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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typographical error in the phrase “wherein the knock-out tam assembly” found in line 18 and the phrase should read as: wherein the knock-out ram assembly. 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 4, 11, 13 and 16 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.
With regards to claim 4, the claim states “about 0.37 kg to about 0.46 kg”. The term "about" in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is 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. Please see MPEP 2173.05(b) relative terminology.
With regards to claim 11, the claim states “about 34 mm to about 42 mm”. The term "about" in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is 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. Please see MPEP 2173.05(b) relative terminology.
With regards to claim 13, the claim states “having a diameter of about 66mm to about 87mm, a height of about 88mm to about 211mm”. The term "about" in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is 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. Please see MPEP 2173.05(b) relative terminology.
With regards to claim 16, the claim states “having a diameter of about 66mm to about 87mm, a height of about 88mm to about 211mm” and “weighs about 3.9 kg to about 4.8 kg”. The term "about" in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is 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. Please see MPEP 2173.05(b) relative terminology.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirai et al (US 5,018,379).
In reference to claim 1, Shirai et al discloses a knock out ram assembly (21) comprising
a bushing (23),
a knock out ram (25) extending through the bushing, the knock out ram being configured to translate relative to the bushing [see col. 4 lines 25-31],
a die (30) coupled to the bushing at one end of the knock out ram assembly [see col. 4 lines 53-60],
a knock out retainer assembly coupled to the knock out ram at the one end, the knock out retainer assembly comprising
a retainer [bolt at front of filler body 24; see figure 4], and
a filler body (24), and
a knock out (35) retained against the knock out ram (25) at the one end by the knock out retainer assembly [see figure 4; col. 4 lines 43-47].
In reference to claim 2, wherein the knock out retainer assembly further comprises a retaining ring [ring element surrounding 25 and adjacent to 24 in figure 4] and a bias spring (28), and the retaining ring and the bias spring maintain the filler body biased under tension on the retainer [see col. 4 lines 38-42; spring urges filler body 24 forward against retainer (bolt)].
In reference to claim 3, the filler body (24) forms an interference fit with the knock out (35) such that there is no radial gap between the filler body and the knock out, as seen in figure 4.
In reference to claim 5, proximal ends of the knock out retainer assembly and the knock out (35) are generally flush [it is noted that the broad reasonable interpretation is given to the term generally to be close to one another].
In reference to claim 10, the knock out (35) comprises an annular groove [annular cut out located at the rear end of 35] facing the bushing (23), as seen in figure 4.
In reference to claim 13, the knock out ram assembly of Shirai et al is capable of processing containers having a diameter of about 66mm to about 87mm, a height of about 88mm to about 211mm or a combination thereof.
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.
1. Claim(s) 4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al (US 5,018,379).
In reference to claim 4, Shirai et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the knock out retainer assembly weighs about 0.37 kg to about 0.46 kg. It is noted that while Shirai et al fails to disclose a specific weight range of the knock out retainer assembly, the assembly of Shirai et al will inherently have a weight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the knock out retainer assembly of Shirai et al be within a weight of 0.37 kg to 0.46 kg, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [see In re Aller, 105 USOQ 233].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the knock out retainer assembly to be within a weight of 0.37 to 0.46 kg since it is desirable to reduce the weight of machines to improve efficiency.
In reference to claim 11, Shirai et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the outer diameter of the knock out ram within the bushing is about 34mm to 42 mm. It is noted that while Shirai et al fails to disclose a specific diameter of the knock out ram, the ram inherently has an outer diameter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the knock out ram with an outer diameter of 34 mm to 42mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [see In re Aller, 105 USOQ 233].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer diameter of the knock out ram within the bushing to be within the range of 34mm to 42mm, since such a modification would require routine optimization.
In reference to claim 12, Shirai et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the filler body being formed of a polymer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filler body formed of a polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of mechanical efficiency.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filler body of Shirai et al to be formed of a polymer, since selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use requires the general skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al in view of Marritt et al (US 6,167,743).
In reference to claim 14, Shirai et al discloses a knock out ram assembly (21) comprising
a first bushing (23),
a knock out ram (25) extending through the first bushing, the knock out ram being configured to translate relative to the first bushing [see col. 4 lines 25-31],
a die (30) coupled to the first bushing at one end of the knock out ram assembly [see col. 4 lines 53-60],
a knock out retainer assembly coupled to the knock out ram at the one end, the knock out retainer assembly comprising
a retainer [bolt at front of filler body 24; see figure 4], and
a filler body (24), and
a knock out (35) retained against the knock out ram (25) at the one end by the knock out retainer assembly [see figure 4; col. 4 lines 43-47].
Shirai et al further discloses a can holding mechanism (15) that cooperates with the knock out ram assembly when necking a container [see figure 2].
Shirai et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the pusher ram assembly contains the claimed specifics.
However, Marritt et al teaches of a necking machine having a knock out ram assembly and a pusher ram assembly that cooperate with one another to neck a container, wherein the pusher ram assembly comprises a second bushing (162), a push ram (160) extending through the second bushing, the push ram being configured to translate relative to the second bushing, and a push plate (116) coupled to the push ram (160) facing a knock out ram assembly [see figure 9], wherein the knock out ram assembly and the push ram assembly are configured to cooperate together for retaining and releasing a container [see col. 7 lines 54-60].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the push ram assembly of Shirai et al with the push ram assembly as taught by Marritt et al, to obtain the predictable results of retaining and releasing a container therein.
In reference to claim 15, Marritt et al teaches the push ram is hollow beyond where the push plate connects to the push ram, as seen in figure 9.
In reference to claim 16, the modified ram system of Shirai et al is capable of processing container having a diameter of about 66mm to about 87mm, a height of about 88mm to about 211 mm and a combination thereof.
The combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the push ran weighs about 3.9 kg to 4.8 kg. It is noted that while Marritt et al does not disclose a specific weight range of the push ram, the ram inherently has a weight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the push ram of Marritt et al be within a weight of 3.9 kg to 4.8 kg, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [see In re Aller, 105 USOQ 233].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify push ram to be within a weight of 3.9 to 4.8 kg since discovering the optimum ranges for a desirable intended use is not inventive.
In reference to claim 17, Marritt et al further teaches of push plate (116) is a single piece, as seen in figure 9.
In reference to claim 18, Shirai et al further discloses the fille body (24) forms an interference fit with the knock out such that there is no radial gap between the filler body and the knock out, as seen in figure 4.
In reference to claim 19, Shirai et al further discloses proximal ends of the knock out retainer assembly and the knock out (35) are generally flush [it is noted that the broad reasonable interpretation is given to the term generally to be close to one another].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725