DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 in response to Office Action 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding all independent claims, Applicant summarily believes there is criticality to the instant application’s approximate ranges over the prior art Gogola that are based on and between standard can sizes and their standard sized can end elements (between 206 and 209 size can ends). Examiner summarily points out that standards themselves are results of optimizations, so modifying one particular element (e.g. the pour panel/opening/area) for balance of the elements to function together (e.g. at least the tab’s material type, geometry of shape and relative placement for strength to open the pour panel based at least on its depth of score line, width, length and thickness) is obvious at least based on POSITA engineering design/scientific method. Please see detailed responses below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that each optimization rationale is merely conclusory so examiner has erred (page 7 para last into page 8). Specifically Applicant states the rationale is missing a solution or benefit. Examiner points out that the ellipses Applicant cites contains the result effective variables with benefit.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the examiner did not identify a required nexus for a “206 can end” (pages 8-9 #1). Applicant argues that a POSITA would not optimize a standard 206 can end pour area to the claimed ranges that produce a pour area of about 95% that of a standard 209 size can end’s pour area because its counterintuitive (page 9 first half) that a POSITA would optimize just the pour area for any reason including the prior art’s disclosed reason of “to improve pourability” [0025] since tab buckling or breaking could maybe occur (page 9 last half). Examiner points out “206 can end” is not claimed in claim 1. Examiner also points out that since the prior art discloses the possibility of buckling is already considered and avoided by tab design ([0036] “the cleats 128 increase strength of the tab (e.g., provide added stiffness) that enables a user to apply a greater force to the pour panel (e.g., allows a user to pull harder) without causing the tab 104 to deform and/or buckle”). Therefore since the prior art discloses a larger pour area “to improve pourability” ([0025]), an increased capability of handling larger forces of tab to pour panel without increasing cost ([0036]; wherein [0030] “tabs disclosed herein can withstand or provide larger opening forces and/or pressures without increasing material costs”), and the disparate maximum conceivable limits of the claimed ranges ([0030] 206 and 209 full standards meaning all elements of can and can end), then optimizing the pour opening/panel/area variables to the claimed ranges that are very close to 209 standard for improved pourability against variables of known/standard risks is well within the grasp of a POSITA (e.g. no matter the can end total area so long as the pour area fits in it). “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” MPEP 2141.03 I. Examiner notes this response satiates other arguments too (page 10 #2 - #6, claim 9, claim 21). Also Gogola discloses the tab can be used with 206 or 209 or “any other size can end” [0030] thereby necessarily considers designing for any intermediate non-standard can ends and their pour areas. Please see the rejection analysis below that this explanation simply further edifies.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that an unexpected result of increasing the pour area alone in a 206 can end is superior pourability that surprisingly did not require tab redesign while of course remaining at the 206 weight since the tab and nothing else changed (i.e. there’s the same amount of material on the can end since the pour area increase just redefines score line boundaries for the pour area) (page 12 #6). Please see the response above. Also examiner points out that increased pourability is merely a resultant effect of creating the larger area, not explicit evidence of why the range must be limited as claimed. Applicant also argues further such resultant effects (page 12 #6 bullets).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that their discrete claimed ranges creating the pour opening are not optimizable because a POSITA would not think to optimize an already optimized/balanced standard (page 10 #2 para 1). However, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” MPEP 2141.03 I. Meaning a POSITA can always think outside of a standard.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that some listed potential risks would always dissuade a POSITA from trying to make a larger pour opening by potentially destroying at least the tab that opens it (page 10 #3). Specifically they argue that since Gogola does not address these instantly disclosed potential risks, a POSITA could not consider optimizing using them as parameters. However Applicant also states it is well known that “pour openings are standardized per end diameter to balance structural integrity, openability, and pour rate without buckling, score burst, or tab failure” (page 10 #2 para 1).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues use of hindsight (page 11 #4). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made (i.e. known standards and their tolerances), and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Gogola does not teach the claimed clearance distance range (page 11 #5 line 1). Examiner points out this is piecemeal analysis since the rejection agrees which is why there’s an optimization rationale. Applicant argues that they do not need to evidence of teaching away (page 11 #5 line 3). Examiner points out this is not a true allegation. Applicant argues that there is not motivation to achieve the claimed range (page 11 #5 line 3). Examiner points out the motivation provided in the rejection analysis below.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues that Gogola does not teach the clearance distance range, and there is no motivation (page 12 claim 9). Examiner points out this argument is merely piecemeal, and there is motivation provided below.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that Gogola does not teach claim 21 (page 13 claim 21). Examiner points out no evidence is provided so cannot respond to the mere allegation.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, line 6 “defined by the score” should read “defined by a score” to avoid antecedent issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the new matter requirement. The new matter must be canceled or otherwise fixed. The limitation of “a pour-opening area that is 95% of a 209 size can end” is new and not previously disclosed. The only two mentions of “95%” are toward a pour area of a standard 206 can end being 95% of a pour area of a standard 209 can end, which is not a “pour-opening area” to “can end” proportion. See [0034] “example 206 size can ends disclosed herein can have a pour area that is approximately 95% (e.g., 94.9%) of a pour area (e.g., 0.696 square inches) of a pour opening of a 209 size can end. Thus, examples disclosed herein provide a 206 size can end while providing a substantially similar pour opening area (e.g., 95%) of a pour opening area of a 209 size can end enables use of a smaller diameter can end compared to a 209 size can end.”
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 23, “a pour-opening area that is 95% of a 209 size can end” is unclear how the “pour-opening area” (parent claim 1 last line 0.64 to 0.67 square inches) can be 95% of a “can end” diameter’s area (in light of spec [0028] 209 diameter is 6.50 cm which equals 33.18 square centimeters being 5.14 square inches). In other words, the claim as written is untrue since at best the pour-opening area is 13% of the can end area.
Also, the limitation “the center-panel diameter, the pour area, score ratio and clearance distance are each selected to provide a pour-opening area” is unclear how each provides to “a pour-opening area” of the claimed preamble “can end”. The center panel diameter is not an area, the score ratio is unitless, and the clearance distance is not an area or diameter, so it is unclear how each adds to make the pour-opening area. In addition, Applicant’s disclosure only states that the “pour-opening area” is the “pour area” ([0034] quoted above in 35 USC 112a), meaning only the claimed “pour area” can be “selected”, so it is unclear how any of said non-areas claimed in part or summation contributes “to provide a pour-opening area”. Furthermore, “the pour area, score ratio and clearance distance” appear to be inline portions of “the center-panel diameter”, so it is unclear why those three are needed “to provide a pour-opening area” when the diameter encompasses those three and more (e.g. deboss) of the can end. In light of that fact, examiner notes that “the center-panel diameter” (parent claim 1 is 1.88 to 1.92 inches) is not the claimed preamble “can end” diameter ([0028] 206 size can end 6.03 cm which is 2.37 inches), thereby making it unclear how 1.88-1.92 inches diameter creates an area that could be 95% of a 2.37 inches diameter created area (1.92 divided by 2.37 is 81%). Lastly, “209 size can end” is unitless as claimed, so is unclear which of the contributors listed it should be comprised of.
Therefore, examiner reinterprets and redefines claim 23 as “the pour area is 95% of a 209 size can end pour area of 0.696 square inches” in light of the nearest suggestion in Applicant’s disclosure (Applicant’s disclosure pertaining to “95%” and how to handle “approximate” pour areas [0026] [0034]; wherein [0026] “As used herein substantially or approximately means… plus or minus 5% to 10%, of a stated value or range”, and [0034] “206 size can ends disclosed herein can have a pour area that is approximately 95% (e.g., 94.9%) of a pour area (e.g., 0.696 square inches) of a pour opening of a 209 size can end”).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1-2, 4-10, 12-13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20190112096 by Gogola et al. (hereinafter “Gogola”).
Regarding claim 1, Gogola teaches a can end (Fig 1A, 100) comprising:
a center panel (Fig 1A, 106) having a diameter (necessarily has);
a deboss panel formed on the center panel (Fig 1A, 116), a clearance distance between the deboss panel (Fig 1A, 116) and a peripheral edge of the center panel (Fig 1B, a peripheral edge of a surface 118 of the center panel, and shows at least a horizontal and/or vertical clearance distance from the center panel’s edge of 118 to an edge of deboss panel 116);
a pour panel (Fig 1A, 120) formed on the center panel defined by a score (Fig 1A, 122), the score having a score length and a score width (necessarily has length and width), the score length and the score width defining a length-to-width ratio (necessarily has), the pour panel to provide
a pour opening for the center panel (Fig 1A, an opening covered by 120 defined by 122 (i.e. when the can is opened)), the pour opening having a pour area (necessarily has a pour area, of one of the standard grouped can component sizes like 206 or 209 like in the instant invention [0030]).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific score length to width ratio (i.e. an ellipse, defining the pour opening), a specific clearance distance, a specific pour opening area (i.e. which is also the pour panel area), or a particularly specific center panel diameter (Gogola disclose [0030], 202 can end size (diameter 5.398 cm or 2 and 2 sixteenths inches), 206 can end size (diameter 6.033 cm or 2 and 6 sixteenths inches), 209 can end size (diameter 6.509 cm or 2 and 9 sixteenths inches), which also necessarily applies the standard to all can end elements).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at
a center panel diameter of between approximately 1.88 and 1.92 inches, recognizing that a decrease in central panel diameter is directly correlated to increased cost savings through light-weighting (Gogola, [0029] “smaller diameter ends to provide cost savings through light-weighting”), which is a desirable characteristic, and
the clearance distance is between approximately 0.04 inches and 0.05 inches, in order to increase in “stiffness of the pour panel to improve openability of the pour panel” increasing ease of use (Gogola, [0033]), which is a desirable characteristic,
the score length and the score width defining a length-to-width ratio of between approximately 1.40 and 1.45 (and thereby also the constituting ranges in claim 2: score length is between approximately 1.0 inch and 1.1 inches and the score width is between approximately 0.71 inches and 0.74 inches), recognizing that an increase in score length is directly correlated to increasing ease of drinking and pouring (Gogola, [0025-0026], “larger area” “to improve pourability”) in order to increase ease of pouring and drinking from different can rotation tilt angles, which is a desirable characteristic, and
a pour area of between approximately 0.64 and 0.67 square inches (in2), in order to increase ease of drinking and pouring, (Gogola, [0025-0026], “larger area” “to improve pourability”), which is a desirable characteristic.
All of these modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Furthermore it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Gogola further teaches the score length is between approximately 1.0 inch and 1.1 inches and the score width is between approximately 0.71 inches and 0.74 inches (claim 1 ratio rationale includes these claimed score length and width ranges as they are derivatives of the pour area (the score defines the area)). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 4, Gogola further teaches the center panel defines a non-frangible hinge between a first end of the score and a second end of the score (Fig 1A, 124), the non-frangible hinge having a length (Figs 4-5 disclose distances proximal the tab 404 and 504 as about “2 millimeters” for scale (in general not specific of the drawing)).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific hinge length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a hinge length of between approximately 0.2 inches and 0.3 inches, recognizing that a decrease in length is directly correlated to an increase in ease of handling due to less force required to push the panel open (i.e. lower hinge stiffness) in order to increase ease of handling, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 5, Gogola further teaches the center panel (Fig 1A, 106) has an area of between approximately 2.80 square inches and 2.85 square inches (an area of the full center panel is necessarily this range, because examiner can and does interpret the area as smaller than the full panel. The center panel of parent claim 1 has a claimed diameter of at least 1.88 inches, meaning the full area of the center panel is greater than 5 square inches. Therefore an arbitrary area is claimed, so examiner must choose, and whatever the area is covers the range).
Regarding claim 6, Gogola further teaches a tab (Fig 1A, 104) to pivot relative to the center panel to apply an opening force to rupture the score and displace the pour panel relative to the center panel to provide the pour opening, the tab including: a lift end (Fig 2B, 202) and a nose spaced from the lift end (Fig 2B, 204); a first cleat formed on the nose (Figs 1A & 2B, 236 of cleats 128), the first cleat being offset relative to a center axis of the tab, the first cleat to concentrate the opening force in a first direction that is non-parallel relative to the center axis when the tab is lifted relative to the center panel of the can end between an initial position and a first angular position ([0004]); and a second cleat formed on the nose (Figs 1A & 2B, 238 of cleats 128), the second cleat being offset relative to the center axis of the tab, the second cleat to concentrate the opening force in a second direction that is non-parallel to the center axis when the tab is lifted relative to the center panel between the first angular position and a second angular position greater than the first angular position, the first direction being different than the second direction ([0004]), wherein the first cleat is to concentrate the opening force to a first side of the center axis when the tab is lifted between the initial position and the first angular position (claim 14 of prior art, exact copy).
Regarding claim 7, Gogola further teaches the first angular position is approximately between 40 degrees and 60 degrees relative to the center panel (claim 15 of prior art, exact copy).
Regarding claim 8, Gogola further teaches the second cleat is to concentrate the opening force to a second side of the center axis when the tab is lifted between the first angular position and the second angular position, the first side being opposite the second side (claim 16 of prior art, exact copy), wherein the second angular position is approximately between 60 degrees and 80 degrees relative to the center panel (claim 17 of prior art, exact copy).
Regarding claim 9, Gogola teaches a 206 size can end (Fig 1A, 100; [0030] “tabs disclosed herein may be used with 209 size can ends (6.509 cm); 207.5 size can ends (6.271 cm); 206 size can ends”) comprising:
a center panel (106), the center panel having a first area; and
a deboss panel formed on the center panel (Fig 1A, 116);
a pour panel formed on the center panel (120),
the pour panel to define a pour opening (Fig 1A, an opening covered by 120 defined by score 122 (i.e. when the can is opened)) having a second area (necessarily has a pour area, of one of the standard grouped can component sizes like 206 or 209 like in the instant invention [0030]), and a first area-to-second area ratio (necessarily has a ratio since both areas exist) wherein the pour panel has a score length and a score width (score 122 necessarily has a length and a width), and wherein a clearance distance between the deboss panel and a peripheral edge of the center panel (Fig 1B, a peripheral edge of a surface 118 of the center panel, and shows at least a horizontal and/or vertical clearance distance from the center panel’s edge of 118 to an edge of deboss panel 116).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific clearance distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the clearance distance is between approximately 0.04 inches and 0.05 inches, recognizing that an decrease in clearance distance is directly correlated to an increase “stiffness of the pour panel to improve openability of the pour panel” (Gogola, [0033]) in order to increase ease of use, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific area ratio between the center panel and pour opening (not the pour panel).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a first area-to-second area ratio is approximately between 0.22 and 0.23, recognizing that a decrease in ratio is directly correlated to an increase in stacking stiffness for stronger stacking higher to save on limited horizontal transport area (i.e. more center panel less opening) in order to pack more efficiently when transporting or storing, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific score length or width.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a score length of approximately 1.05 inches and a score width of approximately 0.735 inches, recognizing that an increase in one of those dimensions is directly correlated to an increase in pourable contents to accommodate a wider variety of users desired enjoyment from a particular angle (i.e. more length could mean a higher pour rate given a larger air gap behind, while more width could mean more laminar flow and more volume of pour) in order to increase enjoyment across users, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
All of these modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 10, Gogola does not explicitly teach that the first area is approximately (range claim because; [0026] of Applicant “approximately means that a specified value or dimension can be plus or minus 5% to 10% of its stated value or range, which itself is broad) 2.84 square inches (in2) and the second area is approximately 0.65 square inches (in2) (but does teach all the same standard can sizes as the instant invention [0030]).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific first area of the center panel or second area of the pour opening.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the first area (an area of the center panel) is approximately 2.84 square inches and the second area (an area of the pour opening) is approximately 0.65 square inches, recognizing that
a smaller first area is directly correlated to an increase in packing efficiency into small storage spaces (e.g. retail refrigerator),
a larger second area is directly correlated to an increase in allowed contents pouring to accommodate a wider variety of users desired enjoyment, in order to increase user enjoyment across users and pack more efficiently when transporting or storing, which are desirable characteristics.
All of these modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Furthermore it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Gogola further teaches a tab (Fig 1A, 104) to move the pour panel from a sealed condition to a non-sealed condition (Figs 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 13, Gogola further teaches the tab includes: a lift end (Fig 2B, 202) and a nose opposite the lift end (Fig 2B, 204), the nose to at least partially extend over a pour panel (Fig 1A, 120) of the can end (Fig 1A, 204 over 120); a central webbing interposed between the lift end and the nose (Fig 2B, 206), the central webbing defining a hinge line about which the tab is to pivot away from a center panel of the can end when the tab is coupled to the can end (Fig 2B, 222); and a first cleat formed on the nose (Figs 1A & 2B, 236 of cleats 128), the first cleat being offset relative to a first side of the center axis of the tab such that a longitudinal axis of the first cleat intersects the center axis at a first angle (Abstract, exact copy of last sentence).
Regarding claim 15, Gogola further teaches the first angle of the first cleat is approximately (range claim because; [0026] of Applicant “approximately means that a specified value or dimension can be plus or minus 5% to 10% of its stated value or range, which itself is broad) within plus or minus 5 degrees of the pivot angle ([0044] the first angle is “approximately 4 degrees greater than or less than the [pivot] angle”).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific tolerance of similarity.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the first cleat is approximately within plus or minus 5 degrees of the pivot angle, recognizing that a decrease in angle shortens the contact area of the cleat to the pour panel thereby increasing stress concentration is directly correlated to making it easier to open from increased leverage in order to increase ease of opening, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Examiner also notes the claimed tolerance appears to be nothing more than a typical machinist’s tolerance (e.g. Machinery’s Handbook).
Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 16, Gogola further teaches a second cleat formed on the nose (Figs 1A & 2B, 238 of cleats 128).
Regarding claim 17, Gogola further teaches the second cleat is formed on a second side of the center axis opposite the first side (Fig 2B, claim 16, second side is opposite first side).
Regarding claim 18, Gogola further teaches the second cleat is offset relative to the first side of the center axis of the tab such that a second longitudinal axis of the second cleat intersects the center axis at a second angle (claim 9, exact copy).
Regarding claim 19, Gogola further teaches the second angle is substantially equal to the first angle (claim 10, exact copy).
Regarding claim 20, Gogola further teaches the second angle is approximately within plus or minus 4 degrees of the pivot angle (claim 11, exact copy).
Regarding claim 21, Gogola teaches a can end (Fig 1A, 100) comprising:
a center panel (Fig 1A, 106) having a diameter (necessarily has),
the center panel defines a non-frangible hinge having a length (Fig 1A, 124 has a length);
a deboss panel formed on the center panel (Fig 1A, 116); and
a pour panel (Fig 1A, 120) formed on the center panel to provide a pour opening for the center panel (Fig 1A, an opening covered by 120 defined by 122 (i.e. when the can is opened)), the pour panel defined by a frangible score defining a perimeter of the pour opening (Fig 1A, “frangible score 122” defines pour opening perimeter), the frangible score having a score length and a score width (necessarily has both),
the pour opening having a pour area (necessarily has a pour area, of one of the standard grouped can component sizes like 206 or 209 like in the instant invention [0030]), and wherein
a clearance distance between the deboss panel (Fig 1A, 116) and a peripheral edge of the center panel (Fig 1B, a peripheral edge of a surface 118 of the center panel, and shows at least a horizontal and/or vertical clearance distance from the center panel’s edge of 118 to an edge of deboss panel 116).
But Gogola does not explicitly teach a specific score length to width ratio (i.e. an ellipse, defining the pour opening), a specific pour opening area (i.e. which is also the pour panel area), or a particularly specific center panel diameter (Gogola, [0030], 202 can end size (diameter 5.398 cm or 2 and 2 sixteenths inches), 206 can end size (diameter 6.033 cm or 2 and 6 sixteenths inches), 209 can end size (diameter 6.509 cm or 2 and 9 sixteenths inches)) or a specific clearance distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at
a center panel diameter of between approximately 1.88 and 1.92 inches, recognizing that a decrease in central panel diameter is directly correlated to increased cost savings through light-weighting (Gogola, [0029] “smaller diameter ends to provide cost savings through light-weighting”) in order to save cost, which is a desirable characteristic, and
a hinge length of between approximately 0.2 inches and 0.3 inches, recognizing that a decrease in length is directly correlated to an increase in ease of handling due to less force required to push the panel open (i.e. lower hinge stiffness) in order to increase ease of handling, which is a desirable characteristic, and
a pour area of between approximately 0.64 and 0.67 square inches (in2), recognizing that an increase in pour area is directly correlated to increasing ease of drinking and pouring (Gogola, [0025-0026], “larger area” “to improve pourability”) in order to increase ease of drinking and pouring, which is a desirable characteristic,
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Examiner further notes that the resultant modification yields the claimed invention via the score length is between approximately 1.0 inch and 1.1 inches and the score width is between approximately 0.71 inches and 0.74 inches (since the optimized score ratio rationale applies, and these claimed score length and width ranges are derivatives of the pour area).
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the clearance distance is between approximately 0.04 inches and 0.05 inches, recognizing that an decrease in clearance distance is directly correlated to an increase “stiffness of the pour panel to improve openability of the pour panel” (Gogola, [0033]) in order to increase ease of use, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
All of these modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 22, Gogola does not explicitly teach that the score length and the score width defining a length-to-width ratio of approximately 1.40 and 1.45.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the score length and the score width defining a length-to-width ratio of between approximately 1.40 and 1.45, recognizing that an increase in score length is directly correlated to increasing ease of drinking and pouring (Gogola, [0025-0026], “larger area” “to improve pourability”) in order to increase ease of drinking and pouring from different can rotation tilt angles, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 23, Gogola further teaches the center-panel diameter, the pour area, score ratio and clearance distance are each selected to provide a pour-opening area that is 95% of a 209 size can end (95% of 0.696 is 0.661 square inches which falls within the optimized ranges for the parent claim 1 pour area, therefore the claimed value is obvious for the same reasons, see claim 1; also see 35 USC 112a and 112b rejections above for examiner’s necessitated interpretation in the 112b, wherein “the pour area is 95% of a 209 size can end pour area of 0.696 square inches”).
In addition and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Gogola as modified above does not expressly disclose the specific proportion of 95% area claimed, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pour area of Gogola to be proportionally 95% of a 209 size can end pour area, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. tab opens pour panel area, contents flow from resulting pour opening area), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 (11/17/2025).
US 20140190971 & WO 2014150834 – "Fig. 21, the aperture on the 206 lid may be 0.59 square inches and the aperture on the 202 lid may be 0.53 square inches, and the like. In some embodiments, the sizes may be reversed such that the 202 aperture is 0.59 square inches" ([0077], Fig 21)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights