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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 currently recites: “orienting the bubble station upper punch or the bubble station to define” and should state: “orienting the bubble station upper punch or the bubble station lower punch to define” and will be examined as such.
Claim 3 currently recites: “wherein a relieved portion” and should state: “wherein the relieved portion” and will be examined as such.
Claim 3 currently recites: “of the area” and should state: “of an area” and will be examined as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaBarge et al. (hereafter “LaBarge”)(US 4,783,985).
With regards to claim 1, LaBarge discloses a method of forming a relieved bubble in a can end, the method comprising:
providing a sheet material with a base thickness [Column 5, lines 25-30];
forming the sheet material into a shell (16);
providing a bubble station upper punch (184) to an upper tooling assembly (182) and a bubble station lower punch (180) to a lower tooling assembly (178), wherein a relief area is defined between the bubble station upper punch and the bubble station lower punch;
forming a relieved bubble (152) on the shell;
forming the shell into a can end, as seen in at least Figure 9;
forming the relieved bubble into a rivet button (196); and
performing finishing operations on the can end [Column 7, lines 66+- Column 8, line 1].
With regards to claim 2, LaBarge discloses further comprising: orienting the bubble station upper punch or the bubble station lower punch to define a relieved portion of the relieved bubble [buckle into annular ridge 154, Column 5, lines 53-58].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBarge.
LaBarge discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the relieved portion of the relieved bubble is less than 30% of an area of the periphery of the relieved bubble and wherein a relieved portion of the relieved bubble is formed between a 7:00 o’clock position and a 11:00 o’clock position of the periphery of the relieved bubble. 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 claimed percentage and position, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed that having this particular percentage or particular position provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over LaBarge.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US 3,602,980.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. 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, Christopher 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights