DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 5-8-2026 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
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 1-16 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 1, line 9 sets forth “generally straight inner portion” and bridging lines 9 and 10 “the generally straight portion”, it is not clear if the generally straight portion is the generally straight inner portion or another straight portion. The recitation of “generally straight portion” also occurs in claim 10, bridging lines 3 and 4 and claim 11, line 1.
Claim 1, line 3 and claim 16 line 2, recite “relatively thin”, “relatively” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since there is not a reference value to consider what is thick and thin.
Claim 1, line 9 (two occurrences) recites “generally straight”. Further recitations of “generally” are Claim 2, line 1; claim 6, line 2; claim 10, line 3; claim 11, line 2 (two occurrences); claim 12, line 1; claim 12, line 2 (two occurrences); claim 13, line 1 and claim 15, line 2.
The term “generally” in claims 1,2,6,11-13 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim since “generally straight”, “generally perpendicular” and “generally flat” include structure which is not straight, perpendicular and flat.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bakermans et al. (5,263,353). Bakermans discloses a method of manipulating (working) a piece of material (10) comprising accessing the piece of relatively thin, sheet material (10) forming a hole (30,38; Fig. 5) in the piece of material, performing a wiping operation (Fig. 7) to deform material adjacent (48) to the hole and performing at least one coining operation (Fig. 8) to flatten (col. 4, lines 60-64) the deformed material at an intersection of metal sheet surface (11 and 48), wherein after the at least one coining operation (Fig. ) the piece of material has an area of increased thickness (between sheet surface 9 and burr 64; Fig. 8) adjacent to the hole (30,38), and wherein after the at least one coining operation the piece of material has a generally straight inner portion (Fig. 13) wherein (60) is straight (perpendicular) and at least partially defining the hole, the generally straight portion extending at least about 20% of a height of the hole wherein (Fig. 13) illustrates that the straight portion (60) extends at least half of the hole height (col. 4, lines 48-51) was comprises at least about 20% of the hole height since Bakermans discloses that the coining punch (50) only extends a short distance in the hole (56-58) to form adjacent hole portion (62).
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) 1-3,5-9,11,14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (9,573,724) in view of Diekhoff et al. (3,741,141). Regarding claims 1 and 2, Mitchell discloses a method of manipulating (supplying and working) a piece of material (14; Fig. 3) comprising accessing the piece of relatively thin, sheet material (10; col. 4, lines 3-7) forming a hole (18; col. 6, lines 17-19) in the piece of material (14), performing a wiping operation (Fig. 10; col. 6, lines 32-35) to deform material (22’) adjacent to the hole (18) and performing at least one coining operation (Figs. 11 and 12) to flatten the deformed material (22; Fig. 12) between coining dies (502,504,508) into an arcuate shape area (24) between die structure (510,512; Fig. 12), wherein after the at least one coining operation the piece of material (14) has the arcuate shaped area (24) of increased thickness (32; Fig. 12, col. 7, lines 33-35) adjacent to the hole (18). Mitchell discloses the deformed material is arcuate and smooth but does not disclose a straight linear portion. Diekhoff teaches (col. 3, lines 50-52) that material (30) which is deformed adjacent to a hole (10) in a tab (2) has a straight inner portion (upper section, 30) perpendicular to an upper tab surface (16; col 3, line 52) and an arcuate portion (lower section 32 with a radius R1; col. 3, lines 53-55) adjacent to the straight inner portion (30) wherein Diekhoff teaches a coining operation (Fig. 6) comprising coining dies (40,50,60) that are configured to coin and flatten the piece of material (within hole 10; Fig. 7) to form the straight portion with a depth and the arcuate portion having a radius R2 (Fig. 8, 67; col. 4, lines 33-37) and the straight portion (68; Fig. 7) for connecting to a rivet (64). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form the deformed material portion of Mitchell to have a straight portion and an arcuate portion as taught by Diekhoff so that the hole of the tab makes contact with a rivet with the tab hole having a straight portion and a curved, coined portion.
Applicant’s claim 1 recitation is “at least about 20% of a height of the hole” and the claim 2 recitation is “at least about 33% of a height of the hole”. The specification cite ([0030], lines 3-5) is “The straight portion 60 can extend at least about 20% in one case and/or at least about 33% in another case, and/or less than about 60% in another case, of the height of the inner edge of the hole 48/stiffening area 54.” The Examiner’s reading is that if it can be less than 60% then that range includes 0-60% and if the range is at least about 20% and at least about 33%, it is not apparent that there is any criticality to this claimed height limitation since at least about 20% and at least about 33% would be 20% or 33% to 100% if the range was claimed as a definite range, therefore the specification recites that it can be 0-100% which does not have any criticality. Diekhoff teaches that the straight portion (30) has a definite non-zero height (Fig. 2) as it is described as being an upper section which is disposed perpendicular to an upper tab surface (16; col. 3, lines 50-52).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Diekhoff teaches a radius of 0.010 to 0.025 inches (col. 4, lines 35-36) which is “about 5/1000” as in claim 3 and “about 4/1000” as in claim 7.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mitchell discloses (col. 4, lines 55-56) that the area of increased thickness (24) has an upper curved portion and a lower curved portion (Fig. 12) which are one or more radii of curvature. Applicant’s claim 6 recitation is “less than about 50%) which includes 0 (no difference) but Mitchell shows in Fig. 12 that a radius (where 22 is pointing; Fig. 12) extends from a bottom of the planar portion toward the area of increased thickness (24) which is different from a radius of the area of increased thickness (where 510 is pointing; Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, Mitchell discloses that the area of increased thickness (22; Fig. 12) has an increased thickness of less than 1.0 times the planar thickness (30) and Fig. 12 illustrates that the increased thickness is about 30% (arrows, 32) of the planar thickness (arrows, 30).
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell discloses that the piece of material (14; Fig. 12) has a thickness (30) of 0.009-0.11 inches (col. 4, lines 40-41) and that the area of increased thickness (24) has a thickness (30 + 32; Fig. 12) which is greater than the thickness (30). Applicant’s claim 9 sets forth “between about” language with overlapping ranges for the piece of material thickness and areas of increased thickness so it is not possible to determine a definite range but Mitchell discloses that the thickness (24) has a thickness (30 + 32; Fig. 12) which is greater than the thickness (30).
Regarding claim 11, Diekhoff teaches a straight inner portion (upper section, 30) perpendicular to an upper tab surface (16; col 3, line 52).
Regarding claim 14, Mitchell discloses that the area of increased thickness (24; Fig. 12) extends around an entire perimeter of the circular hole (18; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 15, Mitchell (Figs. 1 and 3) discloses an oval shaped tab body (4) including a back portion (8) with an opening (Fig. 2) and a front portion (6) including a peninsula (28) with the circular hole (18) formed in the peninsula (28), the tab body (4) includes a rolled edge (12).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (9,573,724) in view of Diekhoff et al. (3,741,141) and further in view of Brown (3,851,793). Mitchell discloses that the area of thickness protrudes upwardly (Fig. 12) but does not disclose a downward protrusion. Brown teaches (Fig. 10) that an area of increased thickness (70) protrudes outwardly (downwardly toward 20; Fig. 10) from a lower surface of a piece of material (tab element, 66) and does not protrude outwardly from an upper surface of the piece of material. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to protrude the area of increased thickness of Mitchell in view of Diekhoff outwardly from a lower surface of the piece of material in order to make tight contact with a lower part of a rivet.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (9,573,724) in view of Diekhoff et al. (3,741,141) and further in view of Kalenak et al. (4,832,223). Mitchell does not disclose multiple coining operations. Kalenak teaches two coining operations (col. 8, lines 5-10) to produce frustoconical sections (67,68; Fig. 5) and three coining operations with three different tools (110,112,114; col. 12, lines 7-10) to produce a curvilinear surface (108). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to coin the area of increased thickness of Mitchell with in multiple coining operations as taught by Kalenak so as to increase a cold worked buckling strength of the coined material.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (9,573,724) in view of Diekhoff et al. (3,741,141) and further in view of Brown (3,851,793). Mitchell in view of Diekhoff does not disclose that the area of increased thickness has a flat lower surface perpendicular to the straight inner portion. Brown teaches (Fig. 10) that an area of increased thickness (70) protrudes outwardly (downwardly toward 20; Fig. 10) from a lower surface of a piece of material (tab element, 66). The area of increased thickness (70) has a flat lower surface (Fig. 10) parallel with tab (14a) surface (64; Fig. 8) and perpendicular to a straight inner portion (68) for securing a rivet (18). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to flatten the lower surface of the area of increased thickness of Mitchell in view of Diekhoff as taught by Brown in order to create a flat surface to match a flat upper tab surface.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (9,573,724) in view of Diekhoff et al. (3,742,141) and further in view of Langseder et al. (4,361,251). Mitchell discloses a rivet (102) extending through the circular hole (18) and is coupled to an end cap (100; Fig. 4). The tab body (4) is pivotable (Fig. 5) relative to the rivet (102) parallel to the end cap (100) but Mitchell does not specifically recite a main score and flap area which is torn by pivoting the tab body. Langseder teaches a can end (16) having a flap area (20) delimited by a main score (22) that is torn by a tab (14) when the tab is pivoted. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a score line in the can end of Mitchell to delimit a flap area of the can end that is torn when the tab is pivoted so as to open the can end for pouring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsue et al. (5,943,897) teaches that increased thickness areas with radii (125,126; Fig. 15) are formed in a plate (105) hole (113) with a straight inner portion (110) between the increased thickness areas (125,126).
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