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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference numerals 60 and 66 are both used to designate the first seaming roll and reference numerals 60 and 68 are used to designate the second seaming roll. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed July 2, 2026, is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-10 and 21-24 based upon Henda and Kamitsuma as set forth in the last Office action because: Affiant does not show factual evidence supporting the statements listed in items 7 through 19.
The opinion evidence presented that “one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably determine” the prior art does not meet claimed limitations without any factual evidence to support a claim is not sufficient to overcome the art. For example, Affiant fails to show factual evidence that prior to the development of the invention that control of the max axial load force on the can lid during can closing operations in a high speed can closing machine was the sole variable. Also, affiant has not compared a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range (0.21 Ns) to show the criticality of the claimed range [In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)]. It is noted that this same reasoning is applied to the statements directed to the claimed upward velocity range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Henda et al fails to disclose a “high-speed can closing machine”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem addressed in Henda et al is related to lubrication leakage within the machine, and further details that the lubrication is provided within the machine due to the “speeding up of a seaming device, a chuck is rotated at a higher speed” in recent years. Therefore it would have been clear to one having ordinary skill in the art that the machine of Henda et al is a high speed closing machine.
Applicant argues that Henda “ does not describe any form of structure that causes vertical movement” of the can mounting unit. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As states in the previous office action and reiterated by Applicant, Henda does state “the can mounting unit 350 of which rotation is controlled via appropriate gears, cam mechanism, or the like by the driving mechanism 151 to which power has been applied from a driving source not shown is lifted at the merging point G”. Applicant appears to conclude that the “appropriate gears, cam mechanism, or the like” is strictly limited to the rotational movement of the can mounting unit, however it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the passage of Henda is disclosing that the combination of appropriate gears, cam mechanism or the like and the driving mechanism with its supplied power provide a rotational and a lifting (i.e. vertical) movement to the can mounting unit.
Applicant argues that Henda does not disclose the upper chuck being axially aligned with the chuck axis. As seen in figure 2, replicated below, the lower chuck and the upper chuck are in axial alignment as evidence by the solid line running down the center of the chuck unit, the can body and the can mounting unit.
Applicant argues that although Henda discloses the chuck 321 “is provided to be fixed and rotatable in a vertical direction” it does not disclose it is “vertically immovable relative to the seaming turret”. The claimed limitation “immovable” is met by the reference in paragraph 0036, as cited in the office action. Examiner acknowledges that the phrase “immovable” Is absent from the reference, however a reference or combination of references does not need to explicitly state a claimed limitation(s) for the reference to meet that limitation(s). In a comparative analysis one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that “fixed…in a vertical direction” does in fact mean the chuck does not move in a vertical direction and therefore would be immovable relative to any element within the machine.
Applicant argues that the upper chuck is not rotatable in coordinated relation with the can supporting platform. Henda discloses in paragraph 0053 that the plate 360 (can supporting platform) and the chuck 321 (upper chuck) rotate together to and through the seaming station, therefore the chuck rotates in coordinate relation with the plate since they rotate together.
Applicant argues that Henda does not disclose the first seaming roll is “operative to cause an annular peripheral portion of the can lid to extend around an annular peripheral flange of the can body” and that there is “no radial compression of the seam by the second seaming roll”. Henda discloses in paragraph 0047 that the primary seaming is performed by first seaming roll 451 such that the curled portion of the lid is wrapped into a flange portion of the can and in paragraph 0054 that the two seaming rolls 451, 452 for the primary and secondary seaming are sequentially pressed against the can and the flange of the lid mounted on the can from their lateral sides (i.e. radial compression) toward the chuck 321 to perform the double seaming. Additionally, Henda discloses the first and second seaming rolls perform a double seaming and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this is the outcome of a double seaming operations. It is further noted that the phrase “is operative” is interpreted as an intended function or recitation within the claim and therefore to meet the claim the structure has to be capable or in this case “operable” to perform the recited function.
Applicant argues that Henda does not disclose “the can closing machine is operative to cause the can lid to engage the upper chuck with combined vertical momentum of the lower chuck, the can body, the can lid and the can contained material that is not greater than 0.21Ns”. It is noted that the phrase “is operative” is interpreted as an intended function or recitation within the claim and therefore to meet the claim the structure has to be capable or in this case “operable” to perform the recited function. Therefore, given the Henda meets all of the claimed structural recitations of the can closing machine, the machine is operable to perform this function, or in this case have a combined vertical momentum less than 0.21Ns. With regards to Applicant’s comment that Henda does not explicitly state the can contains material, one or ordinary skill in the art and well familiar with the can seaming art would understand that the can will contain material therein as it would be unnecessary to seal a can with a lid that was empty. With regards to Applicant’s comments that Henda teaches nothing about can buckling or how can buckling can be avoided. It is noted that the claim is absent to any specific structure, i.e. the specific structure in that results in the claimed vertical momentum being met, but rather just broadly claims elements of a can seaming machine that are previously recited in the prior art as evidence by Henda. It is further noted that the prior art does not need to address the problem of the invention to read on the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Henda does not disclose engagement of the can lid and the upper chuck with a vertically upward velocity of not greater than 0.015m/s. It is noted that the phrase “is operative” is interpreted as an intended function or recitation within the claim and therefore to meet the claim the structure has to be capable or in this case “operable” to perform the recited function. Therefore, given the Henda meets all of the claimed structural recitations of the can closing machine, the machine is operable to perform this function, or in this case have a vertically upward velocity of less than 0.015m/s. With regards to Applicant’s comments that Henda teaches nothing about can buckling or how can buckling can be avoided. It is noted that the claim is absent to any specific structure, i.e. the specific structure in that results in the claimed vertical momentum being met, but rather just broadly claims elements of a can seaming machine that are previously recited in the prior art as evidence by Henda. It is further noted that the prior art does not need to address the problem of the invention to read on the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the can body is repeatedly positively recited in the independent claim and further amended the claims to clarify. The Examiner maintains the position that it is not positively recited, specifically, the can body is set forth within function limitations in the independent claim and is not positively recited as a structural element of the machine.
Applicant argues that Henda does not teach the recited features of claims 2 & 3. The features of the claims with respect to the rotation speed and the production value are an intended function of the machine, therefore since Henda discloses the machine is a high-speed machine and meets all the claimed structure as set forth in claim 1, the machine disclosed by Henda is capable of rotating at the claimed speed and producing the number of claimed cans. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the turret is rotating at a given speed even if the speed is not explicitly stated in Henda; thus discovering the optimum speed would be within the realm of one having ordinary skill in the art. It is further noted that Applicant appears to remove any criticality to these elements by setting forth that claim can rotate at various claimed speeds (at least 90 RPM and at least 100 RPM) and produce different amounts of cans (at least 1600/min or at least 1800/min).
Applicant argues that Henda does not teach the claimed upward velocity in a range of 0.010m/s to 0.015m/s. The claimed velocity range is set forth within functional language with the phrase “is operative”; therefore if the prior art meets the claimed invention, in this case and as addressed in the arguments above Henda does, it is operable to perform the claimed function. Additionally it is noted that the machine of Henda engages the upper chuck at an upward velocity even in the velocity is not explicitly stated in Henda; thus discovering the optimum speed would be within the realm of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that Henda does not teach the knockout pad applies a vertically downward force of 145N to 312N or 222N to 312N as required in the claims. Again, the claimed limitations are set forth within a functional recitation of the machine; therefore the machine of Henda is capable to performing the recited function since all the claimed structure is met by Henda. Additionally, it is noted that the machine of Henda discloses the knockout pad engages with the can lid and applies an axially directed vertically downward force opposing the upward movement of the can lid and can supporting platform [paragraph 0052 states the can lid and can body are sandwiched between the supporting platform and the knockout at a constant axial load, therefore it is inherent that the knockout is applying an downward force opposing the upward in order to sandwich the can body and lid together] and although the amount of force applied is not explicitly discloses, discovering the optimum force would be within the realm of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that Henda does not disclose the force is applied while the turret rotates in the first rotational direction at least 5°. Henda disclose in paragraph 0052 that the force is applied to sandwich the can body and lid between the knockout pad and the supporting platform and in paragraph 0053 states the turret further rotates from point G until the can reaches a seaming interval E which is clearly illustrated in figure 1 to be greater than 5 degrees.
Applicant argues that Kamitsuma fails to teach “immediately after can lid and upper chuck engagement, the can supporting platform moves upward at a constant speed and applies a linearly increasing force to the bottom end of the can body and the upper chuck”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references [see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)]. In this case the argued claim language is disclosed in Henda, therefore the combination of Henda and Kamitsuma that brings in the teaching of the spring meets the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine the references of Henda and Kamitsuma. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kamitsuma teaches of the use of a compression spring to provide sufficient force in clamping the can body and can lid together but also prevent unwanted buckling or deformation to the can body; thereby resulting in an improvement of the machine to Henda and the sealed can bodies obtained from the machine.
It is noted that all arguments directed to the presentation of legally admissible evidence are not considered given that the declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejection as detailed within the response to amendments section. Therefore the arguments directed to legally admissible evidence are not being addressed in this section.
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 2 and 3 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.
With regards to claims 2 & 3, the claim states “wherein the can body that has a column…” this renders the claim indefinite since it appears to be further defining an element not positively recited in the claims. Specifically, the can body is set forth in claim 1 within functional and intended use language and is not set forth as being a structural part of the machine. Wherein clauses are used to further define elements previously recited in the claim, in this case it appears to be used to further define a functional limitations.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 21-24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henda et al (US 2023/0001468).
In reference to claim 1, Hendra et al discloses an apparatus comprising:
a high speed can closing machine (100) [see paragraph 0029] including:
a rotatable turret (101), wherein the turret is rotatable about a turret axis (x) in a first rotational direction, includes a plurality of angularly disposed can closing stations, wherein the can closing stations are positioned at a radially outer periphery of the turret [see paragraphs 0032-0033; figures 1 & 2],
wherein each can closing station includes a lower chuck (350) [see paragraph 0032; figure 2],
wherein the lower chuck includes a can supporting platform (360) [see paragraph 0051-0053; figure 2],
wherein the can supporting platform is configured to support a bottom end of a respective can body [see paragraph 0052}, wherein the can body houses can contained material,
is rotatable about a chuck axis in a second rotational direction opposed of the first rotational direction, is selectively movable vertically relative to the turret [see paragraph 0051 & 0053],
a lower chuck vertical actuator, wherein the vertical actuator is in operative connection with the lower chuck and is operative to cause selective vertical movement of the can supporting platform [see paragraphs 0051-0052; figure 2],
an upper chuck (321), wherein the upper chuck is axially aligned with the chuck axis [see paragraph 0032], is vertically immovable relative to the turret [see paragraph 0036], is rotatable in the second rotational direction and in coordinated relation with the can supporting platform, is configured to engage a can lid, wherein the can lid is positioned in closing relation of a can opening at an upper end of the can body, wherein the upper end is axially opposed of the bottom end [see paragraph 00327; figure 2],
first and second seaming rolls (451, 452), wherein with the can bottom end engaged with the can supporting platform and the can lid engaged with the upper chuck [see paragraph 0047],
the first seaming roll is operative to engage an upper annular peripheral flange on the can body that extends in surrounding relation of the can opening and an annular peripheral portion of the can lid, and responsive at least in part to rotation of the can body and the can lid about the chuck axis, to cause in axial cross section the annular peripheral portion of the can lid to extend around the annular peripheral flange to produce a continuous annular peripheral can double seam [see paragraph 0047], and
the second seaming roll is operative to engage the seam after engagement with the first seaming roll, and responsive at least in part to rotation of the can body and can lid about the chuck axis, to cause radial compression of the seam and the seam to be fluid tight [see paragraph 0047],
wherein the machine is operative to cause the can closing station to receive the can body and can lid, the can lid and can body to be raised to engage the can lid and the respective upper chuck, and the can body and can lid to be joined by the fluid tight seam that is operative to close the can opening during less than one turret rotation [see paragraph 0051-0055],
wherein the can closing machine is operative to cause the can lid to engage the upper chuck with combined vertical momentum of the lower chuck, the can body, the can lid and the can contained material that is not greater than 0.21 Ns [it is noted that the phrase “is operative” is interpreted as an intended function or recitation within the claim and therefore to meet the claim the structure has to be capable or in this case “operable” to perform the recited function; Henda et al meets the claimed structural limitations and further discloses a control of the apparatus; therefore the apparatus of Henda et al can be operative such that a combine vertical momentum of the lower chuck, the can body, the can lid, and the can is not greater than 0.21Ns].
Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the second rotational direction is opposed to the first rotational direction.
However, Henda et al does disclose that the rotation is controlled via appropriate gears, a cam mechanism or the like by the driving mechanism to ensure proper operation [see paragraph 0051].
Therefore 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 second rotational direction opposed to the first rotational direction since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is note inventive to discover the optimum or workable setup by routine experimentation.
In reference to claims 2 and 3, Henda et al further discloses each can closing station receives a respective can body that has a column strength of approximately 550 N [it is noted that this limitation is further defining the can body which is not positively recited structure; therefore the can closing station is capable of receiving the claimed can body].
Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the turret rotates in the first rotational direction at a speed of at least 90 RPM or at least 100 RPM, and the closing machine is operative to produce seams that close at least at 1600 cans per minute.
However, while Henda et al does not specify a specific turret speed it does disclose the turret rotates in the first rotational direction at a speed. Therefore 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 turret speed of at least 90 RPM or at least 100 RPM, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
It is further noted that it is well known in the art that the can seaming machines run at high rates of speed to close at least 1000 to 1800 cans per minute [see applicant’s admitted prior art]. It is further noted that the phrase “is operative” is interpreted as an intended function or recitation within the claim and therefore to meet the claim the structure has to be capable or in this case “operable” to perform the recited function; Henda et al meets the claimed structural limitations and further discloses a control of the apparatus; therefore the apparatus of Henda et al can be operative to produce fluid tight seams at least 1600 cans/min or 1800 cans/min.
In reference to claim 7, Henda et al further discloses the vertical actuator is operative to cause the can lid to engage the upper chuck at an upward velocity. Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the upward velocity is in a range of 0.010 m/s to 0.015 m/s.
However, 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 upward velocity is in a range of 0.010 m/s to 0.015 m/s, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claim 8, the can closing machine is operative to cause the can supporting platform of each lower chuck to move between a lowered position in which the can lid is disposed vertically away from the upper chuck and a raised position in which the can lid is engaged with the upper chuck, wherein each can closing station further includes a knockout pad, wherein the knockout pad is aligned with the chuck axis, 10 applies a vertically downward force opposing upward movement of the can lid and the can supporting platform intermediate of the lowered position and the raised position and while the can body and can lid rotate in the second rotational direction in engagement with the can supporting platform [see paragraphs 0051-0052].
In reference to claim 9, the can closing machine is operative to cause the can supporting platform of each lower chuck to move between a lowered position in which the can lid is disposed vertically away from the upper chuck and a raised position in which the can lid is engaged with the upper chuck, wherein each can closing station further includes a knockout pad (322), wherein the knockout pad is aligned with the chuck axis, applies through engagement with the can lid an axially directed vertically downward force opposing upward movement of the can lid and the can supporting platform intermediate of the lowered position and the raised position and while the can body and can lid rotate in the second rotational direction in engagement with the can supporting platform, whereby can wobble is corrected. [see paragraph 0052; discloses that the can body is sandwiched between supporting platform, upper chuck and knockout pad at a constant axial load necessary for seaming thus is the can is sandwiched at a constant axial load necessary for seaming the can would be prevented from wobble based on being sandwiched between the elements].
Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the vertically downward force is 145 N to 312 N.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vertically downward force of 145 N to 312 N, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claim 10, the can closing machine is operative to cause the can supporting platform of each lower chuck to move between a lowered position in which the can lid is disposed vertically away from the upper chuck and a raised position in which the can lid is engaged with the upper chuck, wherein each can closing station further includes a knockout pad, wherein the knockout pad is aligned with the chuck axis, applies through engagement with the can lid an axially directed vertically downward force opposing upward movement of the can lid and the can supporting platform intermediate of the lowered position and the raised position and while the can body and the can lid rotate in the second rotational direction in engagement with the can supporting platform and the turret rotates in the first rotational direction at least 5°, whereby can wobble is corrected [see paragraphs 0051-0053; angle between merge point G and seaming interval E in figure 1 is greater than 5 degrees; discloses that the can body is sandwiched between supporting platform, upper chuck and knockout pad at a constant axial load necessary for seaming thus is the can is sandwiched at a constant axial load necessary for seaming the can would be prevented from wobble based on being sandwiched between the elements].
Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a vertically downward force of 222 N to 312 N.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vertically downward force of 222 N to 312 N, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claim 21, Henda et al discloses an apparatus comprising:
a high speed can closing machine(100) including:
a rotatable turret (101), wherein the turret is rotatable about a turret axis (X), and includes a plurality of angularly disposed can closing stations, wherein each of the can closing stations is positioned at a radially outer periphery of the turret [see paragraph 0029; figure 1],
wherein each can closing station is configured to close a respective can housing a can contained material during less than one turret rotation by joining a can body and a can lid through formation of a continuous fluid tight double seam at an upper circumferential periphery of the respective can body,
wherein each can closing station includes
an upper chuck (321), wherein the upper chuck is rotatable about a chuck axis, adapted to be held vertically immovable relative to the turret, and adapted to engage the can lid positioned in closing relation of an upper opening of the can body [see paragraph 0032],
a lower chuck (350), wherein the lower chuck includes a can supporting platform, wherein the can supporting platform is configured to engage a bottom end of the can body opposed of the upper end, wherein the can supporting platform is rotatable about the chuck axis, and selectively vertically movable relative to the upper chuck [see paragraph 0032; figure 2],
at least two seaming rolls (451, 452), wherein the seaming rolls are operative to engage an upper annular peripheral flange located adjacent the upper opening of the can body and an annular peripheral portion of the can lid and cause formation of the continuous double seam while the upper chuck is vertically immovable relative to the turret, the can lid is engaged with the upper chuck, the can bottom is engaged with the lower chuck and the can body and the can lid are rotated about the chuck axis [see paragraphs 0046-0047],
wherein the can closing machine is operative to cause the can bottom end of the can body housing the can contained material to be positioned in axially centered relation on the can supporting platform and to cause the can lid to be positioned in the upper opening, and then cause the can supporting platform to move vertically upward to cause the can lid to engage the upper chuck, wherein the can lid is engaged with the upper chuck with combined vertical momentum of the lower chuck, the can body, the can lid and the can contained material [see paragraphs 0051-0055].
Henda et al discloses the can lid engages with the upper chuck with combined vertical momentum but fails to explicitly disclose the combined vertical momentum is not greater than 0.21 Ns.
However, 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 vertical momentum is not greater than 0.21 Ns, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
It is further noted that the phrase “is operative” is interpreted as an intended function or recitation within the claim and therefore to meet the claim the structure has to be capable or in this case “operable” to perform the recited function; Henda et al meets the claimed structural limitations and further discloses a control of the apparatus; therefore the apparatus of Henda et al can be operative such that a combine vertical momentum of the lower chuck, the can body, the can lid, and the can is not greater than 0.21Ns.
In reference to claim 22, Henda et al further discloses the vertical actuator is operative to cause the can lid to engage the upper chuck at an upward velocity. Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the upward velocity is in a range of 0.010 m/s to 0.015 m/s.
However, 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 upward velocity is in a range of 0.010 m/s to 0.015 m/s, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claim 23, Henda et al disclose an apparatus comprising:
a high speed can closing machine (100) including:
a rotatable turret (101), wherein the turret is rotatable about a turret axis in a first rotational direction, includes a plurality of angularly disposed can closing stations, wherein the can closing stations are positioned at a radially outer periphery of the turret [see paragraph 0029],
wherein each can closing station includes
a lower chuck (350), wherein the lower chuck includes a can supporting platform, wherein the cam can supporting platform is configured to support a bottom end of a can body [see paragraph 0032; figure 2],
wherein the can body houses can contained material, is rotatable about a chuck axis in a second rotational direction opposed of the first rotational direction, is selectively movable vertically relative to the turret, a lower chuck vertical actuator,
wherein the vertical actuator is in operative connection with the lower chuck and is operative to vertically position the can supporting platform,
an upper chuck (321), wherein the upper chuck is axially aligned with the chuck axis, is vertically immovable relative to the turret, is rotatable in the second rotational direction and in coordinated relation with the can supporting platform, is configured to engage a can lid, wherein the can lid is positioned in closing relation of a can opening at an upper end of the can body, wherein the upper end is axially opposed of the bottom end [see paragraph 0032; figure 2],
first and second seaming rolls (451, 452), wherein with the can bottom end engaged with the can supporting platform and the can lid engaged with the upper chuck,
the first seaming roll (451) is operative to engage an upper annular peripheral flange on the can body that extends in surrounding relation of the can opening and an annular peripheral portion of the can lid, and responsive at least in part to rotation of the can body and the can lid about the chuck axis, to cause in axial cross section the annular peripheral portion of the can lid to extend around the annular peripheral flange to produce a continuous annular peripheral can double seam [see paragraph 0047], and
the second seaming roll (452) is operative to engage the seam after engagement with the first seaming roll, and 37 responsive at least in part to rotation of the can body and can lid about the chuck axis, to cause radial compression of the seam and the seam to be fluid tight [see paragraph 0047],
wherein the machine is operative to cause the can body and can lid to be received at the can closing station and cause the can lid and can body to be raised to engage the can lid with the respective upper chuck, and the can body and can lid to be joined by the a respective continuous fluid tight seam that is operative to close the can opening during less than one turret rotation, wherein the can closing machine is operative to cause the can lid to engage the upper chuck with a vertically upward velocity.
Henda et al further discloses the vertical actuator is operative to cause the can lid to engage the upper chuck at an upward velocity but fails to explicitly disclose the upward velocity is in a range of 0.010 m/s to 0.015 m/s.
However, 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 upward velocity is in a range of 0.010 m/s to 0.015 m/s, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claim 24, Henda et al further discloses the can lid is engaged with the upper chuck with combined vertical momentum of the lower chuck, the can body, the can lid and the can contained material [see paragraphs 0051-0055]. Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the combined vertical momentum is not greater than 0.21 Ns.
However, 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 vertical momentum is not greater than 0.21 Ns, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233]. It is further noted that the phrase “is operative” is interpreted as an intended function or recitation within the claim and therefore to meet the claim the structure has to be capable or in this case “operable” to perform the recited function; Henda et al meets the claimed structural limitations and further discloses a control of the apparatus; therefore the apparatus of Henda et al can be operative such that a combine vertical momentum of the lower chuck, the can body, the can lid, and the can is not greater than 0.21Ns.
In reference to claim 27, Hendra et al discloses an apparatus comprising:
a high speed can closing machine (100) [see paragraph 0029] including:
a rotatable turret (101), wherein the turret is rotatable about a turret axis (x) in a first rotational direction, includes a plurality of angularly disposed can closing stations, wherein the can closing stations are positioned at a radially outer periphery of the turret [see paragraphs 0032-0033; figures 1 & 2],
wherein each can closing station includes a lower chuck (350) [see paragraph 0032; figure 2],
wherein the lower chuck includes a can supporting platform (360) [see paragraph 0051-0053; figure 2],
wherein the can supporting platform is configured to support a bottom end of a respective can body [see paragraph 0052}, wherein the can body houses can contained material,
is rotatable about a chuck axis in a second rotational direction opposed of the first rotational direction, is selectively movable vertically relative to the turret [see paragraph 0051 & 0053],
a lower chuck vertical actuator, wherein the vertical actuator is in operative connection with the lower chuck and is operative to cause selective vertical movement of the can supporting platform [see paragraphs 0051-0052; figure 2],
an upper chuck (321), wherein the upper chuck is axially aligned with the chuck axis [see paragraph 0032], is vertically immovable relative to the turret [see paragraph 0036], is rotatable in the second rotational direction and in coordinated relation with the can supporting platform, is configured to engage a can lid, wherein the can lid is positioned in closing relation of a can opening at an upper end of the can body, wherein the upper end is axially opposed of the bottom end [see paragraph 00327; figure 2],
a knockout pad (322), wherein the knockout pad is axially aligned with the chuck axis, and is movable along the chuck axis [see paragraph 0052; pad presses can lid to can body],
first and second seaming rolls (451, 452), wherein with the can bottom end engaged with the can supporting platform and the can lid engaged with the upper chuck [see paragraph 0047],
the first seaming roll is operative to engage an upper annular peripheral flange on the can body that extends in surrounding relation of the can opening and an annular peripheral portion of the can lid, and responsive at least in part to rotation of the can body and the can lid about the chuck axis, to cause in axial cross section the annular peripheral portion of the can lid to extend around the annular peripheral flange to produce a continuous annular peripheral can double seam [see paragraph 0047], and
the second seaming roll is operative to engage the seam after engagement with the first seaming roll, and responsive at least in part to rotation of the can body and can lid about the chuck axis, to cause radial compression of the seam and the seam to be fluid tight [see paragraph 0047],
wherein the machine is operative to cause the can closing station to receive the can body and can lid, and the can supporting platform of the lower chuck to move between a lowered position in which the can lid is disposed vertically away from the upper chuck and a raised position in which the can lid is engaged with the upper chuck, and the can body and can lid to be joined by the fluid tight seam that is operative to close the can opening during less than one turret rotation [see paragraph 0051-0055],
wherein the knockout pad applies through engagement with the can lid a vertically downward force opposing upward movement of the can lid and the can supporting platform intermediate of the lowered position and the raised position and while the can body and can lid rotate in the second rotational direction in engagement with the can supporting platform and the turret rotates in the first rotations direction at least 5° [angle between merge point G and seaming interval E in figure 1 is greater than 5 degrees], whereby can wobble is corrected. [see paragraph 0052; discloses that the can body is sandwiched between supporting platform, upper chuck and knockout pad at a constant axial load necessary for seaming thus is the can is sandwiched at a constant axial load necessary for seaming the can would be prevented from wobble based on being sandwiched between the elements].
Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the vertically downward force is 145 N to 312 N.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vertically downward force of 145 N to 312 N, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
2. Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henda et al in view of Kamitsuma (JP 2009-220178A; cited by Applicant).
In reference to claim 4, Henda et al further discloses the can closing machine is operative to cause the can supporting platform to apply a linearly increasing force to the bottom end of the can body and to the upper chuck immediately after the can lid and upper chuck engagement [see paragraph 0052; axial load is applied after lid is engaged with can to sandwich can body and lid together]. Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the lower chuck further includes a compression spring positioned on the lower chuck operatively immediate of the lower chuck actuator and can supporting platform.
However, Kamitsuma teaches of seaming apparatus including a compression spring (22) that extends axially and applies a force in aligned relation with a chuck axis, is positioned on a lower chuck operatively intermediate of a lower chuck vertical actuator (30) and a can supporting platform (21), and includes a lower spring end to move upward at a constant velocity for at least 0.013 cm [see paragraphs 0033; discloses spring contacts or expands by a predetermined amount with an example of 0.56mm which is greater than 0.013 cm], wherein the machine is operative to cause the can supporting platform to apply a linearly increasing force to the bottom end of the can body and to the upper chuck immediately after the can lid and upper chuck engagement [see figure 2].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Henda et al to include the compression spring, as taught by Kamitsuma, for the purpose of providing sufficient force for the seaming operation while preventing unwanted deformation to the can body.
In reference to claim 5, Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the lower chuck further includes a compression spring positioned on the lower chuck operatively immediate of the lower chuck actuator and can supporting platform.
However, Kamitsuma teaches of seaming apparatus including a compression spring (22) that extends axially and applies a force in aligned relation with a chuck axis, is positioned on a lower chuck, operatively intermediate of a lower chuck vertical actuator (30) and a can supporting platform (21), and includes a lower spring end to move upward at a constant velocity [see paragraphs 0033; 0041], wherein the machine is operative to cause lower spring end movement that causes the can supporting platform to apply a linearly increasing additional force to the bottom end of the can body and to the upper chuck immediately after can lid and upper chuck engagement.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Henda et al to include the compression spring, as taught by Kamitsuma, for the purpose of providing sufficient force for the seaming operation while preventing unwanted deformation to the can body.
The combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the increasing additional force is provided with a maximum of less than 36N.
However, 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 increasing additional force with a maximum of less than 36N, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claim 6, Henda et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the lower chuck further includes a compression spring positioned on the lower chuck operatively immediate of the lower chuck actuator and can supporting platform.
However, Kamitsuma teaches of seaming apparatus including a compression spring (22) that extends axially and applies a force in aligned relation with a chuck axis, is positioned on a lower chuck, operatively intermediate of a lower chuck vertical actuator (30) and a can supporting platform (21), wherein the machine is operative to cause immediately after can lid and upper chuck engagement the lower chuck vertical actuator to cause a lower spring end to move upward at a constant velocity [see paragraphs 0033; 0041], and the lower spring end movement that causes the can supporting platform to apply a linearly increasing additional force to the bottom end of the can body and to the upper chuck.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Henda et al to include the compression spring, as taught by Kamitsuma, for the purpose of providing sufficient force for the seaming operation while preventing unwanted deformation to the can body.
The combination discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the increasing additional force is provided with a maximum of less than 36N.
However, 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 increasing additional force with a maximum of less than 36N, 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 [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
Allowable Subject Matter
It is the opinion of the examiner that the art of record (considered as a whole) neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a cam roller and a further cam roller” “wherein the vertical actuator includes a lifter cam and a hold down cam, wherein the cam roller is in operative engagement with the lifter cam, and the further cam roller is operative engagement with the hold down cam” in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations set forth in the claim; claim 28 is allowed.
Claims 12-18, 25-26 are allowed as previously stated in the office action mail April 7, 2026.
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 Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights