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 of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the edge" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pozuelo CH530310A.
Regarding claim 1 Pozuelo discloses a package (Figs. 1-5) made of sheet material (paragraph [0025] lines 147) with a tear-off foil cover (paragraph [0032], comprising: a seamless frame (can body 1, Fig. 1) produced by deep drawing (paragraph [0025], lines 144-145), which forms a package wall enclosing the interior space of the package and which has a first end (top, Figs. 1-5) and a second end (bottom end), wherein the frame forms at its first end an extraction opening surrounded by a sealing flange (Fig. 1), which is closed by a tear-off foil cover glued or sealed onto the sealing flange (Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0026]), and wherein the frame is connected at its second end by flanging to a sheet metal cover (2 base, Fig. 1) which forms the package bottom.
Regarding claim 5 Pozuelo discloses the package according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the package wall defines a substantially cylindrical package interior space (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6 Pozuelo discloses the package according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the package wall and the package bottom are made of an identical sheet material (paragraph [0025], lines 2 and 147 the can as a whole can be made from sheet material).
Regarding claim 7 Pozuelo discloses the package according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the package bottom is made of a deep-drawn sheet material (paragraph [0025] lines 144-145 discloses that deep drawing can be used to form the package bottom). With respect to claim 7 in particular, note that claim 7 is a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps (deep drawing the package bottom sheet material), only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP section 2113.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pozuelo in view of Dunwoody et al. US 2009/0032535 A1.
Regarding claim 2 Pozuelo discloses the package according to claim 1. Pozuelo is silent to wherein the sealing flange extends radially outward from the package wall formed by the frame.
Dunwoody teaches a package (1 container, Fig. 1-2) with a sealing flange (20 flat shoulder portion) that extends radially outward from the package wall (2 can body) formed by the frame, and wherein the sealing flange (20) comprises a circumferential edge (where 20 and 24 rim meet, Fig. 1) outwardly delimiting the sealing surface and wherein the sealing flange (20) and the package bottom (3 closure) are configured such that the bottom (3) of a first package can be arranged within the circumferential edge, which outwardly delimits the sealing surface, of an identical second package (Figs. 1-2, the bottom of the container is narrower than the sealing surface of the sealing flange).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealing flange of Pozuelo to include the outwardly extending sealing flange as taught by Dunwoody as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Additionally, an outwardly extending sealing flange enhances the ability to stack the containers (paragraph [0019]. Further, a change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3 Pozuelo discloses the package according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the sealing flange (20 Dunwoody) comprises a circumferential edge outwardly delimiting its sealing surface (where 20 and 24 meet, Figs. 1-2 Dunwoody)
Regarding claim 4 Pozuelo discloses the package according to claim 3 and further discloses wherein the sealing flange (20) and the package bottom are configured in such a way that the package bottom (3) of a first package can be arranged within the edge, which outwardly delimits the sealing surface, of an identical second package (Figs. 1-2, the bottom of the container is narrower than the sealing surface of the sealing flange and thusly a second identical container can be stacked on top of the first container).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights