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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22 and 26, in the reply filed on 9/3/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 23-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
As Applicant did not traverse the restriction requirement, it is hereby deemed proper and made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the width defined by the imaginary extension lines of the inclined surfaces and the imaginary extension line passing through the center of the bottom surface” can be “the width of the imaginary bottom” as this was already defined in claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 11-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 5 of copending Application No. 19/765,548 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claims 1-5 and 11, claim 1 of copending ‘548 recites a can lid having an overlapping composition, claim 3 of copending ‘548 recites the structure including a tab and an end including a score, and claim 5 of copending ‘548 recites a rivet.
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 5 of copending ‘548 recites the score comprises inclined surfaces a bottom, where the bottom is 70% or less of an imaginary bottom defined by extension lines of the inclined surface and an imaginary extension line passing through a center of the bottom.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-22 and 26 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 recites “aluminum alloy” but does not specify the balance of the alloy. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the claimed alloy is based on aluminum, or merely contains aluminum and is based on a different element. For purposes of examination, it is presumed to be aluminum.
Claim 6 recites: “an original thickness”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim fails to specify what is an original thickness—an original thickness of what? For purposes of examination, it is presumed to be the lid’s original thickness.
Claim 12 recites: “an imaginary extension line passing through a center of the bottom surface”. This limitation is indefinite. What is the imaginary extension line passing through a center of the bottom surface? Is it an axis which reflects symmetry of the tearable score? Is it a line extending along the width of, and parallel with, the bottom surface? For purposes of examination, the latter is presumed.
Claim 16 recites: “a score angle”. This limitation is indefinite. A score angle could refer to the angle between the inclined surface and the lid, or it could refer to the angle between the inclined surfaces. For purposes of examination, the latter is presumed.
Claim 17 recites: “a metal exclusion amount”. This limitation is indefinite. The claim does not explain what a metal exclusion amount is, nor does the specification define this term. For purposes of examination, it is presumed to refer to an amount of metal removed from the can lid by the score with respect to the width of the score groove.
Claim 18 recites: “a score residual thickness…is 85% or less”. This limitation is indefinite because claim 18 fails to state what 85% or less is being compared to. For purposes of examination, it is presumed to be of the lid’s original thickness.
Claim 19 recites: “an original thickness”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim fails to specify what is an original thickness—an original thickness of what? For purposes of examination, it is presumed to be the lid’s original thickness.
Claim 22 recites: “an original thickness”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim fails to specify what is an original thickness—an original thickness of what? For purposes of examination, it is presumed to be the tab’s original thickness.
Dependent claims not addressed are indefinite by virtue of dependence from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hattori et al. (JP H09-87790).
Regarding claims 1-5, 11 and 26, Hattori teaches a can lid for a beverage can made of an aluminum alloy (p. 1, ¶ 1). The can lid includes an end 1, tab 2, openable score, and rivet 3 (p. 1, ¶ 3). The aluminum alloy has the following composition (Table 1, Ex. 3), as compared to the claimed compositions:
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Hattori
Mn
0.5%-1.4%
0.5%-1.0%
0.5%-1.0%
0.5%-1.0%
0.5%-1.0%
0.75%
Mn
0.8%-1.4% (claim 11)
Mg
2.0%-4.5%
3.0%-4.5%
3.0%-4.5%
2.0%-3.0%
2.0%-3.0%
3.0%
Si
0-0.6%
0-0.6%
0-0.35%
0-0.6%
0-0.35%
0.11%
Fe
0-0.8%
0-0.8%
0-0.6%
0-0.8%
0-0.6%
0.22%
Cu
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0.13%
Cr
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
-
Zn
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
-
Ti
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
-
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the alternative, the aluminum alloy composition of Hattori has the following general composition (p. 2, ¶ 9 – p. 3, ¶ 3), as compared to the claimed compositions:
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Hattori
Mn
0.5%-1.4%
0.5%-1.0%
0.5%-1.0%
0.5%-1.0%
0.5%-1.0%
0.4%-1.0%
Mn
0.8%-1.4% (claim 11)
Mg
2.0%-4.5%
3.0%-4.5%
3.0%-4.5%
2.0%-3.0%
2.0%-3.0%
2.6%-3.5%
Si
0-0.6%
0-0.6%
0-0.35%
0-0.6%
0-0.35%
0-0.3%
Fe
0-0.8%
0-0.8%
0-0.6%
0-0.8%
0-0.6%
0-0.5%
Cu
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0.1%-0.5%
Cr
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.5%
Zn
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-1.0%
Ti
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.10%
0-0.2%
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 7, Ex. 3 of Table 2 of Hattori discloses a tensile strength of 369 N/mm2 (same as Ex. 3 of Table 1). The aluminum alloy of Hattori generally has tensile strengths of 353-379 N/mm2 (see Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hattori does not teach the end and tab are made from different aluminum alloys, accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of Hattori to teach the entire can lid is made from the same alloy (see p. 1, ¶ 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP H09-87790), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015-205701) and Masuda (JP 2002-331610).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Hattori teaches a Mg content of 2.6%-3.5% (p. 3, ¶ 3), but does not expressly teach the claimed score residual thickness at an opening initiating position. Masuda teaches a can lid made from aluminum alloy (¶ 26), where the thickness of the aluminum plate is 0.20-0.50 mm (¶ 26). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness taught by the prior art for the can of Hattori because Masuda teaches a feasible thickness known in the art to be suitable for making a can lid out of aluminum alloy.
Yamamoto teaches a can lid having scores with a depth of 0.142 mm, 0.092 mm, and 0.157 mm (¶¶ 17-19). The can lid opening score in Yamamoto is designed to provide an easy-to-open can which suppresses a “pop missile phenomenon” (¶ 5). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the teachings of Yamamoto with respect to score depth in order to obtain a can lid which is easy to open and avoids potential injury to the consumer. Given a can lid thickness of 0.20-0.50, the residual thickness ratio after scoring would be about 63%-79%. This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 18, Masuda teaches the main score groove includes a curved portion having a deeper groove (¶ 20). As Modified Hattori already discloses a residual thickness ratio of about 63%-79%, the residual thickness ratio at this deeper groove would be at most this amount.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP H09-87790), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Masuda (JP 2002-331610).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Hattori does not expressly teach a thickness of the aluminum alloy can lid end or tab. Masuda teaches a can lid made from aluminum alloy (¶ 26), where the thickness of the aluminum plate is 0.20-0.50 mm (¶ 26). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness taught by the prior art for the can of Hattori because Masuda teaches a feasible thickness known in the art to be suitable for making a can lid out of aluminum alloy.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP H09-87790), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Felberbaum et al. (US 2023/0183841).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Hattori does not expressly teach the aluminum alloy for making the can lid includes recycled material from recycled aluminum cans. Felberbaum teaches it is well known in the art to recycle aluminum beverage cans (¶ 45) for processing into aluminum alloys (¶¶ 2-4). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to include recycled aluminum in the aluminum alloy of Hattori because doing so decreases costs with producing primary aluminum and is environmentally beneficial (see ¶ 3).
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP H09-87790), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015-205701).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Hattori does not expressly teach main and auxiliary scores and their respective metal exclusion amounts. Yamamoto teaches an easy to open can having a main score and a sub score engraved on the inner side of the main score (¶ 16). In an example of Yamamoto, the width of the main score groove is 0.02 mm and the width of the sub score groove is 0.06 mm (¶¶ 17-18). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the teachings of Yamamoto with respect to the main and sub scores in order to obtain a can lid which is easy to open and avoids potential injury to the consumer (see ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Hattori does not expressly teach the details of the pull tab. Yamamoto teaches a can lid including a tab for opening the can lid (¶ 14). The tab has a finger hooking portion and a curled portion, which are made by folding the tab sheet (¶ 14). Accordingly, the ratio of the thicknesses of these portions relative to the original thickness is at least 2. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the can lid of Hattori according to the teachings of Yamamoto because the tab disclosed in Yamamoto is well known in the art and there is an expectation of success in adopting conventional elements known in the art to the can lid tab of Hattori.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP H09-87790), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015-205701) and Mackeldowney (JP H10-101104).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Hattori does not expressly teach main and auxiliary scores, and a spout prevention score. Yamamoto teaches an easy to open can having a main score and a sub score engraved on the inner side of the main score (¶ 16). In an example of Yamamoto, the width of the main score groove is 0.02 mm and the width of the sub score groove is 0.06 mm (¶¶ 17-18). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the teachings of Yamamoto with respect to the main and sub scores in order to obtain a can lid which is easy to open
PNG
media_image1.png
350
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and avoids potential injury to the consumer (see ¶ 5).
Mackeldowney teaches a can lid having a main score line 18 and a break prevention score line 90 (corresponding to the auxiliary score line) (¶ 23). The can lid also has a spout prevention score line 38 (¶ 24). The spout prevention score is adjacent to the main score line (see Fig. 4). The depth of the spout prevention score line is about 0.01 mm (¶ 22), and the thickness of the can lid is about 0.22 mm (¶ 18). The residual thickness is thus about 95%, which is close to the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a spout prevention score in the can lid of Modified Hattori, as taught by Mackeldowney, because the spout prevention score prevents rapid division of the tear panel, and prevents injection missiling (¶ 14).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP H09-87790), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yoshimura et al. (JP S56-48957).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Hattori does not expressly teach a processing rate of a central portion of the rivet forming portion to an original thickness is 70% or less of the original thickness. Yoshimura teaches a can lid having a rivet connecting the pull tab to the end (pp. 1-2). A ratio of the thickness of the central portion of the rivet forming portion to the original thickness is 0.66-0.92 (claim 1). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the can lid of Hattori according to the teachings of Yoshimura because the arrangement of the rivet details in Yoshimura reduce stress and prevent cracks (p. 2).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP H09-87790), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Shinguryo (JP 2022-119589).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Hattori does not expressly teach a ratio of the diameter of a coining region to an inner diameter of the side wall portion. Shinguryo teaches a can lid where the ratio of coining region diameter is 2.3 mm-3.5 mm and the inner diameter of a side wall rivet is 3.2 mm-4.2 mm (p. 4, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the can lid of Hattori according to the teachings of Shinguryo in order to create a rivet which does not separate or break when opened (p. 2, ¶ 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 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, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed bottom surface being 65% of less of a width of an imaginary bottom as recited. Saito (JP 2002-180173) teaches scores having inclined surfaces and a bottom surface, but does not teach the width of the bottom surface is 65% or less of a width of an imaginary bottom surface. While the scores in Saito may have continuous curved surfaces between the inclined and bottom surfaces, and the width of the bottom surface is smaller than a width of a so-called imaginary bottom surface, this is due to wear of the scoring die in Saito. Saito discloses wear that reduces the bottom surface to about 90% of the imaginary bottom surface (see Fig. 3 & Table 2). However, there is no indication that Saito teache or suggests the claimed ratio of 65% or less, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Saito to teach away from a ratio of 65% or less as one would seek to replace the scoring die as it wears down.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
