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 3 and 19 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 3 recites the limitation "said segment" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 19 recites the limitation "full aperture end" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-12, 14, 16-18, 20, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (U.S. Pub. No. 20110056945).
Regarding Claim 1, Ramsey discloses a full aperture can end (figure 5) comprising: a center panel 30 (Figure 5) having a rivet 34 (figure 5); a tab 36 (figure 5) staked by the rivet; a main score 50 (Figure 5) extending around a peripheral region of the center panel, the main score defining a removable panel (figure 5); a venting score 46 (figure 5) disposed on the removable panel, the venting score having (i) a central portion (figure 5), the central portion intersecting a longitudinal axis that extends through a center of the rivet and a center of the center panel (Figure 9), the longitudinal axis being perpendicular to a lateral axis that also extends through the center of the rivet (figure 9); and(ii) a pair of lateral portions each including one or more segments (Figure 1), the pair of lateral portions extending no further forward than the lateral axis; and wherein, along the longitudinal axis (Figure 1). Ramsey does not disclose the center of the rivet is located between 0.146 and 0.246 inches from a centerline of the main score. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the center of the rivet is located between 0.146 and 0.246 inches from a centerline of the main score 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. MPEP2144.05(I)
Regarding Claim 2, Ramsey discloses at least one segment of each lateral portion extends substantially parallel to the lateral axis (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ramsey discloses said segment is disposed along the lateral axis (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Ramsey discloses the center panel includes a coined portion proximate the rivet (figure 5), and wherein the central portion of the venting score intersects the coined portion (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Ramsey teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for along the longitudinal axis, the center of the rivet is located between 0.025 and 0.120 inches from a centerline of the venting score. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above 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. MPEP2144.05(I)
Regarding Claim 6, Ramsey teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for along the longitudinal axis, the center of the rivet is located between 0.025 and 0.100 inches from a centerline of the venting score. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above 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. MPEP2144.05(I)
Regarding Claim 7, Ramsey teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for along the longitudinal axis, the center of the rivet is located between 0.025 and 0.050 inches from a centerline of the venting score. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above 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. MPEP2144.05(I)
Regarding Claim 8, Ramsey teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for along the longitudinal axis, the center of the rivet is located at substantially 0.099 inches from the centerline of the venting score. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above 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. MPEP2144.05(I)
Regarding Claim 9, Ramsey teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for along the longitudinal axis, the center of the rivet is located at substantially 0.219 inches from the centerline of the main score. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C).
Regarding Claim 10, Ramsey discloses the venting score further comprises a pair of side portions (figure 1), wherein each of the side portions extend from a respective lateral portion, away from the lateral axis (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramsey discloses an anti- fracture score (figure 9) extending at least partially around said peripheral region, radially inside of the main score (figure 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Ramsey teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for along the longitudinal axis, the centerline of the anti-fracture score is disposed between 0.030 and 0.070 inches from a centerline of the main score. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above 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. MPEP2144.05(I)
Regarding Claim 14, Ramsey teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a residual thickness of the anti-fracture score is between 0.004 and 0.008 inches and the residual thickness of the main score is between 0.003 and 0.005 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above 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. MPEP2144.05(I)
Regarding Claim 16, Ramsey discloses the tab includes a nose 40 (figure 9), and the tab is staked at the rivet such the nose is disposed proximate the main score (figure 9), the tab being elongate along the longitudinal axis (Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 17, Ramsey discloses the tab is configured such that the tab nose contacts the center panel radially outside of the main score (Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 18, teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the tab is configured such that the tab nose contacts the center panel within 0.015 inches of the main score. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C).
Regarding Claim 20, Ramsey discloses a vent test rating of at least 30 psi (abstract).
Regarding Claim 24, Ramsey discloses a can assembly comprising the full aperture can end of claim 1 and a can body 12 (figure 2), the can end seamed onto the can body (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 25, Ramsey discloses the can assembly filled with a carbonated beverage (paragraph 5 and 30).
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (U.S. Pub. No. 20110056945) in view of Fields (U.S. Pub. No. 20150239607).
Regarding Claim 19, Ramsey teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for wherein the full aperture end is formed of a 3000 series aluminum alloy. However, Fields teaches the full aperture end is formed of a 3000 series aluminum alloy (paragraph 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramsey to include the above, as taught by Fields, in order to provide high flexibility and strength.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights