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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 11-13 be found allowable, claims 16-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 16-18 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.
Claims 16-18 all depend from claim 10. Claims 16-18 are duplicates of claims 11-13. Based on the fact dependent claims 16-18 come after independent claim 15, the Examiner believes claims 16-18 are intended to depend from claim 15, not claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a first embodiment (Fig. 1A-5) of Forrest et al. (US 7000797) (hereinafter Forrest1) in view of a second embodiment (Fig. 6) of Forrest et al. (US 7000797) (hereinafter Forrest2).
Regarding Claim 10
Forrest1 teaches a can end (below - Fig. 1A and 5) comprising: a panel (69) formed in the can end, the panel including a front end (shown at 82), a rear end (shown at 78), and a perimeter (70) spaced inwardly from an outer periphery of the can end, a score (22) formed in the panel, the score being spaced inwardly from the outer periphery, the panel including a cent bead (89) extending upwardly from the can end, the score being located on one side of the cent bead, wherein an imaginary axis (X-X) extends through a center of the can end and evenly divides the cent bead; wherein a distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis is about 0.050 inches; and wherein the panel includes a pair of opposing side portions (80a/b) that are linear from a curvature of a front end (shown at 82) of the panel to a curvature of a rear end (shown at 78) of the panel (Col. 3, Ln. 44-57; Col. 6, Ln. 40-51; Col. 7, Ln. 19-34).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Forrest1 does not teach a distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis is greater than 0.080 inches
Forrest2 teaches a can end (below - Fig. 6) comprising: a panel (69) formed in the can end, the panel including a front end (shown at 78), a rear end (shown at 82), and a perimeter (70) spaced inwardly from an outer periphery of the can end, a score (22) formed in the panel, the score being spaced inwardly from the outer periphery, the panel including a cent bead (89) extending upwardly from the can end, the score being located on one side of the cent bead, wherein an imaginary axis extends through a center of the can end and evenly divides the cent bead; wherein a distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis is greater than 0.080 inches [i.e. 0.1 inches] (Col. 3, Ln. 44-57; Col. 6, Ln. 52-60; Col. 7, Ln. 19-34).
PNG
media_image3.png
313
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Forrest1 and Forrest2 are analogous inventions in the field of can ends. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis of Forrest1 with the teachings of the distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis being greater than 0.080 inches of Forrest2, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Forrest teaches that the embodiments of Forrest1 and Forrest2 are functional equivalents, in that the distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score may be a constant number (i.e. 0.1 inches) (Col. 6, Ln. 52-60).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12
Forrest1 in view of Forrest2 (hereinafter “modified Forrest”) teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. Forrest2 further teaches the distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis is 0.1 inches (Col. 6, Ln. 52-60).
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Forrest teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. Forrest1 further teaches the panel is tapered from a front end (shown at 82) to a rear end (shown at 78).
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Forrest teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. Forrest1 further teaches the outer periphery of the panel has a smaller radius at a pair of opposing side portions (shown at 78) than a remaining portion (shown at 76) of the outer periphery of the panel.
Regarding Claim 15
Forrest1 teaches a can end (Fig. 1A and 5) comprising: a panel (69) formed in the can end, the panel including a front end (shown at 82), a rear end (shown at 78), and a perimeter (70) spaced inwardly from an outer periphery of the can end, a score (22) formed in the panel, the score being spaced inwardly from the outer periphery, the panel including a cent bead (89) extending upwardly from the can end, the score being located on one side of the cent bead, wherein an imaginary axis (X-X) extends through a center of the can end and evenly divides the cent bead; wherein a distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis is about 0.050 inches; and wherein the outer periphery of the panel has a smaller radius at a pair of opposing side portions (shown at 78) than a remaining portion (shown at 76) of the outer periphery of the panel (Col. 3, Ln. 44-57; Col. 6, Ln. 52-60; Col. 7, Ln. 19-34).
Forrest2 teaches a can end (Fig. 6) comprising: a panel (69) formed in the can end, the panel including a front end (shown at 78), a rear end (shown at 82), and a perimeter (70) spaced inwardly from an outer periphery of the can end, a score (22) formed in the panel, the score being spaced inwardly from the outer periphery, the panel including a cent bead (89) extending upwardly from the can end, the score being located on one side of the cent bead, wherein an imaginary axis extends through a center of the can end and evenly divides the cent bead; wherein a distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis is greater than 0.080 inches [i.e. 0.1 inches] (Col. 3, Ln. 44-57; Col. 6, Ln. 52-60; Col. 7, Ln. 19-34).
Forrest1 and Forrest2 are analogous inventions in the field of can ends. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis of Forrest1 with the teachings of the distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis being greater than 0.080 inches of Forrest2, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Forrest teaches that the embodiments of Forrest1 and Forrest2 are functional equivalents, in that the distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score may be a constant number (i.e. 0.1 inches) (Col. 6, Ln. 52-60).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17
Forrest1 in view of Forrest2 (hereinafter “modified Forrest”) teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above. Forrest2 further teaches the distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis is 0.1 inches (Col. 6, Ln. 52-60).
Regarding Claim 18
Modified Forrest teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above. Forrest1 further teaches the panel is tapered from a front end (shown at 82) to a rear end (shown at 78).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Closest prior art – Forrest et al. (US 7000797) (previously cited) – teaches a majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the closest prior art does not teach the panel is inclined, with regards to the imaginary axis, from the front end to the rear end.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/LAURA E. PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
