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 § 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scharf et al. (U.S. 3,428,211).
Regarding claim 13, Scharf et al. teaches an EZO container, comprising a can body 16, a lid 22 coupled to the can body, a tab 20 coupled to the lid, the tab being configured to open the lid, wherein the tab 20 comprises a tab body comprising a nose 40, a handle 36, and a medial portion (at 28 and 30; figure 1) that extends between and couples the nose and the handle (figure 1), wherein the handle defines a central opening (defined by 38), the handle comprises an outer curl (at lead line 36 in figure 7) having a first edge that is folded downwardly and inwardly (figure 7 at lead line 36) along a bottom surface of the tab body and that is directed toward the medial portion (figure 7), the handle comprises an inner curl extending downward and outward (figure 7 at curl opposite lead line 36) from the central opening (figure 7), the inner curl comprising a second edge that is folded along the bottom surface of the tab body and that is directed away from the medial portion (figure 7), and a distance between the first edge and the second edge is less than about 0.5 mm (first edge and second edge overlap therefor the distance is less than 0.5 mm).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharf et al. (U.S. 3,428,211) in view of Tielbeke et al. (EP 3,272,666A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scharf et al. teaches a tab 20 for a container 16, comprising a tab body comprising a nose at 40, a handle 36, at least one tab carrier (at lead line 14 in figure 5 surrounding 56), and a medial portion (at lead lines 28 and 30 in figure 1) that extends between and couples the nose and the handle (figure 1), wherein the at least one tab carrier is positioned flush with or inset relative to a main body of the handle (inset relative the main body of the handle; figure 5), the handle 38 defines a central opening (figure 8), the handle comprises an outer curl (at lead line 36 in figure 7) having a first edge that is folded along a bottom surface of the tab body and that is directed toward the medial portion (figure 7), the handle comprises an inner curl extending from the central opening (figure 7), the inner curl comprising a second edge that is folded along the bottom surface of the tab body and that is directed away from the medial portion (figure 7), and the first edge and the second edge are separated by a distance less than 0.5 mm (first edge and second edge overlap therefor the distance is less than 0.5 mm).
Scharf et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the remnant. Tielbeke et al. teaches that it is known to provide a tab carrier with a remnant (see elements 23a, 23b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Scharf et al. with the tab carrier having a remnant, as taught by Tielbeke et al., in order to attach multiple tabs to a sheet of material during formation, as is known in the art, provided at a location which does not weaken the handle or nose portion of the tab.
Regarding claim 2, the distance between the first edge and the second edge is less than 0.1 mm (first edge and second edge overlap therefor the distance is less than 0.1 mm).
Regarding claim 3, the distance between the first edge and the second edge is less than 0.05 mm (first edge and second edge overlap therefor the distance is less than 0.05 mm).
Regarding claim 4, the first edge and the second edge are in contact with one another (figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, the second edge overlaps the first edge (figure 7; when the tab is viewed from above).
Regarding claim 6, the first edge overlaps the second edge (figure 7; when the tab is viewed from below.
Regarding claim 7, at least a portion of one or both of the first edge and the second edge is pressed against a bottom surface of a main portion of the handle (see the portion of 38 opposite 36; figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, the tab body comprises a longitudinal axis, and a portion of one or both of the first edge and the second edge is pressed against a bottom surface of a main portion of the handle (see the portion of 38 opposite 36; figure 7) such that an inner region of the handle proximate the longitudinal axis (see the portion of 38 opposite 36; figure 7) is thinner than an outer region of the handle outward of the inner region relative to the longitudinal axis (which has a curl similar to the curl shown at lead line 36).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharf et al. (U.S. 3,428,211) in view of Nguyen et al. (WO 03/059764A1). Regarding claim 14, Scharf et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the chuck wall. Nguyen et al. teaches that it is known to provide a lid with a chuck wall (see figure 4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Scharf et al. with the chuck wall, as taught by Nguyen et al., in order to reinforce the lid.
Further regarding claim 14, the lid 22 comprises a center panel (at lead line 22), 4 a peripheral curl at 18 coupled with a rim of the can body 16, and a chuck wall, as modified above, disposed between the center panel and the peripheral curl, the chuck wall of Nguyen et al. comprises a substantially horizontal portion (12 of Nguyen et al.), and the substantially horizontal portion is positioned less than about 4 mm below a top surface of the peripheral curl (figure 4B of Nguyen et al.).
Regarding claim 15, the substantially horizontal portion is oriented within about 30 degrees relative to the center panel (figure 4B of Nguyen et al.).
Regarding claim 16, the chuck wall, as modified by Nguyen et al., comprises a substantially vertical portion that is disposed above the substantially horizontal portion; and a transition between the substantially vertical portion and the substantially horizontal portion has a radius of between 0.75 mm and 1.25 mm (figure 4B of Nguyen et al.).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharf et al. (U.S. 3,428,211) in view of Tielbeke et al. (EP 3,272,666A1).
Regarding claim 17, Scharf et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the method steps. Tielbeke et al. teaches that it is known to form a tab from sheet material (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Scharf et al. with the tab made by the method taught by Tielbeke et al., in order to use a well known technique to form a tab from sheet material.
Further regarding claim 17, Scharf et al. teaches a method (as modified above) of forming a tab for a container, comprising punching a tab body into a sheet of metal material (taught by Tielbeke et al.), the tab body comprising a nose at 40, a handle 36, and a medial portion (at 28 and 30; figure 1) that extends between and couples the nose and the handle (figure 1), wherein the handle defines a central opening (defined by 38), forming an outer curl at 36 about the handle, the outer curl having a first edge that is folded downward and inward (at lead line 36 in figure 7) along a bottom surface of the tab body and that is directed toward the medial portion (figure 7), forming an inner curl about the handle, the inner curl extending downward and outward (at curl opposite lead line 36 in figure 7) from the central opening and comprising a second edge that is folded along the bottom surface of the tab body and that is directed away from the medial portion (figure 7), and pressing the first edge and the second edge together such that the first edge and the second edge are separated by a distance of less than 0.5 mm (first edge and second edge overlap therefor the distance is less than 0.5 mm).
Regarding claim 18, moving at least one tab carrier inward such that the at least one tab carrier is flush with or inset relative to a main body of the handle (inset at lead line 14 in figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, removing at least a portion of at least one tab carrier from the handle (for receipt of 56).
Regarding claim 20, the removing the at least a portion of the at least one tab carrier comprises trimming the at least a portion of the at least one tab carrier (figure 5 of Tielbeke et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Scharf does not teach the remnant. The secondary reference of Tielbeke et al. has been added to the rejection of claims 1-8 to teach the remnant. Tielbeke et al. teaches a remnant at 23a, 23b which extends from the tab carrier.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues that Scharf does not teach the outer curl extending downward and inward and the inner curl extending downward and outward. The examiner disagrees with this position. It is the examiner’s position that Scharf teaches an outer curl that extends downward and inward at lead line 36. Scharf also teaches an inner curl that extends downward and outward at the curl opposite lead line 36. The edge of the outer curl overlaps the edge of the inner curl, as shown in figure 7. Since the edge of the outer curl overlaps and is in contact with the edge of the inner curl the distance between the edges is less than 0.5 mm, wherein the edges are considered to be the overlapping portions of the curl.
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights