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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) Reference to the claims on page 4 of the disclosure is improper; (2) reference numeral 34 is used to designate the pressure sleeve, push-in sleeve and lifting pins [see pg. 14 & 15] reference numeral 43 is used to designate the pressure sleeve and the waste drawing die [see pg. 15], it is noted that these are some examples of discrepancies with reference numerals, however the specification appears to be replete with discrepancies thus Applicant is advised to review the specification to correct all discrepancies. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-25 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.
With regards to claims 1-25, the subject matter of the claims are couched in a narrative format, i.e. is prepared, is machined, is formed, is clamped, etc., which does not lend itself to a clear understanding of the essential steps of the method. Positively setting forth the method as a series of steps with the essential features of each step being distinctly claimed would overcome the indefiniteness with regard to the inferential claimed provision. Applicant is respectfully reminded that to be entitled to patentable weight in method claims, the structural limitations recited therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure [see Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31 (1961)]. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, e.g. it doesn't begin a step with a gerund term.
With regards to claim 1, the claim states “a method for producing an aerosol dome…wherein”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear what the transitional phrase is for the claim. A transitional phrase defines the scope of the claim in terms of what unrecited elements or method step, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim, as well as clearly separating the preamble from the body of the claim. Accordingly, the lack of a transitional phrase renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clearly defined [see MPEP 2111.03]. It is further noted that the “wherein” phrase appears to server the same purpose as the transitional phrase to further limit the structure of the apparatus, however wherein clauses are used to further define elements that have been positively recited previously within the claim, thus the wherein clause cannot be considered to be the transitional phrase of the claim. For purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted as having “comprising” as the transitional phrase.
The claim states “in the machining stage before the forming process”, it is unclear what forming process is being referred to. Specifically the fold is states to be formed but this is within the machining stage therefore it is unclear if the “forming process” is intending to refer to the forming of the fold, in which case this renders the claim indefinite since the fold is formed within the machining stage. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The claim states “the intermediate state bears…on at least three lifting pins without contacting a push-in sleeve”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the push-in sleeve is required since it does not contact the intermediate state.
The claim states “the component” in line 13, it is unclear if this limitation is intending to refer to the intermediate state or if it is introducing a new element, in which case there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and it is unclear at what step in the method the component is formed. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The claim states “the component is guided with its base onto a waste drawing die, advancing from below, by a pressure sleeve”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear the relationship between the lifting pins, waste drawing die and pressure sleeve, specifically are these all within a single stage or are they separate stages the workpiece moves through. It is noted that the claim lacks any relationship between the structural elements of what appears to be the apparatus that performs the method which creates indefiniteness with how these elements cooperate with one another to perform the method. Clarification and/or correction is required.
There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the transportation level” found in line 18.
The claim states “into a subsequent machining station” this renders the claim indefinite since no previous machining stations have been set forth, is it intending to refer to the previously recited machining stage. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claims 2 and 16, the claim states “before the folding process”, this renders the claim indefinite since there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation and no previously folding process has been set forth. Is the folding process referring to when the fold is formed?
With regards to claims 4 and 17, the claim states “the base is punched out in the same machining stage” it is unclear which stages is being referred to. Specifically if the machining station is intending to refer to a machining stage that would result in more than one machining stage and it is unclear which one is to be the same.
With regards to claims 5 and 18, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the position” found in line 2.
With regards to claims 7 and 19, the claim states “during its transportation” this renders the claim indefinite since the method fails to set forth a transportation step or operation.
With regards to claims 10 and 21, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the final rim curl” in line 6.
The claim states “wherein at least one further stage” this renders the claim indefinite since it appears to be using the phrase wherein to introduce a new element. It is noted that wherein clauses are intending to further define a previously recited element or step, in this case it appears that the claim is referencing a new further stage. It is suggested to amend the claim to contain the phrase further comprising.
With regards to claims 11, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the desired partial height” found in line 4.
The claim states “the shape of a cup with…a base” and “blank is formed…before generating a rolled rim with an axial neck region”, it is unclear if this base is different from the previously recited base of claim 1, if “a rolled rim” is intending to refer to the rolled rim set forth in the preamble of claim 1, and if the neck region is intending to refer to the neck portion of claim 1 or be in addition to the neck portion of claim 1.
With regards to claim 12, the claim states “wherein a stage before the machining stage” this renders the claim indefinite since it appears to be using the phrase wherein to introduce a new element. It is noted that wherein clauses are intending to further define a previously recited element or step, in this case it appears that the claim is referencing a new stage. It is suggested to amend the claim to contain the phrase further comprising.
With regards to claim 13, the claim states “to produce the rolled rim…in a first step…and in a second step…” it is unclear what stage these steps are intending to further define or if they are intending to set forth steps within an additional stage. It is noted that claim 1 fails to recite any steps but rather narrates what occurs within stages, i.e. one or more stages and the machining stage, therefore it is unclear if these first and second steps are performed within the machining stage, the one or more stages or if they are performed within an additional stage not previously recited. Specifically, it is unclear when these steps occur within the stages set forth in claim 1. Clarification and/or correction is required.
There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the bending radius” and “the axial portion” found in line 10, the limitation “the material thickness” found in line 11, and the limitation “the radial length” found in line 14.
The claim states “in the region of 2-5 times the material thickness” it is unclear if the phrase “in the region” is intending to set froth a range or a location.
With regards to claim 14, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the material thickness” found in line 2.
The claim appears to be a duplicate limitation of the limitation “wherein the material of the blank is steel sheet” in line 6.
With regards to claim 15, the claim states “for producing an aerosol dome for a spray can” it is unclear if the limitation “an aerosol dome” is intending to refer to the same aerosol dome of claim 1 or if it is setting forth an additional aerosol dome. For examination purposes the limitation is being interpreted as: wherein the aerosol dome is for a spray can.
With regards to claim 22, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the desired partial height” found in line 4.
The claim states “the shape of a cup with…a base” and “blank is formed…before generating a rolled rim with an axial neck region”, it is unclear if this base is different from the previously recited base of claim 1, if “a rolled rim” is intending to refer to the rolled rim set forth in the preamble of claim 1, and if the neck region is intending to refer to the neck portion of claim 1 or be in addition to the neck portion of claim 1.
There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the radius” and “the transition region” found in line 4.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation 0.2-1.0mm and in at least one, and the claim also recites 0.3-0.6mm and in two further stages which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The claim states “in the fifth stage” this renders the claim indefinite since a fifth stage has not been previously recited. It is noted that even if the “two further stages” option is selected this results in three stages, therefore it is unclear what is the fifth stage.
With regards to claim 23, the claim states “in the second stage and/or the third stage and/or the fourth stage”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if this is intending to further define the “in one or more stages” previously recited in claim 1, additionally there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second, third and fourth stages. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 24, the claim states “to produce the rolled rim…in a first step, in the fifth stage…and in a second step…” it is unclear what stage these steps are intending to further define or if they are intending to set forth steps within an additional stage. It is noted that claim 1 fails to recite any steps but rather narrates what occurs within stages, i.e. one or more stages and the machining stage, therefore it is unclear if these first and second steps are performed within the machining stage, the one or more stages or if they are performed within an additional stage not previously recited. Specifically, it is unclear when these steps occur within the stages set forth in claim 1. It is further noted that claim 1 sets forth “in one or more stages” but fails to set forth a first, second, third or fourth stage to allow for a fifth stage as set forth in claim 24, it is unclear if the fifth stage is intending to be of the one or more stages. Clarification and/or correction is required.
There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the bending radius” and “the axial portion” found in line 10, the limitation “the material thickness” found in line 11, and the limitation “the radial length” found in line 14.
The claim states “in the region of 2-5 times the material thickness” it is unclear if the phrase “in the region” is intending to set forth a range or a location.
With regards to claim 25, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation 0.15-0.4mm, and the claim also recites 0.18-0.34mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regards to claims 2-9, 13 and 16-20, it is noted that the claims introduce additional structural elements but lacks any relationship between the newly introduced structural elements and the previously recited structural elements. Therefore it is unclear if they are constructed in a single apparatus or are they in multiple apparatuses, it is further unclear how they operate to perform the functions recited in the claims. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Examiner notes that no art has been applied to claims 1-25 because “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art” [see MPEP 2173.06.II], however, the claims as currently presented are not deemed allowable and Applicant is required to clarify in compliance with 35 USC 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and the protection sought.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
