DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Embodiment A in the reply filed on 6-28-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9, 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6-28-2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an operation portion in claim 1; a holding protrusion portion in Claims 6 and 7; a connecting portion in Claims 6 and 7; a cleaning member cleaning a cut portion in Claim 11; a guide region in Claim 12; an extension region in Claim 12; an adapter member in Clam 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 15-17 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.
In re Claim 1, “a can lid cutter that cuts a lid from a can by cutting a cylindrical raised portion of an outer periphery at an upper end of the can,” is indefinite. it is unclear if the claim requires the can. The Claims were interpreted as if the preamble does not affirmatively claim a can.
In re Claim 3, “wherein the opening is larger than the stay-on-tab,” is indefinite. The can is not affirmatively claimed and therefore the stay-on-tab is not claimed. However, the claim appears to depend on a particular sized ‘stay-on-tab,” in order to read on the claims. This is indefinite. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required
In re Claim 4, “wherein the opening has a size such that the entire stay-on-tab is exposed,” is indefinite. The can is not affirmatively claimed and therefore the stay-on-tab is not claimed. However, the claim appears to depend on a particular sized ‘stay-on-tab,” in order to read on the claims. This is indefinite. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 5, “wherein an inner length of the opening includes a portion that is 50 % or more of a diameter of the lid,” is indefinite. The can is not affirmatively claimed and therefore a diameter of the lid is not claimed. However, the claim appears to depend on a particular sized lid, in order to read on the claims. This is indefinite. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 15, “wherein the main body has an opening through which a user can check a cutting state of the lid and a holding state of the stay-on-tab in a state where the main body is mounted on the can,” is indefinite. To the extent that the claim requires a can it is indefinite. The can is not affirmatively claimed; however, the claim appears to depend on a particular can, in order to read on the claims. This is indefinite. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 16, “wherein the main body has an opening, and the opening exposes (i) a center of the lid where a fixing pin fixing the stay-on-tab to the lid is positioned and (ii) a region near a central portion of the lid where the stay-on-tab attached to the lid by the fixing pin is positioned,” is indefinite. To the extent that the claim requires a can it is indefinite. The can is not affirmatively claimed; however, the claim appears to depend on a particular can, in order to read on the claims. This is indefinite. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 17, “wherein the recess of the main body receives the entire raised portion,” is indefinite. As best understood, the claims are directed to a can lid cutter and do not affirmatively claim the workpiece (a can). However, whether Claim 17 is infringed depends on the shape or size of the unclaimed can. A can that has a raised portion that is small enough to fit in the main body reads on the claim and a can that has a raised portion that is “large” and does not fit in the main body does not read on the claims. However, the structure of the can lid cutter has not changed in either case. As such, the claims are indefinite as depending upon the size of the unclaimed workpiece (a can). The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0355583 to Kelly.
In re Claim 1, Kelly, teaches a can lid cutter that cuts a lid from a can by cutting a cylindrical raised portion of an outer periphery at an upper end of the can (see Figs. 5-9, #10/70), the can lid cutter comprising:
a main body (see Figs. 5-8, #16 and Fig. 9, #78) having a recessed portion receiving the raised portion;
a blade for cutting an inner periphery of the raised portion (see Figs. 5-8, #2/30/32/34 and Figs. 9-10, 88, 90, 92, 94 );
an operation portion for pressing the blade toward the raised portion in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (see Figs. 5-8, #14 and Figs. 9-10, lever #74); and
a tab holder that holds a stay-on-tab of the lid while the can lid cutter is rotating with respect to the can in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (see Figs. 5-8, capture device or hook #54 and Figs. 9-10, hook #14).
In re Claim 7, Kelly teaches wherein the tab holder has: a holding protrusion portion that is inserted into an opening of the stay-on-tab and holds the stay-on-tab(see Kelly, Para. 0056, which states “capture device or hook 54 grabs tab 156 disposed at a top surface of can 152), and a connecting portion that extends toward the inside of the recessed portion from the main body and connects the holding protrusion portion and the main body(see Fig. 11, the structure between #114 and ring #118 which connects #114 to the main body), wherein the tab holder is configured such that the stay-on-tab held by the tab holder rotates, together with the main body, about a fixing pin (Kelly, Pin #116) fixing the stay-on-tab to the lid, due to the main body rotating in a circumferential direction of the can in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (see Fig. 14, #54), and the tab holder has a pair of tab holding recessed portions receiving the stay-on-tab (see Fig. 14, #54 showing two protrusions on either sides to hold onto the tab), on respective sides of the holding protrusion portion in the circumferential direction.
In re Claim 10, Kelly, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the main body has a protrusion (see Figs. 9-12, clamps #122/124; see also Para. 0061) that elastically contacts a portion of a seam of the raised portion of the can in a state where the main body is mounted on the can.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,477,775 to Scribner in view of US 2017/0355583 to Kelly.
In re Claim 1, Scribner teaches a can lid cutter that cuts a lid from a can by cutting a cylindrical raised portion of an outer periphery at an upper end of the can (see e.g., Fig. 11, #31 cuts the outer edge of the can), the can lid cutter comprising:
a main body (see Fig. 1, #20/21) having a recessed portion receiving the raised portion (see Fig. 11 and 8, surfaces between #50 and #62 in Fig. 8 that receive the can);
a blade for cutting an inner periphery of the raised portion (see Fig. 11, #31);
an operation portion for pressing the blade toward the raised portion in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (see Fig. 1, each of the guiding devices #50 are inserted into different holes #27, in combination with the pivoting arrangement of #20/21 to press the blade into the workpiece).
Scribner does not teach a tab holder that holds a stay-on-tab of the lid while the can lid cutter is rotating with respect to the can in a state where the main body is mounted on the can.
However, Kelly teaches that it is known in the can cutter art to provide a tab holder that holds a stay-on-tab of the lid while the can lid cutter is rotating with respect to the can in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (see Kelly, Figs. 5-8, capture device or hook #54 and Figs. 9-10, hook #14).
In the same field of invention, can cutters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a tab holder, as taught by Kelly, to the device of Scribner. Doing so captures the lid or top of the can preventing it from falling into the now exposed contents of the can (see Kelly, Para. 0056).
In re Claim 2, modified Scribner, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the main body has an opening (see Scribner, Fig. 1, opening between #21/20) that exposes a center of the lid and a region near a central portion of the lid in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (see Scribner, Fig.1, opening between #21/20).
In re Claim 3, modified Scribner, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the opening is larger than the stay-on-tab (see Scribner Fig. 1, opening between #21/20, which is larger than a stay-on-tab of Kelly).
In re Claim 4, modified Scribner, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the opening has a size such that the entire stay-on-tab is exposed (see Scribner Fig. 1, opening between #21/20, which exposes the entire stay-on-tab of Kelly).
In re Claim 5, modified Scribner, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein an inner length of the opening includes a portion that is 50 % or more of a diameter of the lid (see Scribner Fig. 1, opening between #21/20, which exposes 50 percent or more of a diameter of the lid).
In re Claim 15, modified Scribner, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the main body has an opening through which a user can check a cutting state of the lid and a holding state of the stay-on-tab in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (see Scribner Fig. 1, opening between #21/20).
In re Claim 16, modified Scribner, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the main body has an opening, and the opening exposes (i) a center of the lid where a fixing pin fixing the stay-on-tab to the lid is positioned and (ii) a region near a central portion of the lid where the stay-on-tab attached to the lid by the fixing pin is positioned (see Scribner Fig. 1, opening between #21/20, in view of which exposes the entire stay-on-tab of Kelly Figs. 14-15 and Figs. 9-10 Pin #116).
In re Claim 17, modified Scribner, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the recess of the main body receives the entire raised portion (see Scribner, Fig. 11).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,477,775 to Scribner in view of US 2017/0355583 to Kelly, and further in view of US 2,620,558 to Bergeron.
In re Claim 6, modified Scribner, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the tab holder has: a holding protrusion portion that is inserted into an opening of the stay-on-tab and holds the stay-on-tab (see Kelly, Para. 0056, which states “capture device or hook 54 grabs tab 156 disposed at a top surface of can 152; see also Fig. 11, #114 and Fig. 14 #54), and a connecting portion that extends toward the inside of the recessed portion from the main body and connects the holding protrusion portion and the main body (see Fig. 11, the structure between #114 and ring #118, which connects #114 to the main body), wherein the tab holder is configured such that the stay-on-tab held by the tab holder rotates, together with the main body, about a fixing pin fixing the stay-on-tab to the lid (pin #116), due to the main body rotating in a circumferential direction of the can in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (the structure of Kelly is capable of this manual rotation).
Modified Scribner does not teach the tab holder is configured to be movable in (i) a first direction in which the holding protrusion portion holds the stay-on-tab and (ii) a second direction in which the holding protrusion portion is further downward from the main body than a position of the holding protrusion portion in the first direction, due to the connecting portion pivotally supported by the main body.
However, Bergeron teaches that it is known in the can opening art to provide a pivoting hook for a cap (see Bergeron, Fig. 2, #18). In the same field of invention, can opening, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to pivot the tab hook of modified Scribner in the manner taught by Bergeron. Doing so allows the hook to be pivoted away so that the device can cut open a can without a tab.
Such a device would provide for (i) a first direction in which the holding protrusion portion holds the stay-on-tab (see Bergeron Fig. 2, dashed line #18 in view of Kelly, #54) and (ii) a second direction in which the holding protrusion portion is further downward from the main body than a position of the holding protrusion portion in the first direction (see Bergeron Fig. 2, #18), due to the connecting portion pivotally supported by the main body.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,477,775 to Scribner in view of US 2017/0355583 to Kelly, and further in view of US 20100018371 to Wilbert.
In re Claim 11, Kelly does not teach wherein the main body has a cleaning member cleaning a cut portion, formed on the raised portion by the blade, by contacting the cut portion.
However, Wilbert teaches that it is known in the art of can cutting to add a brush to a cutting device (see Wilbert, Fig. 2, #98 and Para. 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a brush to clean the blade of Kelly. Doing so clears or removes debris from the blade allowing the blade to be free of debris (see Wilbert, Para. 0020 and Fig.2, #98).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0355583 to Kelly, and further in view of US 2,620,558 to Bergeron.
In re Claim 6, Kelly teaches wherein the tab holder has: a holding protrusion portion that is inserted into an opening of the stay-on-tab and holds the stay-on-tab (see Kelly, Para. 0056, which states “capture device or hook 54 grabs tab 156 disposed at a top surface of can 152; see also Fig. 11, #114 and Fig. 14 #54), and a connecting portion that extends toward the inside of the recessed portion from the main body and connects the holding protrusion portion and the main body (see Fig. 11, the structure between #114 and ring #118, which connects #114 to the main body), wherein the tab holder is configured such that the stay-on-tab held by the tab holder rotates, together with the main body, about a fixing pin fixing the stay-on-tab to the lid (pin #116), due to the main body rotating in a circumferential direction of the can in a state where the main body is mounted on the can (the structure of Kelly is capable of this manual rotation).
Kelly does not teach the tab holder is configured to be movable in (i) a first direction in which the holding protrusion portion holds the stay-on-tab and (ii) a second direction in which the holding protrusion portion is further downward from the main body than a position of the holding protrusion portion in the first direction, due to the connecting portion pivotally supported by the main body.
However, Bergeron teaches that it is known in the can opening art to provide a pivoting hook for a cap (see Bergeron, Fig. 2, #18). In the same field of invention, can opening, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to pivot the tab hook of Kelly in the manner taught by Bergeron. Doing so allows the hook to be pivoted away so that the device can cut open a can without a tab.
Such a device would provide for (i) a first direction in which the holding protrusion portion holds the stay-on-tab (see Bergeron Fig. 2, dashed line #18 in view of Kelly, #54) and (ii) a second direction in which the holding protrusion portion is further downward from the main body than a position of the holding protrusion portion in the first direction (see Bergeron Fig. 2, #18), due to the connecting portion pivotally supported by the main body.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0355583 to Kelly and further in view of US 20100018371 to Wilbert.
In re Claim 11, Kelly does not teach wherein the main body has a cleaning member cleaning a cut portion, formed on the raised portion by the blade, by contacting the cut portion.
However, Wilbert teaches that it is known in the art of can cutting to add a brush to a cutting device (see Wilbert, Fig. 2, #98 and Para. 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a brush to clean the blade of Kelly. Doing so clears or removes debris from the blade allowing the blade to be free of debris (see Wilbert, Para. 0020 and Fig.2, #98).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights