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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,715,629 to Hartman et al (Hartman) in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,202,030 to Macke et al (Macke) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,047,754 to Heinicke (Heinicke).
Concerning claim 1, Hartman discloses a method of scoring a can end, the method comprising:
pressing the shell between a scoring die and a score anvil ();
scoring the shell with a score blade to form a main score defining a tear panel with a main score residual or thickness ranging from .0045 to .0057 inch; and
performing finishing operations on the can end ().
However it does not disclose the method steps preceding the scoring.
Macke discloses in figure 12 a method of scoring a can end, the method comprising:
providing a sheet material with a base thickness (1000);
forming the sheet material into a shell (1002);
forming a bubble onto the shell (1010);
forming a rivet button on the shell (1022);
performing finishing operations on the can end (1006).
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. forming can ends, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the method steps of Macke to the method of Hartman. 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 addition of the method steps of Macke to the method of Hartman will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being formation of a can end. It is noted that Hartman discloses a can end to be processed that would result from the method steps of Macke.
Finally, Harman in view of Macke does not disclose with a main score residual or thickness ranging from .0045 to .0057 inch.
Heinicke discloses a method of scoring a can end, the method comprising: pressing (via 101) the shell between a scoring die and a score anvil; scoring the shell with a score blade (106) to form a main score defining a tear panel with a main score residual or thickness ranging from .0045 to .0057 inch (column 4, lines 59-64).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the method of Hartman in view of Macke such that the tear panel has a main score residual or thickness ranging from .0045 to .0057 inch as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Accordingly, as seen in Heinicke it is well known in the art to score a can end such that it has the claimed residual thickness.
Concerning claim 2, Hartman, in view of Macke and Heinicke, discloses pressing a shadow bead (56) into the tear panel, wherein the shadow bead is disposed on the scoring die.
Concerning claim 3, Hartman, in view of Macke and Heinicke, discloses scoring the shell with a score blade to form an anti-fracture line (24) parallel to and contiguous with the main score (30).
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
06/25/2026
Prosecution Insights