DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign references corresponding to Cite no. 492, 503, and 578 on the IDS filed 25 February 2025 cannot be considered because no corresponding documents were provided.
The NPL corresponding to Cite no. 721, 992-993 on the IDS filed 25 February 2025 cannot be considered because no corresponding document has been provided.
The NPL corresponding to Cite no. 725, 727 on the IDS filed 25 February 2025 cannot be considered because the quality of the document is too poor.
The NPL corresponding to Cite no. 758, 767, 788-790, 795, 797-802, 806-808, 815-828, 832-833, 839, 848, 851, 860-868, and 935-991 on the IDS filed 25 February 2025 (44 pages) cannot be considered because no English translation for each has been provided.
The NPL corresponding to Cite no. 2, 3 on the IDS filed 9 May 2025 cannot be considered because no English translation for each has been provided.
The NPL corresponding to Cite no. 11-15 on the IDS filed 2 September 2025 cannot be considered because no English translation for each has been provided.
The NPL corresponding to Cite no. 28-34, 36-37 and 172 on the IDS filed 25 February 2025 cannot be considered because no English translation for each has been provided.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
In re pages 9, 14: it appears “A-A” in line 15 and 7, respectively, should be ‘5-5’ in accordance with fig. 4.
In re page 21: “although” in line 17 should be capitalized.
In re page 26: it is unclear what is meant by “dome home is preferred kept constant” in line 14.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim would be in better form if “such that a sidewall section of the cup comprises a projection” read as –to form a projection in a sidewall section of the cup–.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 24, 27-35 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement; any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for being dependent on a rejected base claim. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In re claim 24: the claim recites “the force is applied in at least one of the following directions: toward the longitudinal centerline such that the projection is an inward projection; and away from the longitudinal centerline such that the projection is an outward projection.” (Emphasis added). However, this subject matter is not shown in the drawings, is not described in the specification, and was not originally claimed. Therefore, the claimed subject matter enters new matter into the disclosure. Note that only an inward projection formed by a force parallel to the longitudinal centerline is shown and described.
In re claim 27: the claim recites “the force is exerted relative to a longitudinal centerline of the cup such that a portion of at least one wall section is forced outward relative to the centerline of the cup to form an outward projection.” However, this subject matter is not shown in the drawings, is not described in the specification, and was not originally claimed. Therefore, the claimed subject matter enters new matter into the disclosure. In figures 18-19 of the drawings, axial force is applied along a longitudinal centerline of the cup to cause the bottom of the cup to widen in the lateral direction and simultaneously cause a sidewall portion to bend to form an inward projection relative to the centerline. The outward projection, or stepped portion, is not formed by the axial force as it is already there.
In re claims 34 and 39: the claims recite “the outward projection extends discontinuously around the entire circumference of the cup.” However, this subject matter is not shown in the drawings, is not described in the specification, and was not originally claimed. Therefore, the claimed subject matter enters new matter into the disclosure.
In re claims 35 and 40: the claims recite “the outward projection has a shape embodying at least one of a discontinuous semi-annular, discontinuous annular, continuous semi-annular, continuous annular, discontinuous angled, or continuous angled shape, in whole or in part, such that a second cup cannot nest or stack beyond said outward projection thereby preventing the formation of a vacuum or sticking force between the cups when either nested or stacked.” However, this subject matter is not shown in the drawings, is not described in the specification, and was not originally claimed. Therefore, the claimed subject matter enters new matter into the disclosure.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
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.
In re claims 24, 34-35 and 39-40: the examiner notes that no art has been applied to said claims; applicant is required to clarify the claims in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 in order to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and the protection being sought.
Claims 21-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell (US 4,049,122 A), in view of Fedusa et al. (US 2013/0160517 A1).
In re claim 21: Maxwell discloses a method of forming a stackable tapered metallic cup (fig. 6, 9), the method comprising:
providing a stock material (60, fig. 9);
cutting a blank from the stock material (col. 9, ln. 50-54; the blank 60 is cut via “blanking” in the blank and draw step 61 in fig. 9);
forming at least one cup from the blank using a blank and draw operation (col. 9, ln. 50-58; 61, fig. 9-10);
performing a redrawing operation on the cup to provide the cup with a predetermined height and a wall thickness (63; fig. 9, 12);
subsequent to the redrawing operation, trimming the cup to a second height (65; fig. 9, 14);
subsequent to the trimming, curling/rolling the top edge 19a of the trimmed cup to form a lip 19 (see fig. 15, note that “19a” should actually be labeled 19 since the figure shows step 66 of fig. 9 in which the “start curl 19a”, which is really just a flange, has been swaged or rolled into the final beaded rim/lip 19 already shown in fig. 15; also see col. 10, ln. 17-21 and steps 65, 66 in fig. 9);
forming a straight wall section (14, 21; fig. 13) in the cup by drawing the cup (64, fig. 9);
forming a dome in a bottom (15) of the cup (fig. 13-15; col. 10, ln. 8-16); and
forming a stacking feature (24, fig. 17) by applying a force to the cup relative to a longitudinal centerline of the cup such that a sidewall section of the cup comprises a projection 23 (col. 5, ln. 37-48; col. 10, ln. 30-42, “indented annular depression 24 is best formed by a rolling operation on a mandrel”; an ordinary artisan understands that such an operation requires arranging the mandrel inside the cup and then using a roller to provide a compression force transverse to a central longitudinal axis of the cup against/to the lower section of the cup to which the depression is to be formed).
Maxwell does not explicitly disclose expanding the straight wall section using a die with a tapered profile.
However, Fedusa teaches a method of forming a tapered metallic cup (abstract; figures) which includes expanding straight wall sections (compare fig. 6, 8, 10) using dies with a tapered profile (216, fig. 7; and 220, fig. 9, fig. 13a, 14a) (also see ¶¶ 31, 33, 45-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Maxwell with one or more dies having a tapered profile for expanding one or more straight wall sections, as taught by Fedusa, because applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
In re claim 22, which depends on claim 21: Maxwell discloses the stock material is a coil (see 60, fig. 9), and the step of forming at least one cup comprises subjecting at least a portion of the coil to the blank and draw operation (61, fig. 9-10).
Maxwell does not explicitly disclose the coil is an aluminum coil. Instead, Maxwell discloses the stock material/coil (60, fig. 9) comprises a non-corrosive metal (col. 9, ln. 1-2), which is understood by those skilled in the art to include aluminum.
And Fedusa teaches making metal beverage cups out of aluminum (¶¶ 2, 4).
Therefore, because Fedusa teaches aluminum is known to provide sufficient properties and characteristics in the production of beverage cups, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maxwell such that the coil comprises aluminum, as taught by Fedusa, because selecting from known materials providing sufficient properties and characteristics would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
In re claim 24, which depends on claim 21: Maxwell discloses the force is applied toward the longitudinal centerline such that an outward projection 23 and an inward projection 24 is formed (fig. 2-3, 6 and col. 5, ln. 37-48).
In re claim 25, which depends on claim 21: Maxwell discloses the step of curling 66 (fig. 9, 15) the top edge occurs prior to the step of forming 64 the straight wall section 21 (fig. 9, 13).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell, in view of Fedusa, and further in view of Ma (US 2018/0140118).
In re claim 23, which depends on claim 21: Maxwell is silent regarding decorating or coating at least one of an interior surface of the cup and an exterior surface of the cup.
However, Ma teaches providing a protection coating on at least an interior of the cup (¶ 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Maxwell with a step of providing a coating on at least an interior of the cup, thereby providing protection to the interior of the cup, as taught by Ma.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell, in view of Fedusa, and further in view of Jordan et al. (US 6,010,028 A).
In re claim 26, which depends on claim 21: Maxwell is silent regarding the stock material comprising a pre-coated aluminum sheet, thereby reducing a need for additional washing and coating steps in the formation of the cup.
However, Jordan teaches a method of forming a can wherein the stock material used comprises pre-coated aluminum, thereby preventing corrosion of the metal and possible adverse effects on the flavor of the contents of the can (col. 3, ln. 28-30, 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Maxwell with stock material of a pre-coated aluminum to prevent corrosion of the metal and possible adverse effects on the flavor of the contents of the formed container, as taught by Jordan. The proposed modification results in a reduced need for additional washing and coating steps in the formation of the cup.
Claims 27-29, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell, in view of Fedusa, and further in view of Dunwoody (US 2019/0022730).
In re claim 27, which is being examined as best understood: Maxwell discloses a method of forming a stackable tapered metallic cup (fig. 6, 9), the method comprising:
forming at least one cup from the blank using a blank and draw operation (col. 9, ln. 50-58; 61, fig. 9-10);
performing a redrawing operation on the cup to provide the cup with a predetermined height and a wall thickness (63; fig. 9, 12);
forming a straight wall section (14, 21; fig. 13) in the cup by drawing the cup (64, fig. 9); and
forming a stacking feature (223, fig. 8) comprising an outward projection 224 that provides a contact point for adjacent stacked or nested cups thereby off setting adjacent stacked or nested cups (68, fig. 9 and col. 8, ln. 43-48).
Maxwell does not explicitly disclose expanding the straight wall section using a die with a tapered profile.
However, Fedusa teaches a method of forming a tapered metallic cup (abstract; figures) which includes expanding straight wall sections (compare fig. 6, 8, 10) using dies with a tapered profile (216, fig. 7; and 220, fig. 9, fig. 13a, 14a) (also see ¶¶ 31, 33, 45-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Maxwell with one or more dies having a tapered profile for expanding one or more straight wall sections, as taught by Fedusa, because applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Modified Maxwell does not explicitly teach the forming of the stacking feature comprises providing a first tool, holding at least a portion of the cup in place, and applying a compressive force against the cup with the first tool; wherein the force is exerted relative to a longitudinal centerline of the cup such that a portion of at least one wall section is forced outward relative to the centerline of the cup to form an outward projection.
Dunwoody teaches a method of forming stacking features 117, 118 in a cup (fig. 30 and ¶ 215) comprising: providing a first tool 153, holding at least a portion of the cup 71 in place (fig. 34), and applying a compressive force against the cup with the first tool (¶¶ 225-226); wherein the force is exerted relative to a longitudinal centerline of the cup 71 such that a portion of at least one wall section is forced outward relative to the centerline of the cup to form an outward projection 76, 77 (¶¶ 225-226; note that the curved regions 76, 77 correspond to the stacking features 117, 118 of fig. 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the stacking feature of Maxwell with that taught by Dunwoody, and provide the method of Maxwell with a step of forming the stacking feature in the claimed manner (as taught by Dunwoody above) because selecting from known types of stacking features allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan, and because it has been held that applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Note that the claimed forming of the stacking feature would also be obvious in view of the roller die set in fig. 1 of Bressan et al. (US 4,781,047 A).
In re claim 28, which depends on claim 27: Maxwell discloses the step of forming at least one cup comprises subjecting at least a portion of the blank to the blank and draw operation (61, fig. 9-10; col. 9, ln. 50-58).
Maxwell does not explicitly disclose the blank comprises aluminum. Instead, Maxwell discloses the stock material/coil (60, fig. 9) that is subjected to the blanking portion of the blank and draw operation (61) comprises a non-corrosive metal (col. 9, ln. 1-2), which is understood by those skilled in the art to include aluminum.
And Fedusa teaches making metal beverage cups out of aluminum (¶¶ 2, 4).
Therefore, because Fedusa teaches aluminum is known to provide sufficient properties and characteristics in the production of beverage cups, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maxwell such that the blank comprises aluminum, as taught by Fedusa, because selecting from known materials providing sufficient properties and characteristics would be obvious to the skilled artisan.
In re claim 29, which depends on claim 27: modified Maxwell teaches the first tool 153 comprises a pressure pad (fig. 33A).
In re claim 31, which depends on claim 27: Maxwell discloses curling the top edge 19a of the cup (see fig. 15, note that “19a” should actually be labeled 19 since the figure shows step 66 of fig. 9 in which the “start curl 19a”, which is really just a flange, has been swaged or rolled into the final beaded rim/lip 19, already shown in fig. 15; also see col. 10, ln. 17-21 and steps 65, 66 in fig. 9)
In re claim 33, which depends on claim 27: modified Maxwell teaches the outward projection 117, 118 extends around an entire circumference of the cup (fig. 30A of Dunwoody).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell, in view of Fedusa and Dunwoody, and further in view of Ma (US 2018/0140118).
In re claim 30, which depends on claim 27: modified Maxwell does not explicitly disclose decorating or coating at least one of an interior and an exterior surface of the metallic cup.
However, Ma teaches a method of forming a stackable tapered metallic cup (title and fig. 1) comprising a step of providing a protection coating on at least an interior of a cup (¶ 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Maxwell with a step of providing a coating on at least an interior of the cup, thereby providing protection to the interior of the cup, as taught by Ma.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell, in view of Fedusa and Dunwoody, and further in view of Jordan.
In re claim 32, which depends on claim 7: Maxwell is silent regarding the stock material comprising a pre-coated aluminum sheet, thereby reducing a need for additional washing and coating steps in the formation of the cup.
However, Jordan teaches a method of forming a can wherein the stock material used comprises pre-coated aluminum, thereby preventing corrosion of the metal and possible adverse effects on the flavor of the contents of the can (col. 3, ln. 28-30, 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Maxwell with stock material of a pre-coated aluminum to prevent corrosion of the metal and possible adverse effects on the flavor of the contents of the formed container, as taught by Jordan. The proposed modification results in a reduced need for additional washing and coating steps in the formation of the cup.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell, as evidenced Bressan et al. (US 4,781,047).
In re claim 36: Maxwell discloses a method of forming a stackable tapered metallic cup (fig. 6, 9), the method comprising:
forming at least one cup from the blank using a blank and draw operation (col. 9, ln. 50-58; 61, fig. 9-10);
performing a redrawing operation on the cup to provide the cup with a predetermined height and a wall thickness (63; fig. 9, 12);
forming a straight wall section (14, 21; fig. 13) in the cup by drawing the cup (64, fig. 9);
forming a stacking feature (24, fig. 2-3, 6) forming a stacking feature by providing a first tool, holding at least a portion of the cup in place, and applying a compressive force against the cup with the first tool (col. 5, ln. 37-48; col. 10, ln. 30-42, “indented annular depression 24 is best formed by a rolling operation on a mandrel”; an ordinary artisan understands that such an operation requires arranging the mandrel inside the cup and then, while holding the cup, using a roller to provide a compression force transverse to a central longitudinal axis of the cup against/to the lower section of the cup to which the depression is to be formed, as evidenced by fig. 1 of Bressan).
In re claim 37, which depends on claim 36: Maxwell discloses the first tool comprises at least one of a roller die (col. 10, ln. 30-42, “indented annular depression 24 is best formed by a rolling operation on a mandrel”; this is understood to be a roller die set as evidenced by Bressan).
In re claim 38, which depends on claim 36: Maxwell discloses the stacking feature 24 extends around an entire circumference of the cup (fig. 1, 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
