DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 22-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the first sleeve and the second sleeve as claimed are distinct from claims 1-13 and 21 since no first and second sleeve is set forth. New claims 22-27 appear to be a similar version of Group II claims in the restriction of 1-6-2026, the Group II has been previously restricted.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 3-25-2026 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “biasing element to enable movement” in claim 1, line 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johansson et al. (4,790,169). Johansson discloses (Fig. 10) an apparatus (300) for use in doming a can bottom (14’) comprising an alignment retainer (336) and a profile retainer (342) which is coupled to the alignment retainer (336) by a biasing element (352) between biasing spring containing structures (372) on the alignment retainer (336) and a flange structure (355) on the profile retainer (342) wherein the alignment retainer (336) and the profile retainer (342) move relatively (Fig. 12) as the biasing element (352) is compressed. Regarding claim 2, the alignment retainer (336) includes a central opening (inner wall of 336) to slidably receive the profile retainer (342). Regarding claim 3, the alignment retainer (336) is a first cylindrical body (die ring; col. 8, lines 38-39) having a first end comprising a top of the alignment retainer comprising an alignment profile (338) and a second bottom end attached to the biasing element (352; Fig. 10). Regarding claim 4, the alignment profile (338) is a contoured shape (338; Figs. 10 and 11) providing an alignment surface comprising a top of the contoured shape alignment profile (338) as shown in Fig. 12 which cooperates with a die ring (330) to form a peripheral ring shape (302; Fig. 14) and a clamp portion comprising a bottom of the contoured shape (338) which cooperates with the die ring (330) to form the support ring (304; Fig. 14). Regarding claim 5, the profile retainer (342) is a cylindrical body (342) concentric with the alignment profile (336; col. 8, lines 50-54), the profile retainer includes a first end with a profile forming surface (344) and a second end attached to base (354). Regarding claim 6, the alignment profile (338) of the alignment retainer (336) is positioned adjacent (close to concentrically) the profile forming surface (344) of the profile retainer (342). Regarding claim 7, the alignment profile (338) of the alignment retainer (336) is movable relative to the profile forming surface (344) of the profile retainer (342) a first distance (Fig. 12) to a first operative position and a second distance (Fig. 13), the first distance being greater than the second distance as illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13 because the alignment surface of the contoured shape alignment profile (338) is longer than the clamp portion of the contoured shaped alignment profile (338). Regarding claim 8, the second end of the alignment retainer (336) includes a plurality of spring cavities (372, Fig. 10) radially spaced relative to a longitudinal axis of the alignment retainer.
Claim(s) 1 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seconde et al. (5,187,966). Seconde discloses an apparatus (1, Fig. 1a) for use with a domer (die, 2) configured to form a dished steel sheet (col. 3, lines 65-67), the apparatus (1) comprising an alignment retainer (4,7) and a profile retainer (8,9,10), the profile retainer (8,9,10) movably coupled to the alignment retainer (col. 5, lines 18-21), and a biasing element (14,15,16) positioned between the alignment retainer (4,7) and the profile retainer (8,9,10) to enable movement of the alignment retainer relative to the profile retainer (col. 4, lines 39-42). Regarding claim 21, the apparatus (1) includes a domer (2,3,5,6) comprising a domer die (2) positioned in a cavity defined by plate (5) and blankholders (3,6), the domer die (2) is configured to shape a bottom profile (col. 7, lines 18-35) of a sheet metal plate (30).
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (4,790,169) in view of Lyon (2,254,376). Regarding claim 9, Johansson discloses that the profile retainer (342) includes a flange (355) at its second end, opposite from the profile forming first end (344) but does not disclose that the flange has a plurality of radial bores. Lyon teaches a profile retainer (14) having a flange (13) with a plurality of radial spaced bores (18) for springs (17) and an alignment retainer (16) having a plurality of spring cavities (19) for the springs (17) wherein the plurality of radial bores (18) and the plurality of spring cavities (19) coaxially align (Figs. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the profile retainer flange of Johansson to include a plurality of radial bores as taught by Lyon so as to seat the spring within a bore that is coaxial to the spring cavity.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (4,790,169) in view of Lyon (2,254,376) and further in view of Chun et al. (7,326,008). Johansson view of Lyon does not disclose threaded fasteners extending through the springs. Chun teaches springs (34) that are received in bores (36) where a threaded fastener (screw, 40) extends through the springs (col. 3, lines 44-47). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the profile retainer of Johansson in view of Lyon with threaded fasteners which extend through the springs as taught by Lyon to provide guidance and stability as the springs compress.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights