DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 8-3-2026 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
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 1-10 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 claim 1, line 3 “a blank” is set forth and in line 4 “a blank” is recited. It is not clear if the line 4 blank is the blank set forth in line 3 or a new limitation. In claim 9, line 2 the language “to be bottom” is not clear it appears to be a direct translation from a foreign document and is an idiomatic error.
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) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagafune et al. (JP 2014-231064) in view of Oya (JP 09-94617). Regarding claims 1-4, Nagafune discloses a method for manufacturing a plurality of bottomed cans (1; Fig. 4) from a metal raw plate (500B; Fig. 3C), comprising a coining step of coining ([0012], lines 4-5 and 10-11; [0016], lines 3-5) at least a part of an area (53) of the metal raw plate (500B) at processing position (B; Fig. 3C) which is to be blanked to form an elliptical blank (53; Fig. 3C; [0011], lines 7-8) in a downstream operation at processing position (C; Fig. 3C), a punching step to obtain a blank (50; [0016], line 7) from the raw plate and a drawing step ([0016], lines 7-8) to form the blank (50) into the bottomed can (1) wherein the coining, blanking and drawing steps are performed sequentially in this order. Nagafune recites in [0016], lines 7-8 that blanking is performed and drawing is performed simultaneously at a single processing position (C; Fig. 3C) wherein the blanking occurs ([0011], lines 7-8), then the drawing occurs at the processing station since a blank hole is shown in Fig. 3C after the processing station (C). Nagafune does not disclose piercing a flow buffering hole between areas to be blanked in a downstream blanking operation. Oya teaches a punching step (P1; [0013], lines 4-5 and [0015], lines 1-2) in a raw metal plate (20) wherein positioning holes (25) on opposing width direction sides of the raw metal plate (Fig. 1) are punched outside of an area (10) to be blanked in a downstream blanking process (P4) and a flow buffering hole (26) is pierced between areas (10) to be blanked in the punching step (P1) before a coining step (P2). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form a flow buffering hole between areas to be blanked in the sheet of Nagafune as taught by Oya so as absorb stress and provide room for residual trimmings to fall through when further blank forming operations are conducted.
Regarding claim 9, Nagafune discloses that the coining (53) is performed on an outer periphery of an area that is to be formed into the bottom of the bottomed can (52, Fig. 3C; [0014], lines 16-18)
Regarding claim 10, Nagafune discloses manufacturing a rectangular can ([0010], lines 4-5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagafune et al. (JP 2014-231064) in view of Oya (JP 09-94617) and further in view of Poupitch (2,649,125). Nagafune in view of Oya discloses that the flow buffering hole (26; Oya, Fig. 1) has widthwise ends but does not disclose that the flow buffering hole is a rectangular flow buffering hole. Poupitch teaches piercing dies (8,38; Fig. 1) that are configured to form a rectangular flow buffering hole in a raw plate (2) that is positioned between two areas (26) that are to be blanked in a downstream blanking operation. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to pierce a rectangular buffering hole in the raw plate of Nagafune in view of Oya as taught by Poupitch so that the widthwise ends of the flow buffering holes are planar.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagafune et al. (JP 2014-231064) in view of Oya (JP 09-94617) and further in view of Andersson (7,987,691). Nagafune in view of Oya does not disclose that the flow buffering hole is substantially x-shaped with two v-shaped ends and an I shaped portion connecting the v-shaped ends. Andersson teaches (Fig. 11) that a flow buffering hole (1”) is substantially x-shaped with two v-shaped ends and an I shaped portion connecting the v-shaped ends. The flow buffering hole is pierced between two areas (1) to be blanked (Fig. 13, left side) in a downstream blanking operation. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to pierce an x-shaped buffering hole in the raw plate of Nagafune in view of Oya so as to closely match a shape of the areas to be blanked in the downstream blanking operation. Regarding claims 6 and 7, the flow buffering hole of Andersson (Fig. 11) extends with the v-shaped ends toward an outer width of the raw plate and it would have been obvious to pierce the positioning holes with a triangular area bounded by the v-shaped ends since that is a longitudinal midpoint between the areas to be blanked sice Oya teaches that the positioning holes (25) are positioned between the areas to be blanked.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagafune et al. (JP 2014-231064) in view of Oya (JP 09-94617) and further in view of Stegman, SR (3,338,084). Nagafune in view of Oya does not specifically recite that the positioning holes and flow buffering hole are formed simultaneously but Oya shows (Fig. 1) that the positioning holes and flow buffering hole at a same longitudinal raw plate position at step P1. Stegman teaches (col. 4, lines 36-39) simultaneous piercing of positioning holes (42) outside in a width direction of areas (85) to be blanked and a flow buffering hole (41) between the areas (85, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to simultaneously form a flow buffering hole and positioning holes in the strip of Nagafune in view of Oya as taught by Stegman so as to accomplish the piercing in a minimum number of piercing steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin (7,331,874) shows (Fig. 1) that it is known to pierce positioning holes (11) between v-shaped ends of an x-shaped buffering hole (15) and teaches (col. 3, lines 1-6) that a buffering hole (22) having an I-shape is pierced between two areas (23) that become a blank (separating step, S70) in a raw plate (2; Fig. 3A) in a downstream operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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 at 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 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights