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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 15, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims use the term “such” preceding elements and should instead use the term “the” or said” -for example “such punch” should be “said punch” or “the punch.”
Claims 7-10 have improper capitalization
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 5-14 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 5 recites: “A can making machine for forming a can from a work piece, such can making machine having at least one punch, such punch carrying such work piece through a constricted tooling to increase an interior size of such work piece, such work piece having a tendency to become engaged to such punch for a period of time due to vacuum formation in such interior of such work piece as such punch increases such interior's size, the can making machine comprising:” It is not clear if the elements/functions set forth in the preamble, elements before, “the can making machine comprising:” as to be required elements of the can making machine.
With regards to claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “such (said) bodymaker ram.” Claim 8 currently sets forth only “a bodymaker” and “a ram.” However, it is understood that the specification actually only supports “a bodymaker ram” – not “a bodymaker” AND “a ram.” Therefore, for purposes of examination, it is understood that claim 8 introduces “a bodymaker ram” and claim 9 refers to the same element.
Claim 11 sets forth a check valve – it is unclear if this is an additional check valve or meant to refer to the check valve set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites: “wherein the plurality of pulses further comprise: a time sequence of the plurality of pulses in a resonant frequency resulting in air hammer within: the pneumatic connection from the high speed valve to such punch, such punch, and such work piece interior.” It is unclear if resulting in an “air hammer” is meant to introduce a structural element or a functional effect. The last part of the limitation appears to be missing word(s) or possible has extra words, in any case it is not clear what the metes and bounds encompasses.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cudzik (US Patent 5,331,836), as best understood.
With regards to claim 5, Cudzik discloses a can making machine for forming a can from a work piece, such can making machine having at least one punch (14), such punch carrying such work piece through a constricted tooling to increase an interior size of such work piece, as seen in at least Figures 1 and 3, such work piece having a tendency to become engaged to such punch for a period of time due to vacuum formation in such interior of such work piece as such punch increases such interior's size [at least Column 5, lines 25-40], the can making machine comprising:
a source of air pneumatically (main air supply M) connected to a pressure regulator [not shown, Column 15, lines 1-5 and 30-40];
the pressure regulator pneumatically connected to an receiver tank [as seen in Figure 9, surge tanks];
the receiver tank pneumatically connected to a high speed valve (three-way solenoid valve 600);
the high speed valve controlled by a signal generated by a programmable logic controller [550, Column 22, lines 40-50], the high speed valve operable to supply high pressure air;
the valve pneumatically connected to a pneumatic check valve [manual shut-off valve, Column 14, lines 50-60];
the pneumatic check valve pneumatically connected to such punch (14);
Cudzik discloses the high speed valve (600) that is capable of performing the following functions: not supplying the high pressure air continuously to the pneumatic check valve and such punch [the well-known function of a valve]; supplying a plurality of pulses of the high pressure air to the pneumatic check valve and to such punch and such interior of such work piece while such work piece is engaged to such punch for such period of time; whereby such work piece is disengaged from such punch without the high pressure air being continuously supplied [at least Column 4, lines 5-10, Column 9, lines 60+, Column 14, lines 50-60].
With regards to claim 6, Cudzik discloses wherein the high speed valve is an electromagnetic valve (valve 600 is a solenoid valve that is an electromagnetic valve).
With regards to claim 7, Cudzik discloses a can stripper, the can stripper functioning only to guide the punch [Column 5, lines 15-25 and Column 6, lines 50-60].
With regards to claim 8, as best understood, Cudzik discloses wherein the can making machine further comprises: a bodymaker ram (14).
With regards to claim 10, Cudzik discloses wherein the can making machine further comprises: a cupper, as seen in Figures 1 and 3.
With regards to claim 11, Cudzik discloses wherein the cupper further comprises: the check valve (manual shut-off valve), the high speed valve (600) supplying high pressure air pulses to such punch via the check valve [Column 14, lines 50-60].
With regards to claim 12, Cudzik discloses an electromagnetic valve (600) that is capable of an actuation time of less than 5 milliseconds
With regards to claim 13, Cudzik discloses an electromagnetic valve (600) that is capable of providing the plurality of pulses of high pressure air to have a pulse time and the pulse time is less than 5 milliseconds.
With regards to claim 14, as best understood, Cudzik discloses wherein the plurality of pulses further comprise: a time sequence of the plurality of pulses in a resonant frequency resulting in air hammer within: the pneumatic connection from the high speed valve to such punch, such punch, and such work piece interior [as best understood, the pressurized air is utilized for ejection of the work piece, Column 4, lines 5-10].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudzik, as best understood.
Cudzik discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a lightweight insert disposed within such bodymaker ram, the lightweight insert reducing a ram interior volume; whereby the amount of air used is further reduced and the speed of operation is further increased. It is considered to be well-known to provide an insert. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an insert since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. 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, 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 M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725