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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W.I.P.O. Publication No. WO 2014/192833 A1 by Osafune et al., hereinafter “Osafune”, in view of Korean Patent Document No. KR 10-2016-0017324 A by Kim et al., hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Osafune discloses a can manufacturing method (can 1 shown in Figs. 4(A) and 4(B); page 5, line 11-13) by deep drawing processing (the method shown in Fig. 1; page 6, line 10-17), the can manufacturing method including:
first pressing for blank processing on a metal plate (metal plate 500A in Fig. 3 is pressed to form blank 50; page 6, line 13-15) and coining processing to reduce a plate thickness of the blank by using the pre-step press machine (blank 50 is coined as shown in Figs. 2(A)-2(B) to form coined area 52 in Fig. 2(C); page 6, line 18 through page 8, line 21); and
second pressing for drawing processing and/or drawing and ironing processing to form a rectangular can (Figs. 1(C) through 1(F) and 1(I) through 1(L) show coined blank 51 is drawn into a rectangular can; page 9, line 1-17).
Osafune is silent regarding a conveyor configured to convey the blank from a pre-step press machine to a post-step press machine as claimed in claim 1.
In the same field of rectangular can manufacturing, Kim teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conveyor (idle section 13 in Figs. 1 and 2 and transfer device 20 in Figs. 2-6) to convey a metal blank from a blank processing press machine (11 in Figs. 1 and 2) to a drawing processing press machine (12 in Figs. 1 and 2) to manufacture a rectangular can (1 in Fig. 1). See paragraphs [0053] and [0054].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conveyor to convey Osafune’s blank from a blank processing press machine which performs Osafune’s disclosed blanking to a drawing processing press machine which performs Osafune’s disclosed drawing processing in the same way Kim teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Kim to Osafune’s method would achieve the predictable result of using a conveyor in Osafune’s method as Kim teaches.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Osafune in view of Kim renders the can manufacturing method according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Osafune further discloses the stroke of the pre-step press machine (Figs. 2(A) and 2(B)) is shorter than the stroke of the post-step press machine (the drawing stroke required to draw can 1 in Fig. 4 is longer than the stroke required to coin the blank).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Osafune in view of Kim renders the can manufacturing method according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Osafune and Kim are silent regarding the pressing capacity of the pre-step press machine and the post-step press machine. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the capacity of Kim’s blank processing press machine 11 larger than the capacity of Kim’s drawing processing press machine 12 as one of two potential capacity relationships, i.e., the pre-step press machine capacity is larger than the post-step press machine capacity or the post-step press machine capacity is larger than the pre-step press machine capacity. A person of ordinary skill could have tried these two relationships with a reasonable expectation of succeeding in choosing the claimed relationship.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Osafune in view of Kim renders the can manufacturing method according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Osafune further discloses the blank processing is performed prior to the coining process (blank processing is performed in Fig. 1(A) prior to the coining process in Fig. 1(B)). Kim further teaches conveyor idle section 13 in Figs. 1 and 2 comprises transfer device 20 in Figs. 2-4 which includes gripping modules 220 shown in Fig. 3 having fingers 224 shown in Fig. 5 that transfer the blank from blank processing machine 11 to drawing processing machine 12. See paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Osafune in view of Kim renders the can manufacturing method according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Osafune further discloses the can is an aluminum can. See page 6, line 16-17.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osafune in view of Kim and further in view of Japanese Patent Document No. JP 2021-183339 A by Imai, hereinafter “Imai”.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Osafune in view of Kim renders the can manufacturing method according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further teaches the post-step press machine comprises a finger configured to convey a formed product obtained by drawing processing and/or drawing and ironing processing on the blank. Conveyor idle section 13 in Figs. 1 and 2 comprises transfer device 20 in Figs. 2-4 which includes gripping modules 220 shown in Fig. 3 having fingers 224 shown in Fig. 5 that transfer the blank between the successive drawing stations in drawing section 12. See paragraph [0026].
Kim does not teach fingers 224 in Fig. 5 comprise a contact portion made of a resin material or a rubber material and is configured to grip and convey the formed product by the contact portion.
In the same field of transfer devices used in metal drawing applications, Imai teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use non-slip materials such as rubber and resin on contact points of work gripping fingers. See paragraphs [0077] and [0079].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add resin or rubber to Kim’s fingers 224 to provide non-slip gripping surfaces in the same way Imai teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Imai to Kim’s fingers would yield the predictable result of adding non-slip surfaces to Kim’s fingers.
Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Osafune.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a can manufacturing system by deep drawing processing using a press machine (press machine 10 in Fig. 2; ¶[0020]), the can manufacturing system comprising: a pre-step press machine (blanking process section 11 in Fig. 2), a post-step press machine (drawing process section 12 in Fig. 2), and a conveyor configured to convey a blank from the pre-step press machine to the post-step press machine (conveyor idle section 13 in Fig. 2 conveys a blank blanked in section 11 to section 12 for drawing), wherein
the pre-step press machine is configured to perform blank processing on a metal plate (blanking processing section 11 in Fig. 2 makes blank 11 in Fig. 1 from aluminum plate; ¶[0025]), and the post-step press machine is configured to form a rectangular can by drawing processing and/or drawing and ironing processing (drawing process section 12 in Fig. 2 forms rectangular can 1 in Fig. 1 as shown in drawing progression 12 in Fig. 1).
Kim does not disclose the pre-step press machine is configured to perform coining processing to reduce a plate thickness of the blank as claimed in claim 7.
In the same field of rectangular can manufacturing, Osafune discloses a can manufacturing method (can 1 shown in Figs. 4(A) and 4(B)) by deep drawing processing (the method shown in Fig. 1). The method includes first pressing for blank processing on a metal plate (metal plate 500A in Fig. 3 is pressed to form blank 50) and coining processing to reduce a plate thickness of the blank by using the pre-step press machine (blank 50 is coined as shown in Figs. 2(A)-2(B) to form coined area 52 in Fig. 2(C)). Then a second pressing for drawing processing and/or drawing and ironing processing to form a rectangular can (Figs. 1(C) through 1(F) and 1(I) through 1(L) show coined blank 51 is drawn into a rectangular can) is performed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kim’s pre-step blanking process section 11 to perform coining processing on Kim’s blank after it is blanked in the same way Osafune teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Osafune to Kim’s can manufacturing system would achieve the predictable result of adding coining capability to Kim’s system.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Osafune renders the can manufacturing system according to claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses the stroke of the pre-step press machine (pre-step press machine blanking process section 11 in Fig. 2) is shorter than a stroke of the post-step press machine (post-step press machine deep drawing process section 12 in Fig. 2). Fig. 2 shows the stroke of section 11 is shorter than the stroke of section 12.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Osafune renders the can manufacturing system according to claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. Kim and Osafune are silent regarding the pressing capacity of the pre-step press machine and the post-step press machine. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the capacity of Kim’s blank processing press machine 11 larger than the capacity of Kim’s drawing processing press machine 12 as one of two potential capacity relationships, i.e., the pre-step press machine capacity is larger than the post-step press machine capacity or the post-step press machine capacity is larger than the pre-step press machine capacity. A person of ordinary skill could have tried these two relationships with a reasonable expectation of succeeding in choosing the claimed relationship.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Osafune renders the can manufacturing system according to claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses conveyor idle section 13 in Figs. 1 and 2 comprises transfer device 20 in Figs. 2-4 which includes gripping modules 220 shown in Fig. 3 having fingers 224 shown in Fig. 5 that transfer the blank from blank processing machine 11 to drawing processing machine 12. See paragraph [0022]. Osafune further teaches blank processing is performed prior to the coining process (blank processing is performed in Fig. 1(A) prior to the coining process in Fig. 1(B)).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Osafune renders the can manufacturing system according to claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses the can is an aluminum can. See paragraph [0017].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Osafune and further in view of Imai.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art reference combination of Kim in view of Osafune renders the can manufacturing system according to claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further discloses the post-step press machine comprises a finger configured to convey a formed product obtained by drawing processing and/or drawing and ironing processing on the blank. Conveyor idle section 13 in Figs. 1 and 2 comprises transfer device 20 in Figs. 2-4 which includes gripping modules 220 shown in Fig. 3 having fingers 224 shown in Fig. 5 that transfer the blank between the successive drawing stations in drawing section 12. See paragraph [0026].
Kim does not disclose fingers 224 in Fig. 5 comprise a contact portion made of a resin material or a rubber material and is configured to grip and convey the formed product by the contact portion.
In the same field of transfer devices used in metal drawing applications, Imai teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use non-slip materials such as rubber and resin on contact points of work gripping fingers. See paragraphs [0077] and [0079].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add resin or rubber to Kim’s fingers 224 to provide non-slip gripping surfaces in the same way Imai teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Imai to Kim’s fingers would yield the predictable result of adding non-slip surfaces to Kim’s fingers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights