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 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.
Claim 4 is 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 requires both that the first radius is greater than the second radius and that the second radius is greater than the first radius. As this is impossible it has not been further examined on the merits.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,035,689 to Chang et al (Chang).
Concerning claim 1, Chang discloses a tooling assembly for forming a rivet button in a can end, the tooling assembly comprising:
an upper rivet insert comprising an upper rivet punch (148) extending downwardly from a lower surface of the upper rivet insert; and
a lower rivet insert comprising a lower rivet punch (150) extending upwardly from an upper surface of the lower rivet insert;
wherein the lower rivet punch (110) comprises a rounded surface at a distal end thereof;
wherein the rounded surface defines a plurality of curvatures (160, 162) each having a distinct radius of curvature (column , lines 24-31).
Concerning claim 2, Chang discloses the lower rivet punch is configured to press a rivet button into the can end by applying upward pressure into a hollow cavity of the upper rivet punch (as it is capable of doing so).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0241788 to LaBarge (LaBarge).
Concerning claim 1, LaBarge discloses a tooling assembly for forming a rivet button in a can end, the tooling assembly comprising:
an upper rivet insert comprising an upper rivet punch (184) extending downwardly from a lower surface of the upper rivet insert; and
a lower rivet insert comprising a lower rivet punch (180) extending upwardly from an upper surface of the lower rivet insert;
wherein the lower rivet punch (158) comprises a rounded surface at a distal end thereof;
wherein the rounded surface defines a plurality of curvatures (at 152, 170 and 176) each having a distinct radius of curvature (see figure 8).
Concerning claim 3, LaBarge discloses the plurality of curvatures comprises a first curvature (152) with a first radius at a center portion of the rounded profile, a second curvature (170) with a second radius at an intermediate portion of the rounded profile, and a third curvature (176) with a third radius at a transition portion of the rounded profile, wherein the first radius, the second radius, and the third radius are distinct from one another (see figure 8).
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of LaBarge.
Concerning claim 3, Chang does not disclose that the rounded surface of the lower rivet punch has three curvatures. Instead it discloses a different punch (110) with a rounded surface having a first curvature (118) with a first radius (K) at a center portion of the rounded profile, a second curvature (120) with a second radius (J) at an intermediate portion of the rounded profile, and a third curvature (122) with a third radius (H) at a transition portion of the rounded profile, wherein the first radius, the second radius, and the third radius are distinct from one another.
LaBarge, as discussed above discloses a lower rivet punch having a plurality of curvatures comprises a first curvature (152) with a first radius at a center portion of the rounded profile, a second curvature (170) with a second radius at an intermediate portion of the rounded profile, and a third curvature (176) with a third radius at a transition portion of the rounded profile, wherein the first radius, the second radius, and the third radius are distinct from one another.
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. tooling assembly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the lower rivet punch of Cheng with a punch with three curvatures such as in Cheng (110) or LaBarge. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple substitution of the lower rivet punch of Cheng with a punch with three curvatures such as in Cheng (110) or LaBarge will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being pressing the can end with three different curvatures.
Concerning claims 5-6, Chang does not disclose
wherein the first radius (K) is between 0.3000 and 0.5000 inch (its 0.3750 inch), the second radius (J) is between 0.0380 and 0.0780 inch (its 0.1717, and the third radius (H) is between 0.0110 and 0.0310 inch (its .07000).
Concerning claims 5-6, Chang in view of LaBarge does not disclose the claimed radius.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the lower rivet punch of Chang in view of LaBarge such that the first radius is between 0.3000 and 0.5000 inch, the second radius is between 0.0380 and 0.0780 inch, and the third radius is between 0.0110 and 0.0310 inch; wherein the first radius is between 0.2750 and 0.4750 inch, the second radius is between 0.0400 and 0.0800 inch, and the third radius is between 0.0040 and 0.0240 inch as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to the specific radius of curvature. Accordingly, such a shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBarge.
Concerning claims 5-6, LaBarge does not disclose the claimed radius.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the lower rivet punch of LaBarge such that the first radius is between 0.3000 and 0.5000 inch, the second radius is between 0.0380 and 0.0780 inch, and the third radius is between 0.0110 and 0.0310 inch; wherein the first radius is between 0.2750 and 0.4750 inch, the second radius is between 0.0400 and 0.0800 inch, and the third radius is between 0.0040 and 0.0240 inch as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to the specific radius of curvature. Accordingly, such a shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex.
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.
/Matthew Katcoff/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights