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 § 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 20-42 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 20 recites the limitation "the metal cups" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 26, it is unclear how the cylinders have the same diameter if there is a taper between the sections.
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) 20-25, 29, 33-39, 41 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arfert et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4263800).
Regarding Claim 20, Arfert et al. discloses a wall-ironed (Column 9, lines 9-10) metal cup (Figure 27) comprising: a base 152 (Figure 27) defining a bottommost end of the metal cup (Figure 27); a curl disposed at an uppermost end of the metal cup 23 (Figure 7); a circumferential, wall-ironed body-wall disposed between the curl and the base (Figure 27), the body-wall including a plurality of circumferential wall regions 144/146/148 (figure 27); and a plurality of circumferential transition portions 145/147/149 (figure 27); adjacent pairs of the wall regions having one of the transition portions disposed therebetween (Figure 27); each one of the transition portions having a transition portion upper diameter and a taper portion lower diameter, (Figure 27) the transition portion upper diameter being greater than the taper portion lower diameter (Figure 27); 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 (Column 8, lines 5-23); wherein the metal cup is nestable with other ones of the metal cups (Column 9, lines 9-10) and wherein the body-wall is integrally formed with the base (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 21, Arfert et al. discloses the transition is a taper 145/147/149 (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 22, Arfert et al. discloses the metal cup is formed of a pre-coated aluminum (Column 1, lines 39-40).
Regarding Claim 23, Arfert et al. discloses the plurality of wall regions is a first-wall region 144 (figure 27), a second-wall region 146 (figure 27), and a third-wall region 148 (figure 27), and wherein the plurality of taper portions is at least a first-taper portion 145 (figure 27) and a second-taper portion 147 (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 24, Arfert et al. discloses at least one of the wall regions defines a cylinder (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 25, Arfert et al. discloses each one of the wall regions defines a right-angle cylinder (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 29, Arfert et al. discloses an upper one of each of the adjacent pairs of the wall regions blends into the taper portion therebelow (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 33, Arfert et al. discloses the plurality of wall regions is at least a first-wall region 144 (Figure 27), a second-wall region 146 (Figure 27), and a third-wall region 148 (figure 27), and wherein the plurality of taper portions is at least a first-taper portion 145 (Figure 27) and a second-taper portion 147 (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 34, Arfert et al. discloses the first-wall region 144 (figure 27) blends into an upper portion of the first-taper portion 145 (Figure 27) from a first- wall-region lower diameter (Figure 27), a lower portion of the first-taper portion blends into the second-wall region 146 (Figure 27) to a second- wall region upper diameter (Figure 27); the second-wall region blends into an upper portion of the second-taper portion 147 (Figure 27) from a second-wall-region lower diameter; and a lower portion of the second-taper portion blends into the third-wall region to a third- wall-region upper diameter (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 35, Arfert et al. discloses the first-wall region lower diameter is greater than the second-wall region upper diameter, and wherein the second- wall region lower diameter is greater than the third-wall region upper diameter (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 36, Arfert et al. discloses every diameter of the first-wall region 144 (Figure 27) is greater than every diameter of the second-wall region 146 (Figure 27), and wherein every diameter of the second-wall region is greater than every diameter of the third-wall region 148 (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 37, Arfert et al. discloses a third-taper portion 149 (Figure 27), the third-taper portion blending into the body-wall proximate the base (Figure 27).
Regarding Claim 38, Arfert et al. discloses the body-wall proximate the base defines a right-angle cylinder (figure 27).
Regarding Claim 39, Arfert et al. discloses the base includes a base center portion that is approximately planar (figure 27).
Regarding Claim 41, Arfert et al. discloses 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 (Column 4, lines 1-20).
Regarding Claim 42, Arfert 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 27).
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, 30-32 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arfert et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4263800).
Regarding Claims 27, 28 and 32, Arfert 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, Arfert et al. discloses a lower one of each one of the adjacent pairs of the wall regions blends into the taper portion thereabove (paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 31, Arfert et al. discloses 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 (paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 40, Arfert et al. figure 27 does not disclose the base includes a standing ring disposed radially outwardly relative to the base center portion. However, Arfert et al. embodiment figure 30 teaches the base includes a standing ring disposed radially outwardly relative to the base center portion. 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 Arfert et al. embodiment figure 27 to include the above, in order to improve stability and stacking.
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 with respect to claim(s) 20-42 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
Prosecution Insights