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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that 12 in Fig. 2 of Kobayashi is not a length of the inner peripheral section of the leg part of the preform of the can. The italicized limitation was added after non-final. As disclosed below Kobayashi discloses this newly added limitation in figs. 17 and 18.
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 1, 2, 4-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner peripheral section of the leg part of the preform" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inner peripheral section of the leg part of the preform" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the contact surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 7, it is unclear what part the contact surface is located on or where the contact surface is located. It is also unclear if the radius of curvature of the circular arc is of the preform or molded can.
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 (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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (JP H09285832).
As to claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a method of manufacturing a can body (para. 1 of translation provided in previous office action), comprising:
molding a preform of a can including:
molding a dome part 7 (Figs. 17, 18, 6, 1) on a bottom of a bottomed cylindrical body 1, 2 (Figs. 1, 7), the dome part being concave into the bottomed cylindrical body (Figs. 17, 18); and
molding an annular leg part 9 (Fig. 1; also see Fig. 2, e.g.) projecting in a direction opposite to a direction in which the dome part is concave, the leg part including an inner peripheral section 6, 10 (Figs. 1, 2) which is inclined from a ground point of the leg part toward a can axis in a vertical cross-sectional view taken along the can axis;
painting at least one of an inner surface and an outer surface of the preform of the can (para. 109); and
bottom reforming to mold a molded can including a curved end 4 (Figs. 1, 2, 18) around the dome part by pressing an inner surface of the dome part of the preform of the can painted by the painting (paras. 87-91, 109),
wherein the preform of the can is molded such that a maximum height of the preform of the can from a ground plane to the dome part is greater than a maximum height of the molded can from a ground plane to the dome part (see in Figs. 17 and 18 how the height decreases when formed into the final product); and
in the vertical cross-sectional view taken along the can axis, a length of the inner peripheral section of the leg part of the preform (Fig. 17, illustrated below) of the can is greater than a length of the curved end of the molded can (Fig. 18, illustrated below) (As can be seen in Figs 17 and 18 illustrated below, the inner peripheral length is longer than the curved end length).
[AltContent: textbox (inner peripheral section length)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (curved end length)]
PNG
media_image1.png
247
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
275
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Kobayashi discloses wherein the inner surface of the preform of the can is painted with a spray device in the painting (para. 109).
As to claim 4, Kobayashi discloses wherein, in the bottom reforming (Figs. 7-11), by using a molding device including a press object 65 inserted into the preform (Fig. 7) of the can to contact the inner surface of the dome part, and a shaping die 63, 58 (Fig. 7) to mold the curved end by pressing the press object, the inner surface of the dome part is pressed by the press object to mold the curved end fitting the shaping die around the dome part (paras. 85-91).
As to claim 6, Kobayasi discloses wherein when a ground diameter which is a distance between two ground points passing through the can axis of the preform of the can is φ1 (see Fig. 17 at R1.2 and dimension 23), a ground diameter which is a distance between two ground points passing through the can axis of the molded can body [i]s φ2 (see Fig. 18 at R0.9, and dimension 22), φ2<φ1 (the ground point in Fig. 18 moves inward when formed, and thus makes φ2<φ1).
As to claim 7, Kobayashi discloses wherein: the inner peripheral section of the leg of the preform of the can has a linear diameter reduction section having length L (applicant doesn’t disclose the boundaries of the L; therefore, picking a length between on the inner peripheral section would read on this limitation) in the vertical cross-sectional view taken along the can axis (see Fig. 17A, illustrated below. The 1° angle is the linear diameter reduction); when an inclination angle (Fig. 17A, illustrated below) in a can axis direction between the contact surface (Fig. 17A, illustrated below) of the preform of the can or a surface parallel to the contact surface and the linear diameter reduction section is θ (Fig. 17A, illustrated below), a radius of curvature of a circular arc forming a tip section of the leg part is R1 (R1.2 in Fig. 17 or R0.9 in Fig. 18), the radius of curvature R1 is 0.8 mm to 2.2 mm (R1.2 in Fig. 17 or R0.9 in Fig. 18), the length L is 4.0 mm to 7.0 mm (applicant doesn’t disclose the boundaries of the L; therefore, picking a length of 4.0-7.0 mm on the inner peripheral section would read on this limitation), and the inclination angle θ is 70° to 85° (Applicant does not disclose what the contact surface is or where/how it is located relative to the can. Therefore, if the contact surface is as shown illustrated below in Fig. 17A, then the inclination angle would be 70° to 85°.); and
when the length of the curved end of the molded can after molding is X (Fig. 18, illustrated below), the length of the circular arc forming the tip section of the leg part is MR1 (Fig. 17B, illustrated below), and X (Fig. 18, illustrated below) < MR1+L (Fig. 17B, illustrated below) (No specific limitations on the boundaries of circular arc of the tip section, length of the curved end of the molded can, and linear diameter reduction section length. Thus, the lengths shown in the figures below/described in the rejection above meet the limitations).
[AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (linear diameter reduction)][AltContent: textbox (contact surface)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (inclination angle)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
247
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
329
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (L)][AltContent: textbox (MR1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
247
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, Kobayashi discloses a manufacturing line of a can body (it is to be noted that a manufacturing line (apparatus/system) is being claimed. Patentable weight is given to the structure claimed. Applicant should rewrite the body of the claim as an apparatus/system accordingly), comprising:
molding a preform of a can (Kobayashi discloses a preform can (Fig. 17)) including:
molding a dome part on a bottom of a bottomed cylindrical body, the dome part being concave into the bottomed cylindrical body (Kobayashi discloses a dome part 7 on a bottom of a bottomed cylindrical body 1, 2 (Figs. 17, 18, 6, 1)); and
molding an annular leg part 9 (Fig. 1; also see Fig. 2, e.g.) projecting in a direction opposite to a direction in which the dome part is concave, the leg part having an inner peripheral section 6, 10 (Figs. 1, 2) which is inclined from a ground point of the leg part toward a can axis in a vertical cross- sectional view taken along the can axis;
painting at least one of an inner surface and an outer surface of the preform of the can (para. 109); and
bottom reforming to mold a molded can including a curved end 4 (Figs. 1, 2, 18) around the dome part by pressing an inner surface of the dome part of the painted preform of the can (paras. 87-91, 109),
wherein the manufacturing line is configured to mold the preform of the can such that a maximum height of the preform of the can from a ground plane to the dome part is greater than a maximum height of the molded can from a ground plane to the dome part (see in Figs. 17 and 18 how the height decreases when formed into the final product); and
in the vertical cross-sectional view taken along the can axis, a length of the inner peripheral section of the leg part of the preform (Fig. 17, illustrated below) of the can is greater than a length of the curved end of the molded can (Fig. 18, illustrated below) (As can be seen in Figs 17 and 18 illustrated below, the inner peripheral length is longer than the curved end length).
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 CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-1477. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm Monday - Friday.
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, TC 3700 Director Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2975. 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.
CHRISTOPHER L. TEMPLETON
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights