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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0112096 to Gogola et al. (Gogola) in view of US Patent No. 8,313,004 to Stodd et al. (Stodd).
Regarding claim 7, Gogola discloses a can lid (100, Fig 1a) comprising a disk-shaped panel portion (106) in which a score line (122) is formed on an outer peripheral edge side (120), a ring shaped groove portion (114) provided on an outer peripheral edge of the panel portion (106), a flange portion (108) provided on outer peripheral edge of the groove portion and configured to be seamed to a can body (102), a tab (104) provided in the panel portion and configured to break the score line (122) and allow the panel portion (106) to open along the score line, wherein the panel portion (106) comprises a panel outer peripheral portion (118) between the score line (122) and groove portion (114), an upper surface (A, Fig 1b below) of the panel outer peripheral portion (118) is inclined outward and downward in a radial direction. Gogola further discloses distance between lowermost portion of the upper surface portion and uppermost portin 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. Gogola does not teach the recited dimensions. However, 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 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). Furthermore, the panel outer peripheral portion is capable of being inclined before the flange portion is seamed and fixed to can body since it has the structure as recited. Note that product by process limitations are given little patentable weight.
PNG
media_image1.png
447
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2014/0263329 to Chasteen et al. (Chasteen) in view of Gogola and Stodd.
Regarding claim 7, Chasteen discloses a can lid (7, Fig 2a) comprising a disk-shaped panel portion in which a score line (21) is formed on an outer peripheral edge side, a ring shaped groove portion (31) provided on an outer peripheral edge of the panel portion, a flange portion (6) provided on outer peripheral edge of the groove portion and configured to be seamed to a can body (4), a tab (3) provided in the panel portion and configured to break the score line (21) and allow the panel portion (106) to open (at 22) along the score line, wherein the panel portion comprises a panel outer peripheral portion (19) between the score line (21) and groove portion (31), an upper surface of the panel outer peripheral portion (19) is inclined outward and downward in a radial direction (Fig 6). Chasteen 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). Furthermore, the panel outer peripheral portion is capable of being inclined before the flange portion is seamed and fixed to can body since it has the structure as recited. Note that product by process limitations are given little patentable weight.
Regarding claim 10, Chasteen discloses a can container (40) comprising a can lid of claim 7 and further discloses can body (4) with a bottom cylindrical shape (26) and open end to which can lid is sealed (€0081).
Regarding claim 13, Chasteen further discloses the can to be positive-pressure and filled with foamable content (pressurized beverage, €0081)
Claim(s) 7, 10, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 7,891,519 to Matsukawa et al. (Matsukawa) in view of Gogola and 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, 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 between the score line (59) and groove portion (53), an upper surface of the panel outer peripheral portion (52) is inclined outward and downward in a radial direction (Fig 6, col. 9, ll. 15-20). 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). Furthermore, the panel outer peripheral portion is capable of being inclined before the flange portion is seamed and fixed to can body since it has the structure as recited. Note that product by process limitations are given little patentable weight.
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 10/3/2025 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 argues that the score line of Gogola/Chasteen is not formed on an outer peripheral edge of the center panel. This is not persuasive because insofar as applicant has their score line (31) formed on outer peripheral edge of center panel (21) even though the score line is inward of the outer peripheral edge of the panel, then so too does Gogola disclose a score line (122) formed on outer peripheral edge of center panel (106). Applicant further argues that the prior art does not teach the recited dimensions. However, Gogola discloses the distance as recited and Stodd discloses the angle as recited. Taken as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the angles and dimensions to lie in the range as recited in order to improve the strength and structure of the can end.
Applicant argues that Matsukawa does not teach panel outer peripheral portion inclined before the flange portion is seamed and fixed to can body. However, product by process limitations are given little patentable weight and so long as prior art has the structure as recited, then it can be made by the process as recited.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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