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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because that is not what the claimed invention is drawn to (see the scope of at least claim 1). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification (57 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see pages 5-6 of the specification, there is a list of Japanese docs) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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, the cleaning liquid in claim 1 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 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.
Claim 1-2, 4-9 and 11 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.
The preamble of Claim 1 is directed to a method of manufacturing seamless can bodies, however, in the claim body recites steps of press working a metal material …to a mold machining and the rest of the body claim recites structures of the mold machining member and cleaning the metallic material after press working, and rest of the claim body and claims 2, 4-9 and 11 recite structures of the mold machining member that makes confusing whether this invention is a method of manufacturing seamless can bodies or a molding system for manufacturing seamless can bodies.
For examples, claim 1 recites a diamond film …a surface treatment film…different from the diamond film. What do these structures do with “manufacturing seamless can bodies”? Which step of claim 1 does it make a seamless can?
Another example, see the scope of claim 11 “the wastewater treatment step”. What does this wastewater treatment step do with the invention of manufacturing seamless can bodies? Thus, it is unclear. Also, claim 11 recites “a cleaning step” that is unclear whether it refers the cleaning step of claim 1 or an additional cleaning step.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, et alia (US 2013/0205862, Art of record), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of Zauhar (US 2006/0086170, Art of record), hereinafter Zauhar and Akira (JPS59124996A and Translation).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Takahashi discloses a method of manufacturing seamless can bodies, comprising:
press working (see the title and the abstract) a metallic material (W) in contact with a machining surface of a mold machining member(inner surfaces of a die 3, Figure 1 via a punch 2), in a state in which a coolant is interposed such that the coolant is in contact is in contact with the metallic material (as this is written, it is unclear whether the coolant refers to coolant liquid or agent or a coolant temperature/air which is on the inner peripheral surface (carbon film) of the die part can be efficiently cooled as discussed in Para. 13 and see Figure 1, the metallic material W is cooled by contacting the carbon film), by use of the mold machining member formed, prior to the press working, with a diamond film on the machining surface (Para. 40, lines 1-2 clearly states that “The carbon films 4 are DLC films or polycrystal diamond films”),
wherein the mold machining member includes a die section having the machining surface, with the diamond film formed on the machining surface ( see the discussion of the diamond film above),
wherein the mold machining member includes a punch section, on which a surface treatment film (see one of embodiments as discussed in Para. 18 “the punch part includes a bottomed cylindrical outside substrate that has the carbon films formed on the outer peripheral surface and tip surface thereof and is formed from cemented carbide”) which is different from the diamond film and having a lower hardness than the diamond film, is formed (diamond is much harder than the carbide. Moreover, as this is written, it is unclear what the “different” refers to, therefore, a treatment film on the punch is a different shape or part from the shape or part of the diamond film on the die).
If one argues that Takahashi’s coolant (as a liquid, as discussed in Applicant’s specification, but it is in claim yet) is NOT interposed such that the coolant (liquid) is in contact with the metallic material, however, Takahashi intends for the coolant to affect the workpiece (metallic material), as indicated in the disclosure and cited above.
Zauhar teaches a system of manufacturing cans (Para. 2, lines 1-5). Zauhar further teaches press working a metallic material in contact with a machining surface of a mold machining member, in a state in which a coolant is interposed such that the coolant is in contact with the metallic material, by use of the mold machining member formed, prior to the press working (Para. 29, lines 3-7; Fig 1 ).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as disclosed by Takahashi, to include coolant in contact with the metallic material, as taught by Zauhar, in order to more effectively cool the workpiece (metallic material) during forming cans.
With regards the step of “cleaning the metallic material after the press working, using a cleaning liquid having a temperature lower than 70°C”, Akira shows a system for manufacturing cans (Figure 2 and see the abstract) that includes a step of cleaning the metallic material after the press working, using a cleaning liquid having a temperature lower than 70°C (the middle of Para. 1 of Translation “A remarkable advantage of the present invention is that the can thus formed is washed (buffed) with an aqueous medium in a warm condition, ... The temperature during washing is generally in the range of 40 to 800C”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Takahashi to have a further step of cleaning the cans by a cleaning liquid having temperature lower than 700C, as taught by Akira, in order to remove any lubrication or any molding agent from the cans for safely using.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified method of Takahashi teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Takahashi is silent to the amount of oil in the coolant.
The Examiner takes official notice that a skilled Artisan would recognize the oil in an oil component contained in the coolant is present in an amount equal to or less than 4%, by volume, of total volume of the coolant would be the result of routine engineering and experimentation to satisfy process requirements.
Since Applicant has not challenged this taking of office notice, and thus it is now considered to be admitted prior art as per MPEP. 2144.03. See the last paragraph of the section C.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified method of Takahashi teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated in claims 1 and 4 above. Takahashi further discloses the press working includes ironing of the metallic material (Para. 41, line 4), and a can barrel section is formed by ironing the metallic material such that an ironing ratio in the ironing is equal to or more than 10% (Para. 54, lines 3-4 “40%”).
Regarding Claims 5-6, the modified method of Takahashi teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated in claims 1 and 4 above. Takahashi further discloses a surf ace roughness Ra of the mold machining member used for the press working is equal to or less than 0.12 µm or equal to or less than 0.08 µm (Para. 40, the last line “0.05 µm”).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified method of Takahashi teaches thickness of the surface treatment film of the punch is thinner than the thickness of the diamond film. Since the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the thickness of the surface treatment film is thinner than the thickness of the diamond film (see claim 1, the surface treatment film and the diamond film can be in either the punch or die and see Applicant’s Para. 69 “preferably…”).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the thickness of the surface treatment film of the punch is thinner than the thickness of the diamond film, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size (coating thickness of the punch) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, see MPEP. 2144.04, section IV, in order to allow a surface of the punch can be properly protected and push a desired thickness of the metallic material into the die.
Please also note that as claim 1 is written, the diamond film can be on the punch and the carbide can be on the die. Based on aforementioned known coating techniques, the diamond coating is required much less than the carbide coating. Therefore, it would be the result of routine engineering and experimentation to satisfy punch and die requirements.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, et alia (US 2013/0205862), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of Zauhar (US 2006/0086170), hereinafter Zauhar, Akira (JPS59124996A and Translation), and Masao (JPH 0890092 and Translation).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9, the modified method of Takahashi teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated in claims 1 and 4 above except that thickness of the surface treatment film is between 5-30 µm (for claim 7) or 0.1 to 10 µm (for claim 9).
Masao discusses a DLC film coating “…The thickness of the DLC film can be appropriately selected within a range of approximately 0.5 to 5 μm” (in the last paragraph of Page 1 of the translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Takahashi to have the thickness of DLC coating approximately 0.5 to 5 μm, as taught by Masao, in order to be sufficient an abrasion resistant and avoid peeling and chipping of the DLC film or coating (as discussed in the last paragraph of Page 1 of the translation).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, et alia (US 2013/0205862, Art of record), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of Zauhar (US 2006/0086170, Art of record), hereinafter Zauhar, Akira (JPS59124996A and Translation), and Hu, et alia (CN102764567, Art of record), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, the modified method of Takahashi teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Takahashi is silent to a chemical oxygen demand (COD) of wastewater is less than 200 ppm.
Hu teaches an apparatus and method for cleaning wastewater discharged during the cleaning step of manufacturing. Hu further teaches a cleaning step for cleaning the cutting fluid used to machine metallic material, and a wastewater treatment step for treating wastewater discharged during the cleaning step, wherein a chemical oxygen demand (COD) of wastewater is less than 200 ppm (Para 8, Page 3, English language translation, provided herein). Hu further teaches the advantage of this method and apparatus in improving the recovery rate of fluid distillation and dehydration.
A skilled Artisan would recognize that cleaning the cutting fluid used in the machining of a workpiece is analogous to cleaning the coolant, used in the same process, since both are contaminated by the same source and in the same process at the same time.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as taught by the modified method of Takahashi, to include a cleaning step for cleaning the metallic material after the press working, and a wastewater treatment step for treating wastewater discharged during the cleaning step, wherein a chemical oxygen demand (COD) of wastewater is less than 200 ppm, as taught by HU, in order to prepare the wastewater for eventual discharge and improving the recovery rate of fluid distillation and dehydration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new ground rejections by new arts.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/30/2026
Prosecution Insights