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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (hereafter “Snyder”) (US Patent 4,530,228) in view Hahn et al. (hereafter “Hahn”)(US Patent 5,129,252).
With regards to claim 1, Snyder discloses a ram assembly for a can bodymaker, the ram assembly comprising:
a frame (192);
a pair of slideways (186, 188, 190) structured to be coupled to a frame (192) of the can bodymaker (10);
a carriage (114) slidingly engaged within the pair of slideways;
a ram body (12) having a first end and an opposite second end, the first end supported by the carriage such that the ram body is slidable generally along a primary axis, as seen in at least Figures 1-2;
a punch (62) positioned at the second end of the ram body.
Snyder discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for an adjustment arrangement structured to provide for dynamic adjustment of the radial positioning of the punch with respect to the primary axis. Hahn is relied upon to teach a ram assembly for a can bodymaker comprising an adjustment arrangement (60) structured to provide for dynamic adjustment of the radial positioning of the punch with respect to the primary axis [Column 5, lines 3-45]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Snyder’s ram assembly with an adjustment arrangement because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
With regards to claim 2, Hahn further teaches wherein the adjustment arrangement (60) is an electromagnetic adjustment arrangement [Column 5, lines 3-45].
With regards to claim 3, Hahn further teaches wherein the electromagnetic adjustment arrangement comprises a number of electromagnetic bearings (110, 112, 114, 116, 210, 220, 224, 226) positioned in or on each slideway facing the carriage [Column 5, lines 3-45].
With regards to claim 4, Hahn further teaches wherein the number of electromagnetic bearings comprises a plurality of bearings positioned in or on more than one inward facing surface of each slideway [Column 5, lines 3-45].
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Snyder and Hahn discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the number of electromagnetic bearings comprises a plurality of bearings positioned in or on more than one outward facing surface of each slideway. 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 bearing on the outward facing surface instead of the inward facing surface, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and this arrangement would allow for easier replacement of bearings.
Claims 10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view Hahn and Fleischer et al. (hereafter “Fleischer”)(US 2012/0304720).
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Snyder and Hahn discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a toolpack coupled to the frame, the toolpack having a forming passage defined therethrough about a central forming axis by a plurality of forming dies structured to form a can body from a cup. Fleischer is relied upon to teach a toolpack (6) coupled to the frame, the toolpack having a forming passage defined therethrough about a central forming axis by a plurality of forming dies structured to form a can body from a cup [paragraphs 26-27 and Figure 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Snyder’s ram assembly with a toolpack because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)] and in order to complete two steps od can making with a single machine.
With regards to claim 13, the combination of references further teaches wherein the adjustment arrangement (60) is an electromagnetic adjustment arrangement [Hahn: Column 5, lines 3-45].
With regards to claim 14, the combination of references further teaches wherein the electromagnetic adjustment arrangement comprises a number of electromagnetic bearings (110, 112, 114, 116, 210, 220, 224, 226) positioned in or on each slideway facing the carriage [Hahn: Column 5, lines 3-45].
With regards to claim 15, Hahn further teaches wherein the number of electromagnetic bearings comprises a plurality of bearings positioned in or on more than one inward facing surface of each slideway [Column 5, lines 3-45].
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Snyder and Hahn discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the number of electromagnetic bearings comprises a plurality of bearings positioned in or on more than one outward facing surface of each slideway. 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 bearing on the outward facing surface instead of the inward facing surface, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and this arrangement would allow for easier replacement of bearings.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view Hahn, and Fleischer and Swedberg (US Patent 10,864,568).
The combination of Snyder, Hahn and Fleischer discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for further comprising a sensing arrangement comprising: a plurality of sensors positioned around and spaced a radial distance from the central forming axis, wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is structured to determine a number of characteristics of a can body positioned on the punch as the can body passes therethrough on the punch and wherein the adjustment arrangement comprises a control arrangement in communication with the sensing arrangement, and wherein the control arrangement is structured to receive information from the sensing arrangement and responsive thereto control operation of the adjustment arrangement to carry out dynamic adjustments to the positioning of the punch. Swedberg is relied upon to teach a tool pack assembly having a plurality of sensors (31 or 24) positioned around and spaced a radial distance from the central forming axis, wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is structured to determine a number of characteristics of a can body positioned on the punch as the can body passes therethrough on the punch and wherein the adjustment arrangement comprises a control arrangement in communication with the sensing arrangement, and wherein the control arrangement is structured to receive information from the sensing arrangement and responsive thereto control operation of the adjustment arrangement to carry out dynamic adjustments to the positioning of the punch (at least Abstract, Column 5, lines 1-35 and claim 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Snyder’s ram assembly with sensors and accompanying control means because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)] and in order to ensure the quality of the cans being produced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 17-20 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 TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. 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, Christopher 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725