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 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.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 23-26, 29, 31, 33-40 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alvares et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120181205).
Regarding Claim 20, Alvares et al. discloses a metal cup (figure 1; paragraph 25) comprising: a base 20 (Figure 1) defining a bottommost end of the metal cup (Figure 1); a curl 13 (Figure 1) disposed at an uppermost end of the metal cup (Figure 1); a circumferential body-wall disposed between the curl and the base (16/17 (figure 1), the body-wall including a plurality of circumferential wall regions 17 (Figure 1); and a plurality of circumferential transition portions 16 (Figure 1); adjacent pairs of the wall regions having one of the transition portions disposed therebetween (figure 1); each one of the transition portions having a transition portion upper diameter and a taper portion lower diameter (Figure 1), the transition portion upper diameter being greater than the taper portion lower diameter (figure 1); and a wall thickness of the body-wall proximate the base being greater than a wall thickness of the wall region proximate a mid-point of the body-wall (Figure 1); wherein the metal cup is nestable with other ones of the metal cups (figure 3) and wherein the metal cup is formed by a process comprising wall-ironing such that the body-wall is integrally formed with the base (product by process; paragraph 33).
Regarding Claim 21, Alvares et al. discloses the transition is a taper (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Alvares et al. discloses the plurality of wall regions is a first-wall region 17 (Figure 1), a second-wall region 17 (Figure 1), and a third-wall region17 (Figure 1), and wherein the plurality of taper portions is at least a first- taper portion 16 (Figure 1) and a second-taper portion 16 (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 24, Alvares et al. discloses at least one of the wall regions defines a cylinder (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 25, Alvares et al. discloses each one of the wall regions defines a right-angle cylinder (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 26, Alvares et al. discloses the right-angle cylinder defined by each one of the wall regions has the same diameter of other ones of the right-angle cylinders (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 29, Alvares et al. discloses an upper one of each of the adjacent pairs of the wall regions blends into the taper portion therebelow (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 31, Alvares et al. discloses a diameter of the upper one of each of the adjacent pairs of wall regions measured proximate the taper portion therebelow is greater than a diameter of the lower one of each of the adjacent pairs of the wall regions measured proximate the taper portion thereabove (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 33, Alvares et al. discloses the plurality of wall regions is at least a first-wall region 17 (Figure 1), a second-wall region 17 (Figure 1), and a third-wall region 17 (Figure 1), and wherein the plurality of taper portions is at least a first-taper portion 16 (Figure 1) and a second-taper portion 16 (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 34, Alvares et al. discloses the first-wall region blends into an upper portion of the first-taper portion from a first-wall-region lower diameter (Figure 1), a lower portion of the first-taper portion blends into the second-wall region to a second-wall region upper diameter (figure 1); the second-wall region blends into an upper portion of the second-taper portion from a second- wall-region lower diameter (Figure 1); and a lower portion of the second-taper portion blends into the third-wall region to a third-wall-region upper diameter (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 35, Alvares et al. discloses the first-wall region lower diameter is greater than the second-wall region upper diameter (Figure 1), and wherein the second-wall region lower diameter is greater than the third-wall region upper diameter (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 36, Alvares et al. discloses every diameter of the first-wall region is greater than every diameter of the second-wall region (Figure 1), and wherein every diameter of the second-wall region is greater than every diameter of the third-wall region (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 37, Alvares et al. discloses a third-taper portion 16 (Figure 1), the third-taper portion blending into the body-wall proximate the base (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 38, Alvares et al. discloses the body-wall proximate the base defines a right- angle cylinder (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 39, Alvares et al. discloses the base includes a base center portion that is approximately planar 20 (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 40, Alvares et al. discloses the base includes a standing ring 11 (Figure 1) disposed radially outwardly relative to the base center portion (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 42, Alvares et al. discloses a height of each one of the plurality of wall regions is approximately equal to a height of other ones of the plurality of wall regions (Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 27, 28, 30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvares et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120181205).
Regarding Claim 27, 28 and 32, Alvares et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for each one of the taper portions is configured such that an angle between each pair of adjacent wall regions is at least 10 degrees; the angle between each pair of adjacent wall regions is at least 15 degrees; and at least one taper portion is angled such that an angle between each pair of adjacent wall region of the plurality of wall regions is at least 10 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(c ).
Regarding Claim 30, Alvares et al. discloses a lower one of each one of the adjacent pairs of the wall regions blends into the taper portion thereabove (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvares et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120181205) in view of Kohman (U.S. Patent No. 1837051).
Regarding Claim 22, Alvares et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the metal cup is formed of a pre-coated aluminum. However, Kohman teaches a pre-coated aluminum (page 3, lines 4-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alvares et al. to include the above, as taught by Kohman, in order to allow for easy removal of the contents while protecting the surface.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvares et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120181205) in view of Robinson et al. (CA 2903308).
Regarding Claim 41, Alvares et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a thickness of a portion of the body-wall proximate the curl is greater than the wall thickness of the body-wall at the mid-point. However, Robinson et al. teaches a thickness of a portion of the body-wall proximate the curl is greater than the wall thickness of the body-wall at the mid-point (figure 5B). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alvares et al. to include the above, as taught by Robinson et al., in order to strengthen the upper portion of the cup.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Alveres et al. does not disclose being formed by a process comprising wall-ironing such that the body wall is integrally formed with the base. However, this is considered a product by process amendment and Alveres et al. mentions having a possibility for a thinner wall structure so it is capable of being formed in such a manner.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733