DETAILED ACTION
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 21, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on July 21, 2025, the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 05/21/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11 and 12 have been amended,
Claims 2 and 4 were previously presented,
Claims 3, 6-7 and 10 have been cancelled,
Claims 13-19 were and still withdrawn from further consideration, and
Claims 20-24 have been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12 and 20-24 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
“a single ridge having a bottom surface,” “the bottom surface of the single ridge” as in claim 1
“single ridge….comprising a bottom surface, the bottom surface…” and “…the friction coating is not adhered to any other portion of the metal container except the bottom surface…” as in claim 8
Furthermore, the drawings CANNOT show support for negative limitations; emphasis added.
“…the friction coating is not adhered to any other portion of the metal container except the bottom surface…” as in claim 20
Furthermore, the drawings CANNOT show support for negative limitations.
“single ridge comprises ridge side walls projecting downward from a bottom side of the base; and wherein the ridge side walls connect the bottom surface to the base…” as in claims 21 and 23 (respectively)
“an outer bottom surface extends circumferentially around the dome portion between the dome portion and the side wall; wherein the single ridge includes ridge side walls connecting the bottom surface of the single ridge to the outer bottom surface and the dome portion; and wherein the bottom surface faces away from a bottom side of the base…” as in claims 22 and 24 (respectively)
Must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, ln. 6, the phrase, “…a single ridge having a bottom surface…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 1, ln. 7, the phrase, “…a friction coating adhered only to the bottom surface…” In other words, “only the bottom surface” is the same as “not at any location other than the bottom surface." So it is a negative limitation precluding the material from being at any of those additional locations, which IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added. Furthermore, the drawings CANNOT show support for negative limitations; emphasis added.
In claim 1, ln. 7-15, the phrases in each instance, “…the bottom surface…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 8, ln. 5-6, the phrase, “…a single ridge….and comprising a bottom surface, the bottom surface…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 8, ln. 10, the phrase, “…a friction coating adhered to the bottom surface…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 8, ln. 13-20, the phrases in each instance, “…the bottom surface…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added. In other words, “except the bottom surface” is the same as “not at any location other than the bottom surface." So it is a negative limitation precluding the material from being at any of those additional locations, which IS NOT supported by the original disclosure; emphasis added. Furthermore, the drawings CANNOT show support for negative limitations; emphasis added.
In claim 21, ln. 1-3, the phrase, “…single ridge comprises ridge side walls projecting downward from a bottom side of the base; and wherein the ridge side walls connect the bottom surface to the base…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 22, ln. 1-6, the phrase, “…an outer bottom surface extends circumferentially around the dome portion between the dome portion and the side wall; wherein the single ridge includes ridge side walls connecting the bottom surface of the single ridge to the outer bottom surface and the dome portion; and wherein the bottom surface faces away from a bottom side of the base…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 23, ln. 1-3, the phrase, “…single ridge comprises ridge side walls projecting downward from a bottom side of the base; and wherein the ridge side walls connect the bottom surface to the base…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added.
In claim 24, ln. 1-6, the phrase, “…an outer bottom surface extends circumferentially around the dome portion between the dome portion and the side wall; wherein the single ridge includes ridge side walls connecting the bottom surface of the single ridge to the outer bottom surface and the dome portion; and wherein the bottom surface faces away from a bottom side of the base…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 02/09/2023); emphasis added.
As for claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12 and 20-24, due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 8 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 20-23 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are still indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of: a base FOR a metal beverage can OR whether the claim is drawn to the combination of: a base AND a metal beverage can. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (i.e. claim 1, ln. 1), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitations of ln. 11-12, “…wherein the metal beverage can is a unitary body comprising the base and a side wall of the metal beverage can formed from a same piece of material…”). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of the claim(s) is required.
As for claims 2, 4-5 and 20-23, due to their dependencies from claim 1, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Furthermore, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP §2173.06
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/B.V.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736