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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 342 (Figures 3A-C).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 14, the section header “Reference Signs List” is included, but no list of reference signs is provided. The specification should be amended to include the list or to remove the header.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the at least one forming die” should be amended to “the at least one stretch forming die” to maintain consistency with the rest of the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-10, 14 and 15 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “The method for manufacturing a container according to claim 1 or 2, wherein a diameter of a tapered pressing portion of a diameter expanding punch used in step (a) performed earlier and a diameter of a tapered pressing portion of a diameter expanding punch used in step (a) performed subsequently are different from each other.” In the case that Claim 5 depends directly from Claim 1, Claim 1 only recites that step (a) is performed “at least once”, which includes an embodiment where it is only performed once. For that embodiment there would be no “step (a) performed earlier” and “step (a) performed subsequently”, thus rendering Claim 5 indefinite when depending directly from Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, the subject matter of the claims is couched in a narrative format which does not lend itself to a clear understanding of the essential steps of the method. Positively setting forth the method as a series of steps with the essential features of each step being distinctly claimed would overcome the indefiniteness with regard to the inferential claimed provision. For instance, the claims recite “the body portion [of the container] is formed into a shape” (Claims 6 and 7) and “when the two containers are stacked” (Claim 6), which are written in a passive narrative format as opposed to an active format (i.e. “forming the body portion into a shape” and “stacking two containers”), which foments ambiguity regarding the steps being performed, as it is unclear whether they are meant to recite active steps of forming and stacking or if they are merely describing the shape of the container produced by the claimed method. As a result of this, the scope of the limitation “the body portion is formed into a shape in which…” in lines 5-7 of Claim 7 is unclear as it is not clear if it is merely further limiting the shape that the body portion is formed into as recited in Claim 6, or if it is meant to recite an additional forming step. For examination purposes, the former interpretation will be used.
Further regarding Claim 6, the limitation “the two containers” in line 6 does not have antecedent basis in the claim. The method of Claims 1 and 2 only produces a singular container, not multiple containers which can be stacked.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations “a less area” and “close contact” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “less” and “close” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, the limitation “a less area” appears to be comparative, but no benchmark has been provided (i.e. less area as compared to what).
Claims 8-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon Claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what structure is being claimed to the apparatus. The claim recites structural features of the stepped cup body, which is the material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims (MPEP 2115).
Regarding Claim 15, the limitation “the plurality of stretch forming dies” does not have antecedent basis in the case in which Claim 15 depends from Claim 11, as the plurality of stretch forming dies is only recited in Claim 12.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites structural features of the stepped cup body, which is the workpiece formed by the claimed apparatus and is therefore not a part of the invention itself. As the claim does not recite any limitations regarding the structure or function of the apparatus for manufacturing a container according to Claim 11 or 12, it does not further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends, and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hotta et al., hereinafter Hotta (JP 2006224113, provided by applicant). For text citations of Hotta, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature.
Regarding Claim 11, Hotta discloses (Figures 3c, 8, and 15) an apparatus for manufacturing a container made of metal ([0001] lns 1-2), including a bottom portion (straight shape portion 29a) and a body portion (taper shape portion 29b), being open on an upper face side (clearly seen in Figure 3c), and having a shape in which the body portion expands outward toward the upper face side (clearly seen in Figure 3c), the apparatus comprising: at least one stretch forming die (die 26 with punch 28), each of the stretch forming die including a diameter expanding punch (punch 28) having a tapered pressing portion (taper shape portion 28b) that is configured to expand a diameter of a stepped cup body (intermediate can body 25) made of metal and having a small-diameter cylindrical portion (straight shape portion 25a) having a bottomed cylindrical shape and a large-diameter cylindrical portion (see Annotated Figure 8c below) with an opening on an upper face side and contiguous to an upper end of the small-diameter cylindrical portion via a step portion (see Annotated Figure 8c below) by pressing along a cylindrical axis direction from an opening side of the large-diameter cylindrical portion (pressing direction clearly seen in Figures 8c and 8d) and that is smaller in diameter than an inner diameter of the large-diameter cylindrical portion and larger in diameter than an inner diameter of the small-diameter cylindrical portion of the stepped cup body (Figures 8b and 8d clearly show that DB/DA’ is larger than the diameter of straight shape portion 25a and smaller than the diameter of the large-diameter cylindrical portion indicated in Annotated Figure 8b below).
PNG
media_image1.png
349
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hotta Annotated Figure 8c
Regarding Claim 12, Hotta does not explicitly disclose the at least one forming die is a plurality of stretch forming dies. However, Hotta does disclose an example container (see Figure 15) made using four total forming steps, three of which occurring after the initial formation of the stepped cup body to form the tapered portion and the upper straight portion ([0059] lns 1-9). As the taper section increases in diameter as it approaches the open end of the container, each progressive forming step will require a different stretch forming die having a larger diameter than that of the prior step, so there must be a plurality of stretch forming dies present in the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 13, Hotta discloses (Figure 15) the number of the plurality of stretch forming dies is from 2 to 10 ([0059] lns 1-9: three forming steps occur after the initial forming of the stepped cup body, meaning three stretch forming dies configured to expand a diameter of a stepped cup body are present in the apparatus).
Regarding Claim 14, Hotta discloses (Figure 8) the apparatus for manufacturing a container according to Claim 11 or 12 (see discussions above), wherein an angle of the step portion (see Annotated Figure 8c above) of the stepped cup body (intermediate can body 25) to a plane perpendicular to an axial direction of the stepped cup body is from 0˚ to 60˚ (clearly seen in Annotated Figure 8c above).
Regarding Claim 15, Hotta discloses (Figure 15) the apparatus for manufacturing a container according to claim 11 or 12 (see discussions above), wherein diameters of the tapered pressing portions of the diameter expanding punches included in the plurality of stretch forming dies are different from each other ([0059] lns 4-8: the tapered portion is formed in three forming steps after the initial formation of the stepped cup body; as the taper section increases in diameter as it approaches the open end of the container, each progressive forming step will require a different stretch forming die having a larger diameter than that of the prior step).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 2019/0112100) in view of Hotta et al., hereinafter Hotta (JP 2006224113, provided by Applicant). For text citations of Hotta, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature.
Regarding Claim 1, Scott discloses (Figures 3-5 and 10) a method for manufacturing a container made of metal (metallic tapered cup 20), including a bottom portion (section 10e of tapered cup 20) and a body portion (sections 10a-10d of tapered cup 20), being open on an upper face side ([0056] lns 7-8), and having a shape in which the body portion expands outward toward the upper face side (clearly seen in Figures 4-5), the method comprising: (a) expanding a diameter of a stepped cup body (straight drawn cup 8) made of metal and having a small-diameter cylindrical portion (section 10e of straight drawn cup 8) having a bottomed cylindrical shape and a large-diameter cylindrical portion (section 10a of straight drawn cup 8) with an opening (opening 7) on an upper face side and contiguous to an upper end of the small-diameter cylindrical portion via a step portion (steps connecting sections 10a and 10e of straight drawn cup 8 clearly seen in Figure 3) by operating a diameter expanding punch ([0055] lns 3-7), wherein step (a) is performed at least once ([0067] lns 10-14: expansion step 64 is performed at least once).
Scott is silent to the physical characteristics of the diameter expanding punch. In the same field of endeavor, Hotta teaches (Figures 3c, 8, and 15) a method for manufacturing a container made of metal ([0001] lns 1-2), including a bottom portion (straight shape portion 29a) and a body portion (taper shape portion 29b), being open on an upper face side (clearly seen in Figure 3c), and having a shape in which the body portion expands outward toward the upper face side (clearly seen in Figure 3c), the method comprising: expanding a diameter of a stepped cup body (intermediate can body 25) made of metal by operating a diameter expanding punch (punch 28) having a tapered pressing portion (taper shape portion 28b) that is smaller in diameter than an inner diameter of the large-diameter cylindrical portion of the stepped cup body (see Annotated Figure 8c above) and larger in diameter than an inner diameter of the small-diameter cylindrical portion of the stepped cup body (straight shape portion 25a) along a cylindrical axis direction from an opening side of the large-diameter cylindrical portion (Figures 8b and 8d clearly show that DB/DA’ is larger than the diameter of straight shape portion 25a and smaller than the diameter of the large-diameter cylindrical portion indicated in Annotated Figure 8b below). As this is a known configuration of a diameter expanding punch for use in a method for manufacturing a metal container having a tapered shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Scott using a diameter expanding punch having a tapered pressing portion that is smaller in diameter than an inner diameter of the large-diameter cylindrical portion of the stepped cup body and larger in diameter than an inner diameter of the small-diameter cylindrical portion of the stepped cup body along a cylindrical axis direction from an opening side of the large-diameter cylindrical portion, as taught by Hotta, in order to perform the step of expanding the diameter of the stepped cup body.
Regarding Claim 2, Scott discloses (Figure 10) step (a) is repeated a plurality of times (expansion step 64 is performed 1 or more times, which includes embodiments in which step 64 is repeated a plurality of times).
Regarding Claim 3, Scott is silent to an embodiment in which step (a) is repeated from 2 to 10 times. Hotta teaches (Figure 15) an example container made using four total forming steps, three of which occurring after the initial formation of the stepped cup body to form the tapered portion and the upper straight portion ([0059] lns 1-9). As this is a known process for forming a tapered portion of a container, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Scott such that step (a) is repeated from 2 to 10 times, as taught by Hotta, in order to form the finished container having a tapered shape.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Scott discloses (Figure 3) the method for manufacturing a container according to Claim 1 or 2 (see discussions above), wherein an angle of the step portion of the stepped cup body (straight drawn cup 8) to a plane perpendicular to an axial direction of the stepped cup body is from 0˚ to 60˚ (clearly seen in figure).
Regarding Claim 5, Scott as modified by Hotta teaches (Hotta Figures 8 and 15) the method for manufacturing a container according to Claim 1 or 2 (see discussions above), wherein a diameter of a tapered pressing portion (taper shape portion 28b) of a diameter expanding punch (punch 28) used in step (a) performed earlier and a diameter of a tapered pressing portion of a diameter expanding punch used in step (a) performed subsequently are different from each other ([0059] lns 4-8: the tapered portion is formed in three forming steps after the initial formation of the stepped cup body; as the taper section increases in diameter as it approaches the open end of the container, each progressive forming step will require a different stretch forming die having a larger diameter than that of the prior step).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Scott discloses (Figures 5 and 7) the method for manufacturing a container according to Claim 1 or 2 (see discussions above), wherein when two containers (tapered cup 20) are stacked, a projecting portion of the container placed above projecting upward ([0062] lns 1-6) has a height of 20 mm or less from an upper end of the container placed below ([0062] lns 9-10: the stand-off height, i.e. the projecting portion, is preferably 0.28 inches, which is equal to 7.112 mm). Scott further discloses that the body portion of the container (sections 10a-10d of tapered cup 20) is formed into a shape in which a line connecting an outer peripheral face at 10% height and an outer peripheral face at 90% height from a lowermost portion expands outward (clearly seen in Figure 5) when a total height of the container is 100%, but is silent to the angle at which this line expands relative to the vertical direction. However, based on measurements taken on Figure 5, the angle formed appears to be approximately 4˚ (see Annotated Figure 5 below), which falls within the claimed range of from 2˚ to 15˚.
PNG
media_image2.png
510
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Scott Annotated Figure 5
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Scott discloses (Figure 5) the bottom portion (section 10e of tapered cup 20) has a thickness of from 0.20 mm to 0.35 mm ([0065] lns 1-3: 0.0090 inches is equal to 0.2286 mm), the body portion (sections 10a-10d of tapered cup 20) has a thickness of from 0.10 to 0.22 mm in a height range of 50 ±10% when the total height of the container is 100% ([0065] lns 3-4: 0.0040 inches is equal to 0.1016 mm; the uppermost portion of section 10d lies within the height range of 50 ±10% of the container), and the body portion is formed into a shape in which the line connecting the outer peripheral face at 10% height and the outer peripheral face at 90% height from the lowermost portion expands outward at an angle of from 3˚ to 10˚ when the total height of the container is 100% (see Annotated Figure 5 above; the line expands outward at an angle of approximately 4˚).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Scott discloses (Figures 4 and 7) a ratio of the projecting portion ([0062] lns 4-6: the stand-off height is interpreted as the projecting portion) to a height (height H3) of the container (tapered cup 20) is from 4% to 15% ([0056] lns 4-5 and [0062] lns 9-10: the stand-off height is preferably 0.28 inches, and height H3 is preferably 5.330 inches, resulting in the ratio of the projecting portion to the height of the container being 5.25%, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Scott discloses (Figures 4 and 7) a ratio of the projecting portion ([0062] lns 4-6: the stand-off height is interpreted as the projecting portion) to a height (height H3) of the container (tapered cup 20) is from 5% to 9% ([0056] lns 4-5 and [0062] lns 9-10: the stand-off height is preferably 0.28 inches, and height H3 is preferably 5.330 inches, resulting in the ratio of the projecting portion to the height of the container being 5.25%, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Scott discloses (Figures 5 and 7) the body portion (sections 10a-10d of tapered cup 20) includes a contact portion (see Annotated Figure 7 below) with a less area configured to avoid close contact with another container when the container is stacked with the other container ([0062] lns 3-6, 10-11: the contact portion enables a stand-off height between containers when two containers are stacked so that separation of the stacked containers is easier, i.e. such that close contact is avoided).
PNG
media_image3.png
165
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Scott Annotated Figure 7
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725