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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated January 30, 2026, claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections of the claims over Kominami have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Kominami discloses a wall thickness d3 (circled in annotated Fig. 10(a)) that is analogous to a thickness of the chuck wall radius part 1C, but is entirely silent in regard to any analogous wall thickness corresponding to a plate thickness t2 of a bottom end of the panel wall part, as generally recited in Applicant’s amended independent claim 1” (Remarks at pp. 7-9), the examiner disagrees. Kominami discloses a panel wall part, and thus the panel wall part has a bottom end (see Fig. 10a). The bottom end of the panel wall part inherently has a thickness (see Fig. 10a). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness t2, which is measured just above d3 in Fig. 10a of Kominami, is thicker than d1/t1 based on the disclosure of Kominami.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Kominami fails to disclose any respective relationship between a plate thickness of a flat portion of the center panel part 16d and a plate thickness of a bottom end of the panel wall part” (Remarks at p. 9), the examiner disagrees. The bottom end of the panel wall part inherently has a thickness (see Fig. 10a). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness t2, which is measured just above d3 in Fig. 10a of Kominami, is thicker than d1/t1 based on the disclosure of Kominami.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Examiner assertion that a thickness d1 is thinner than the remaining parts, and ‘thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand t2, which is measured just above d3 in Fig. 10a, is thicker than d1,’ is merely a conclusory statement not supported by the disclosure of Kominami, as discussed above. See Id. As such, Applicant submits that such a statement is improper, as Kominami fails to disclose any respective relationship between a plate thickness of a flat portion of the center panel part 16d and a plate thickness of a bottom end of the panel wall part” (Remarks at pp. 9-10), the examiner disagrees. Kominami expressly discusses the thickness at d3 and d1. Kominami further teaches the method of forming these thicknesses. It is clear from the figures and the method disclosed in Kominami that there is not a step in thickness between d3 and d1 (see e.g., Fig. 10a; para. [0055]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the thickness just above d3 in Fig. 10a, which corresponds to the claimed t2, is thicker than d1.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Kominami, at Figs. 1-9, does not disclose any analogous steps in the manufacturing method in which ‘compression stress is applied in a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction to the processes portion being machined,’ to achieve the claimed relationship t2>t1” (Remarks at pp. 10-11), the examiner disagrees. The claim limitations related to manufacturing steps are product-by-process limitations. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP 2113(I)).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “based on this disclosure of Kominami, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to modify Kominami to disclose or suggest Applicant’s claimed invention, particularly as Kominami is entirely silent in regard to any analogous plate thickness of a bottom end of the panel wall part, or any manufacturing method to even create a thickness of t2>t1, which is integral to the advantageous claimed can lid configuration (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. Kominami discloses a panel wall part, and thus the panel wall part has a bottom end (see Fig. 10a). The bottom end of the panel wall part inherently has a thickness (see Fig. 10a). Although Kominami does not expressly call out the thickness of the bottom end of the panel wall part, Kominami does describe how the panel wall part is formed (paras. [0025]-[0050]), and how the center panel part is formed to have a smaller thickness than the starting blank (paras. [0025]-[0050]), and the thickness at the chuck wall radius part is thicker than the center panel part (see e.g., paras. [0052]-[0055]). Kominami further discusses that the thicknesses of the parts of the lid are formed in order to provide increased strength with a smaller amount of material (paras. [0016]-[0018]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the lid of Kominami to have the claimed thickness t1 and t2, or alternatively, these thicknesses are obvious in view of the teachings of Kominami (see rejection below).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “there is a clear criticality to the claimed features, as, by utilizing this claimed configuration, this advantageously provides for, e.g., ‘it to become possible to reduce the original plate thickness of the material to be processed as much as possible, so that saving of material resources and weight reduction can be effectively implemented,’ while still providing the can lid with a high pressure resistance” (Remarks at p. 12), the examiner disagrees. In order to establish criticality, “the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range” (MPEP 2144.05(III)(A)). Here, Kominami discusses varying this thickness of the can lid in order to reduce weight and materials, while maintaining a certain strength (Kominami at paras. [0002]-[0005]). Thus, Applicant has not shown that the claimed range achieves any unexpected results relative to the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP-2018176165 to Kominami et al. (hereinafter, “Kominami”). Note: A copy of Kominami is attached to the IDS dated April 6, 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Kominami discloses a can lid (shell 16, Fig. 10a) comprising: a center panel part (panel portion 16d, Fig. 10a), a panel wall part (portion between 16c and 16d, Fig. 10a), a chuck wall radius part (groove 16c, Fig. 10a), a chuck wall part (inclined wall 16e, Fig. 10a), and a curl part (curled portion 16a, Fig. 10a), wherein a curve portion (annotated Fig. 10a below) is provided below the panel wall part (portion between 16c and 16d) in a direction orthogonal (annotated Fig. 10a) to an extension direction of the center panel part (annotated Fig. 10a), and the chuck wall radius part (groove 16c) is provided in the curve portion (annotated Fig. 10a), and wherein t2 > t1 holds (para. [0055]; Note – although Kominami only expressly discloses the thickness of the “groove bottom,” as d3, Kominami also discloses that the thickness t1/d1 is thinner than the remaining parts, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand t2, which is measured just above d3 in Fig. 10a, is thicker than d1/t1) by increasing a plate thickness of the panel wall part through compression such that the plate thickness of the panel wall part is thicker than an original plate thickness (this is a product-by-process limitation; patentability is determined based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of product, see MPEP 2113), where t1 represents a plate thickness of a flat portion of the center panel part (see annotated Fig. 10a), wherein the flat portion of the center panel part (panel portion 16d) is provided in a central portion of the can lid (see Fig. 10a), and t2 represents a plate thickness of a bottom end of the panel wall part (annotated Fig. 10a).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kominami Annotated Figure 10a
To the extent it could be argued that Kominami does not expressly disclose t2>t1, this would be obvious. Kominami teaches a can lid that is formed by thinning the center panel part, such that the thickness of the center panel part is thinner than the chuck wall radius part (see e.g., paras. [0043], [0052]-[0055]). Kominami further teaches that the chuck wall radius part provides increased strength of the can lid (para. [0023]). Kominami teaches that the thicknesses at various parts of the can lid are selected in order to reduce the amount of material required of the lid, while still maintaining sufficient strength (paras. [0016]-[0018]; [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the thickness of the bottom end of the panel wall part to be thicker than the center panel part since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A); In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 2, Kominami further discloses t2 > 1.01 * t1 holds (para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 3, Kominami further discloses t3> 1.01 * t1 holds (para. [0055]), where t3 represents a plate thickness of the chuck wall radius part (annotated Fig. 10a).
Regarding claim 5, Kominami discloses a can (para. [0002]) comprising the can lid according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Kominami discloses a manufacturing method (paras. [0024]-[0025]) for the can lid according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), comprising: shaping the chuck wall radius part (groove 16c) by relatively pressing down (see Figs. 2-9), wherein a processed part is processed into the center panel part (panel portion 16d) by the shaping of the chuck wall radius part (see Figs. 2-9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kominami in view of U.S. Pub. 20130309043 to McClung (hereinafter, “McClung”).
Regarding claim 4, Kominami further discloses t4 represents a plate thickness of a middle part of the chuck wall part (annotated Fig. 10a above).
Kominami does not expressly disclose t1 > t4 holds.
McClung teaches a similar can lid having a center panel part, a panel wall part, a chuck wall radius part, and a curl part (see Fig. 2). McClung teaches the plate thickness of a middle part of the chuck wall has a smaller thickness than a plate thickness of a flat portion of the center panel part (paras. [0036], [0047]). McClung further teaches that thinning this portion of the can lid provides a weight reduction and cost savings (paras. [0036], [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the can lid of Kominami to form the middle part of the chuck wall with a smaller thickness than the center panel part such that t1 > t4 holds as taught by McClung for the purpose of reducing weight and cost, as recognized by McClung (para. [0036]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kominami in view of U.S. Pat. 6,386,013 to Werth (hereinafter, “Werth”).
Regarding claim 7, Kominami does not expressly disclose ironing a part of the chuck wall part.
Werth teaches a manufacturing method for a can lid. Werth teaches that the can lid has a center panel part (central wall 32, Fig. 2), a panel wall part (sloped wall between central wall 32 and groove 34, see Fig. 2), a chuck wall radius part (groove 34, Fig. 2), a chuck wall part (annular wall 36, Fig. 2), and a curl part (curl wall 38, Fig. 2). Werth teaches that the manufacturing method includes the chuck wall radius part (groove 34) is shaped by pressing down a processed part (shell 50, Fig. 5) to be processed into the center panel part (see e.g., Figs. 5-8; col. 11, ll. 1-20). Werth teaches that ironing is added to a part of the chuck wall part (col. 11, ll. 22-57; Fig. 7). Werth teaches that ironing thins the material of the can lid concentrically (see col. 3, ll. 66-67; col. 4, ll. 1-31). Werth teaches that ironing the can lid provides material savings (col. 4, ll. 1-31). Werth teaches that ironing “is widely practiced” in the manufacture of metallic cans (col. 1, ll. 47-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the manufacturing method of Kominami to iron a part of the chuck wall as taught by Werth for the purpose of thinning the chuck wall for material savings, as recognized by Werth (col. 4, ll. 1-31), and because the modification is nothing more than applying a known technique (ironing, as evidenced by Werth) to a known method to yield predictable results (thinning of the can lid).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 571-270-5055. 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733