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 66-67 and 77 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 66 recites “the rivet well has an outer perimeter bounded by a portion of an upper side of the tab, the portion of the upper side of the tab positioned at a height along the longitudinal axis greater than a height of the outer perimeter of the rivet well when viewed from above in the frangible score breaking position”. This is confusing as it appears the claim is directly contradicting itself. The rivet well appears to have one outer perimeter, but the claim appears to be attempting to claim that the one outer perimeter has two different heights, which is not shown in the drawings or discussed in the specification. If the Applicant is intending to claim that the rivet well has multiple “portions” and each of the “portions” has a different height, then that needs to be more clearly claimed as well as being shown in the drawings, which it does not currently appear to do. The claim has been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
Claim 77 currently states “…a bead having a circumferential portion adjacent the peripheral edge of the center panel and a non-circumferential portion radially inwardly of the circumferential portion and extending radially inwardly from the circumferential portion adjacent the frangible score.” It’s unclear if the Applicant is intending to state that the continuous bead has a non-continuous portion radially inward of the circumferential portion, or not. And if that is what the Applicant intends to claim, it is unclear how the non-continuous portion can be both radially inward of the circumferential portion and extending radially inwardly from the circumferential portion. Further clarification is required. The claim has been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 60, 66-70, 72, 73, 75, 76, and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perra (NL 2000219) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 60
Perra teaches a can end (below – Fig. 5a-5c, and 5e) for enclosing a container body (28) comprising: a curl (below) extending circumferentially about a longitudinal axis; a circumferential wall (shown below) extending downwardly from a radially inner portion of the curl; a circumferential strengthening member (shown below) joined to a lower segment of the circumferential wall; and a center panel (32) about which the circumferential strengthening member extends having a public side (top) opposite a produce side (inside), the center panel comprising: a peripheral edge defining a radially outer perimeter of the center panel; a tear panel (shown below) spaced radially inwardly from the peripheral edge; and a rivet (shown below); a tab (29) attached to the center panel by the rivet, the tab comprising: a lift end (shown below) opposite a nose portion (shown below), the nose portion overlaying the tear panel in a frangible score breaking position (Fig. 5a); a tongue area (shown below) having a rivet aperture (shown below) through which the rivet passes to attach the tab to the center panel; a void region (shown below) partially surrounding the tongue area having a first leg extending along a first side of the tongue area and a second leg extending along a second side of the tongue area; and a substantially leak-proof seal (31) formed over at least one of the rivet, the tongue area, and void region, wherein the tab further comprises a sealer (33) on an underside of the tab and in face-to-face relationship with the public side of the center panel (32), wherein the sealer is configured to withstand a leakage of a contents of a container to which the can end is attached by creating a barrier between the underside of the tab and the center panel, wherein the sealer is circumferential from the nose end through the lift end and back to the nose end of the tab, as can be seen in the figures below (Pg. 5, last paragraph – Pg. 6, first paragraph).
[AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (lift end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (nose end)][AltContent: textbox (tear panel)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
248
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
207
299
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (tongue area)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (wall)][AltContent: textbox (strengthening member)][AltContent: textbox (curl)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (lift end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (nose portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (void region)][AltContent: textbox (rivet aperture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (rivet)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
375
283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
223
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 66
Perra teaches the tab (29) further comprises a rivet well (shown below) wherein the rivet, the tongue area (shown below), and the void region (shown below) are recessed within the rivet well, wherein the rivet well has an outer perimeter bounded by a portion of an upper side of the tab, the portion of the upper side of the tab positioned at a height along the longitudinal axis, wherein the portion of the upper side of the tab is circumferential and encircles the rivet well, wherein the seal (31) is formed with the portion of the upper side of the tab which extends about the rivet well, wherein the substantially leak-proof seal is formed over the rivet well, inasmuch as Applicant shows, and as can be seen in the figures above.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (rivet well)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (tongue area)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (void region)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding Claim 67
Perra teaches the substantially leak-proof seal is at least substantially liquid leak-proof (Pg. 3, Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 68
Perra teaches the tab comprises an enclosed grab portion between the lift end and the rivet attaching the tab to the center panel, as can be seen in Fig. 5c above.
Regarding Claim 69
Perra teaches the grab portion has a surface area greater than a surface area of the tear panel, as can be seen in Fig. 5d below
PNG
media_image5.png
292
263
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 70
Perra teaches the grab portion is rotational about the rivet to cover a pour opening created by fracturing a frangible score and deflecting the tear panel, as can be seen in Fig. 5a, 5b, and 5d above.
Regarding Claim 72
Perra teaches the sealer is silicone rubber (Pg. 4, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 73
Perra teaches the barrier is at least substantially liquid leak-proof (Pg. 3, Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 75
Perra teaches the tear panel (above) is defined by a frangible score in the public side and non-frangible hinge segment located between terminal ends of the frangible score.
Regarding Claim 76
Perra teaches the tab (29) is configured to rotate about the rivet, wherein a tab hinge extends between respective terminal ends of the first and second legs of the void region.
Regarding Claim 79
Perra teaches a can end for enclosing a container body (28) comprising: a curl (above) extending circumferentially about a longitudinal axis; a circumferential wall (above) extending downwardly from a radially inner portion of the curl; a circumferential strengthening member (above) joined to a lower segment of the circumferential wall; and a center panel (32) about which the circumferential strengthening member extends having a public side (outside) opposite a produce side (inside), the center panel comprising: a peripheral edge defining a radially outer perimeter of the center panel; a tear panel (above) spaced radially inwardly from the peripheral edge; and a rivet (above); a tab (29) attached to the center panel by the rivet, the tab comprising: a lift end (above) opposite a nose portion (above), the nose portion overlaying the tear panel in a frangible score breaking position; a tongue area (above) having a rivet aperture (above) through which the rivet passes to attach the tab to the center panel; a void region (above) partially surrounding the tongue area having a first leg extending along a first side of the tongue area and a second leg extending along a second side of the tongue area; an enclosed grab portion located between the lift end and the void region, wherein the grab portion has a surface area greater than a surface area of the tear panel (Fig. 5d); a substantially leak-proof seal (31) formed over at least one of the rivet, the tongue area, and void region; a circumferential sealer (33) on an underside of the tab and in face-to-face relationship with the public side of the center panel, wherein the sealer is configured to withstand a leakage of a contents of a container to which the can end is attached by creating a barrier between the underside of the tab and the center panel (Pg. 3, Paragraph 3; and Pg. 5, last paragraph – Pg. 6, first paragraph).
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) 61-65 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perra as applied to claims 60 and 72 above.
Regarding Claim 61
Perra teaches all the limitations of claim 60 as stated above. Perra further teaches the substantially leak-proof seal comprises a film and a fixing member (snap) attaching the film to the tab (Pg. 4, Paragraphs 3 and 5). Perra does not specifically teach the fixing member is between the film and a surface of the tab.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the fixing member between the film and the surface of the tab. Applicant has not disclosed that having the fixing member between the film and the surface of the tab provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of having the fixing member between the film and the surface of the tab does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 62-63
Modified Perra teaches all the limitations of claim 61 as stated above. Perra further teaches the film is produced from a metal, and the metal is an aluminum alloy (Pg. 4, Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claims 64-65
Modified Perra teaches all the limitations of claim 61 as stated above. Perra teaches the seal (31) is non-releasably coupled to the tab (29). While Perra teaches that the means of connection may be a snap connection, it would appear obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the fixing member is more than capable of being an adhesive or an acrylic acid compound as both are also known for making non-releasable connections. As such, the claim of the fixing member being an adhesive or an acrylic acid compound does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claims 74
Modified Perra teaches all the limitations of claim 72 as stated above. Based on the fact that Perra teaches all the structural limitations of the Applicant’s claimed invention, it would appear obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Perra is more than capable of having a barrier that is at least substantially fluidly leak-proof. As such, the claim of the barrier being at least substantially fluidly leak-proof does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 77 and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perra as applied to claim 76 above, and further in view of a second interpretation of Perra (Fig. 4a) (hereinafter Perra4) with evidence by Mandel (US 4463866).
Regarding Claim 77
Perra teaches all the limitations of claim 76 as shown above. Perra does not teach a bead having a circumferential portion adjacent the peripheral edge of the center panel and a non- circumferential portion radially inwardly of the circumferential portion and extending radially inwardly from the circumferential portion adjacent the frangible score.
Perra4 teaches a can end (Fig. 4a) for enclosing a container body comprising: a curl extending circumferentially about a longitudinal axis; a circumferential wall extending downwardly from a radially inner portion of the curl; a circumferential strengthening member joined to lower segment of the circumferential wall; and a center panel about which the circumferential strengthening member extends having a public side opposite a produce side, the center panel comprising: a peripheral edge defining a radially outer perimeter of the center panel; a tear panel (shown at 25) spaced radially inwardly from the peripheral edge; wherein the tear panel is defined by a frangible score in the public side; and further comprising a bead (shown below) having circumferential portion adjacent the peripheral edge of the center panel and non- circumferential portion (shown below) extending radially inwardly from the circumferential portion adjacent the frangible score, as can be seen in Fig. 4a below.
[AltContent: textbox (continuous portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (non-continuous bead)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
287
277
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Perra and Perra4 are analogous inventions in the field of can ends. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the can end of Perra with the teachings of the continuous bead or Perra4 in order to stiffen the can end to facilitate separation of the tear panel from the center panel (Mandel: Col. 3, Ln. 33-42).
Regarding Claim 78
Perra in view of Perra4 teaches all the limitations of claim 77 as stated above. Perra4 further teaches the circumferential portion has a depression adjacent the lift end of the tab in the frangible score breaking position in that the center panel is depressed relative to the continuous bead.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the tab of Perra does not teach a sealer on the underside of the tab that is circumferential from the nose end through the lift end and back to the nose end of the tab. As can be seen in the annotated view of Fig. 5e above (and replicated below), Perra does in fact teach the sealer being circumferential from the nose end through the lift end and back to the nose end of the tab.
[AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image7.png
155
280
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights