0026],
a bolster plate (18) fixed to the tool pack (10) [see figure 2; paragraph 0026],
an adapter plate (20E) fixed to the bolster plate (18) [see figure 2],
sensor plate assemblies (20A-20D) positioned in line with its respective tool (redraw die or ironing die) wherein each plate assembly has one or more load cells (31)
one or more load cells (31) located on a sensor plate assembly (20A-20E), wherein each sensor plate assembly is associated with a respective tool of the toolpack (redraw or ironing die) and configured to generate an output signal indicative of an axial force exerted on each tool by the cup passing therethrough [see paragraphs 0025-0026 & 0028; figure 3].
Swedberg discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a single plate with one or more load cells is provided for generating output signals indicative of the force exerted on the tools.
However, Delta-H Technology teaches of a single adapter plate (gauge ring) that is fitted behind the last ironing die comprising of three load cells (piezo-electric load sensors) that are configured to generate an output signal indicative of an axial force (load) exerted on the tools by a cup passing there through [see NPL].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the multiple sensor plate assemblies of Swedberg with a single sensor plate assembly (i.e. adapter plate with load cells) as taught by Delta-H Technology in order to simplify the overall invention and still allow for force monitoring of each tool within the tool pack.
Swedberg discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the can bodymaker comprises a stripper assembly for removing a can body from the punch during a return stroke of the ram.
However, Rukat teaches of a can bodymaker that includes a stripper (8) fixed to an adapter plate (14), the stripper having stripper fingers for removing a can body from the punch during a return stroke [see figure 3; pg. 5 lines 24-30].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the can bodymaker of Swedberg to include a stripper assembly, as taught by Rukat, in order to efficiently remove a can body from the punch on a return stroke of the punch.
In reference to claim 5, Delta-H Technology further teaches the one or more load cells are piezoelectric load cells [see pg. 1 of NPL].
In reference to claim 6, Delta-H Technology further teaches the one or mor load cells comprise multiple load cells (three load cells), the load cells being angularly spaced apart from one another equally about the axis, as seen in the picture on pg. 1.
In reference to claim 7, Swedberg further discloses a processor (33) configured to adjust one or mor operating parameters of the bodymaker, the one or more operating parameters comprising a rate of reciprocation of the ram in response to the output signals [see paragraphs 0007-0011 & 0029; the data collected must be processed by a processor in order to complete the function of monitoring and controlling the bodymaker].
In reference to claim 9, Rukat further teaches the stripper assembly comprises a radial offset monitor (10) for detecting misalignment of the ram and/or punch relative to the axis [see pg. 6 lines 6-8].
In reference to claim 10, Rukat further teaches the radial offset monitor (10) comprises a bore configured to allow passage of the punch and ram therethrough and one or more eddy current sensors (11) spaced around the bore, as seen in figure 2a.
In reference to claim 20, Swedberg further discloses the bolster plate (18) is fixed relative to a housing of the tool pack, as seen in figure 1.
In reference to claim 21, the combination further discloses the one or more load cells and the stripper assembly are located on an outboard side of the adapter plate.
In reference to claim 22, Swedberg further discloses a clamp [see paragraph 0026; specification states “a clamping force is provided to the leading edge of the tool pack assembly. This clamping force ensures all of the tool pack components are firmly seated against each other and the bolster plate during the can forming process” thus Swedberg inherently includes a clamping mechanism to perform this function],
In reference to claim 11, Swedberg discloses an apparatus for retro-fitting to a can bodymaker that includes a ram configured to reciprocate along an axis [see paragraph 0021]. a punch mounted on the ram [see paragraph 0021], a tool pack (10) comprising a cradle and a plurality of tools (12-14) located in the cradle for drawing and ironing a cup mounted on the punch during a forward stroke of the ram [see figure 1; paragraphs 0025-0026], a bolster plate (18) fixed to the tool pack (10) [see figure 2; paragraph 0026], an existing adapter plate (20E) fixed to the bolster plate (18) [see figure 2].
Swedberg discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the can bodymaker comprises a stripper assembly for removing a can body from the punch during a return stroke of the ram.
However, Rukat teaches of a can bodymaker that includes a stripper (8) fixed to an adapter plate (14), the stripper having stripper fingers for removing a can body from the punch during a return stroke [see figure 3; pg. 5 lines 24-30].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the can bodymaker of Swedberg to include a stripper assembly, as taught by Rukat, in order to efficiently remove a can body from the punch on a return stroke of the punch.
The combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a replacement adapter plate and stripper assembly is provided with one or more load cells located on the replacement adapter plate.
However Delta-H Technology teaches of retro-fitting an existing can bodymaker with a gauge ring (adapter plate) having one or more load cells located thereon for the purpose of generating output signals indicative of axial forces exerted on the tools during a working stroke [see pgs. 102 of NPL].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the multiple sensor plate assemblies of Swedberg with a single sensor plate assembly (i.e. adapter plate with load cells) as taught by Delta-H Technology in order to simplify the overall invention and still allow for force monitoring of each tool within the tool pack.
In reference to claim 12, Rukat further teaches the stripper assembly is mounted to an adapter plate (14) and the stripper assembly comprises a radial offset monitor (10) for detecting misalignment of the ram and/or punch relative to the axis [see pg. 6 lines 6-8].
In reference to claim 13, Rukat further teaches the offset radial monitor (10) comprises a bore configured to allow passage of the punch and ram therethrough and one or more eddy current sensors (11) spaced around the bore, as seen in figure 2a].
In reference to claim 14, The combination of Swedberg, Rukat and Delta-H Technology discloses a method of calibrating the apparatus as set forth in claim 11 above, the method comprising
installing into the cradle of the can bodymaker, after the apparatus has been retro-fitted to the can bodymaker, a calibration fixture comprising one or more reference load cells (31) configured to generate an output signal indicative of an axial force exerted on the tools (12-14) located in the cradle,
applying an axial force (clamping force) to the tools and the one or more reference load cells (31) using the clamping mechanism of the can bodymaker, and
using the respective output signals of the reference load cells to determine a calibration factor or calibration function for estimating the force on the tools from the output signals generated by the load cells (31) of the apparatus [see paragraph 0028].
In reference to claim 18, Swedberg discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the bodymaker includes a stripper assembly for removing the can body from the punch during a return stroke.
However, Rukat teaches of a can bodymaker that includes a stripper (8) fixed to an adapter plate (14), the stripper having stripper fingers for removing a can body from the punch during a return stroke [see figure 3; pg. 5 lines 24-30].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the can bodymaker of Swedberg to include a stripper assembly, as taught by Rukat, in order to efficiently remove a can body from the punch on a return stroke of the punch.
In reference to claim 19, Rukat further teaches the stripper assembly comprises a radial offset monitor (10), and the combination further discloses obtaining output signals indicative of a position of the ram and/or punch perpendicular to the axis using the radial offset monitor (10) and adjusting one or more parameters based on the data and output signals from the radial offset monitor.
3. Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swedberg and Rukat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fowler et al (US 2014/0260499).
In reference to claim 2, the combination of Swedberg, Rukat and Delta-H Technology discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein an encoder is provided for position measurement of the ram.
However, Fowler et al teaches of a bodymaker having an encoder provided therein for the purpose to measuring the position of a crankshaft which in turn gives the position of the ram since the ram is connected to the crankshaft [see paragraph 0060 and 0120].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bodymaker of Swedberg to further include an encoder, as taught to be well known in the art by Fowler et al, in order to measure the position of the ram during a can body operation.
In reference to claim 3, Fowler et al further discloses the encoder is a rotary encoder. However it is well within the realm of one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the rotary encoder for a linear encoder since in order to obtain the predictable result of positional measurement.
In reference to claim 4, Fowler et al further teaches the encoder is a rotary encoder configured to be turned by a shaft used to drive the ram [see paragraph 0120].
However, Ishida teaches that piezoelectric load cells and strain gauges are commonly known sensors that coverts a pressing load between two elements into an electric signal [see paragraph 0033].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the strain gauge with a piezoelectric load cell, as taught by Ishida, since they are known equivalents in the art for sensing loads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights