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.
Claims 8, 9, 13, and 16-19 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the curvature of the top end of the panel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the curvature of the bottom end of the panel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outer periphery of the panel" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the curvature of the top end of the panel" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the curvature of the bottom end of the panel" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the front end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the rear end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-19 all depend from claim 10. Claims 16-18 are duplicates of claims 11-13. Based on the fact dependent claims 16-19 come after independent claim 15, the Examiner believes claims 16-19 are intended to depend from claim 15, not claim 10.
If claim 19 is amended to depend from claim 15 - claim 15 recites the limitation "the curvature of the top end of the panel" and "the curvature of the bottom end of the panel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 states “the panel includes a pair of opposing side portions that are linear from the curvature of the top end of the panel to the curvature of the bottom end of the panel”. Claim 19 depends from claim 10 which also states “the panel includes a pair of opposing side portions that are linear from the curvature of the top end of the panel to the curvature of the bottom end of the panel”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forrest et al. (US 7000797) (hereinafter Forrest).
Regarding Claim 1
Forrest teaches a can end (below – Fig. 1A and 6) 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 may be greater than 0.080 inches [i.e. 0.1 inches], and wherein the panel is tapered from the front end to the rear end (Col. 3, Ln. 44-57; Col. 6, Ln. 52-60; Col. 7, Ln. 19-34).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
323
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 3
Forrest 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 4
Forrest teaches the imaginary axis (X-X) extends through a 6 o’clock position when the can end is held by a consumer in a position for drinking.
Regarding Claim 5
Forrest teaches the distance minimizes or eliminates cracks or breakages during forming, inasmuch as Applicant does.
Regarding Claim 8
Forrest teaches the panel includes a pair of opposing side portions (80a/b) that are linear from a curvature of a top end (shown at 82) of the panel to a curvature of a bottom end (shown at 78) of the panel.
Regarding Claim 9
Forrest 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 10
Forrest teaches a can end (Fig. 1A and 6) comprising: a panel (69) formed in the can end, the panel including 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, and wherein a distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis may be greater than 0.080 inches [i.e. 0.1 inches], and wherein the panel includes a pair of opposing side portions (80a/b) that are linear from a curvature of a top end (shown at 82) of the panel to a curvature of a bottom end (shown at 78) of the panel (Col. 3, Ln. 44-57; Col. 6, Ln. 52-60; Col. 7, Ln. 19-34).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12
Forrest 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
Forrest teaches the panel is tapered from a front end (shown at 82) to a rear end (shown at 78).
Regarding Claim 14
Forrest 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
Forrest teaches a can end (Fig. 1A and 6) comprising: a panel (69) formed in the can end, the panel including 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, and wherein a distance between the outer periphery of the panel and the score along the imaginary axis may be greater than 0.080 inches [i.e. 0.1 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).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17
Forrest 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
Forrest teaches the panel is tapered from a front end (shown at 82) to a rear end (shown at 78).
Regarding Claim 19
Forrest teaches the panel includes a pair of opposing side portions (80a/b) that are linear from a curvature of a top end (shown at 82) of the panel to a curvature of a bottom end (shown at 78) of the panel.
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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heinicke et al. (US 2001/0002671) (hereinafter Heinicke).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7
Forrest teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Forrest does not specifically teach a taper defined on the panel is between 0.001 and 0.005 inches, or more specifically 0.003 inches.
Heinicke teaches a can end (below – Fig. 3) comprising: a panel (12) formed in the can end, the panel including a front end, a rear end, and a perimeter (shown at 30) spaced inwardly from an outer periphery of the can end, a score (18) formed in the panel, the score being spaced inwardly from the outer periphery.
Heinicke further teaches the can end has a thickness that can range from 0.011 to 0.013 inches. This means that where the thickness transitions from 0.011 inches to 0.013 inches, due to mechanical tolerances, the panel has areas of at least one taper between 0.001 and 0.005 inches, or roughly 0.003 inches. (Paragraphs [0002] and [0033]).
PNG
media_image3.png
531
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Forrest and Heinicke 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 thickness of can end with the teachings of the can end having a varying thickness (with a taper between the thicker and thinner portions of the can end) of Keinicke in order to provide a realistic can end thickness, which includes a varying thickness occurring within manufacturing tolerances (i.e. has variation/taper).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 was amended to include that the panel includes a front end and a rear and that the panel is tapered from the front end to the rear end. This was not previously claimed, and as such the rejection has been amended to address the new limitations above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 16 June 2026
Prosecution Insights