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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 7,891,519 to Matsukawa et al. (Matsukawa).
Regarding claim 17, Matsukawa discloses a can lid (51) comprising a disk-shaped panel portion (52) in which a score line (59) is formed on an outer peripheral edge side of the panel portion, a protection portion (Fig 7) disposed on outer peripheral edge side of the panel portion, the protection portion comprising an upper layer (A, Fig 7 below), intermediate layer (B, Fig 7 below), lower layer (C, Fig 7 below) provided by folded part of the panel portion, a ring-shaped groove portion (53) provided on outer peripheral edge of the panel portion, a flange portion (55) provided on outer peripheral edge of the groove portion and configured to be seamed to a can body since it has the structure as recited, a tab (61) provided in the panel portion and configured to break the score line (59) and allow the panel portion to open along the score line, wherein the panel portion comprises a panel outer peripheral portion (A, Fig 6 below) between the score line and groove portion, an upper surface of the panel outer peripheral portion is inclined outward and downward in a radial direction (Fig 6 below), wherein the upper surface of the panel outer peripheral portion is provided between the protection portion (Fig 7) and the groove portion (53) (Fig 6), wherein the score line (59) is formed in upper surface of the intermediate later (B, Fig 7) of the protection portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,891,519 to Matsukawa et al. (Matsukawa) in view of US 2019/0112096 to Gogola et al. (Gogola) and US Patent No. 8,313,004 to Stodd et al. (Stodd).
Regarding claim 7, Matsukawa discloses a can lid (51) comprising a disk-shaped panel portion (52) in which a score line (59) is formed on an outer peripheral edge side of the panel portion, a protection portion (Fig 7) disposed on the outer peripheral edge side of the panel portion, the protection portion comprising an upper layer (A, Fig 7 below), an intermediate layer (B, Fig 7 below), a lower layer (C, Fig 7 below) formed by a folded part of the panel portion, a ring shaped groove portion (53) provided on an outer peripheral edge of the panel portion, a flange portion (55) provided on outer peripheral edge of the groove portion and configured to be seamed to a can body, a tab (61) provided in the panel portion and configured to break the score line (59) and allow the panel portion (52) to open along the score line, wherein the panel portion (52) comprises a panel outer peripheral portion (A, Fig 6 below) between the score line (59) and groove portion (53), upper surface portion of the panel outer peripheral portion is disposed between protection portion and groove portion and is inclined outward and downward in radial direction (Fig 6), the score line (59) is formed in upper surface of the intermediate layer (B, Fig 7 below) of protection portion. Matsukawa does not teach the recited dimensions. However, Gogola discloses a cane end and in particular discloses distance between lowermost portion of the upper surface portion and uppermost portion of the score line in axial direction between 0.4 to 4mm since the score residual is approximately .0038 inches plus the deboss panel 0.016 inches (€0037). Stodd discloses a can end (Fig 13) and in particular discloses upper surface portion (216, Fig 13) inclined at an angle (A6) of 13 degrees with respect to direction orthogonal to axial direction of the panel portion (212). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the angle inclined to the range as recited in order and the distance as recited in order to facilitate strengthening of the can end since it has been held that lid since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Matsukawa discloses a can container comprising a can lid of claim 7 and further discloses can body with a bottom cylindrical shape and open end to which can lid is sealed (col. 6, ll. 65-67).
Regarding claim 13, Matsukawa further discloses the can to be positive-pressure and filled with foamable content (col. 5, ll. 25-35).
Regarding claim 16, Matsukawa further discloses score line (59) formed on outer peripheral edge side to enable most of the panel portion (52) to be opened.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant does not provide any rebuttal to the rejection under Matsukawa and instead states that the space between the annular groove and the score line is inclined before the flange is seamed and fixed to the can body. However, this is irrelevant to the claims because the claims do not require any inclination or fixing to a can body since the claims are only directed to a can lid and not to a can body. Applicant argues that Matsukawa does not teach upper surface portion of the panel outer peripheral portion is disposed between protection portion and groove portion and score line is formed in upper surface of intermediate layer of the protection portion. This is not persuasive because Matsukawa discloses panel outer peripheral portion (A, Fig 6 above) disposed between protection portion (Fig 7, comprising 57 and 58) and groove portion (53), the panel outer peripheral portion inclined outward and downward in radial direction as shown in Fig 6, score line (59) formed in upper surface of intermediate layer of protection portion (Fig 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights