DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 16 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 16 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 06/23/2025 has been entered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
KRAUSE ET AL (US 2005/0042456),
in view of JP 2011-240496 (YAMADA-JP ‘496),
and in view of MITOOKA ET AL (US 2010/000915),
and in view of SAWADA ET AL (US 2015/0083302).
KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 discloses composite polymer / metal articles generally comprising:
• at least one part (1) comprising metal (corresponding to the recited “metallic layer”);
• an adhesion promoter material (corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer”) on one or more surfaces (11, 12) of metal part (1);
• a laser-absorptive layer or film (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer”) at the interface (5) between thermoplastic part (1) and metal part (2);
• at least one part (2) comprising thermoplastic material (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component”) (e.g., polyamide, etc.), wherein thermoplastic part(s) (2) can be highly transmissive (corresponding to the recited “at least in part translucent”) to the wavelengths of the laser used in producing the composite article;
wherein the composite article can be formed by direct or indirect application of a laser toward the metal part (1) -- for example, indirect application of laser (3) through laser-transmissive thermoplastic part(s) (2) to bond the thermoplastic part(2) (2) and metal part(s) (1) of the composite together. The composite can comprise a single-sided composite article formed by laser-welding, wherein the single-sided composited article can comprise, in the stated order:
(i) a first thermoplastic part (2);
(ii) a laser-absorptive layer at (5);
(iii-a) adhesion promoter material;
(iii) metal part (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
520
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, the composite article can be a double-sided composite (e.g., a plastic / metal / plastic sandwich), wherein the double-sided composite can comprise, in the stated order:
(i) a first thermoplastic part (2);
(ii) a first laser-absorptive layer at (5);
(iii-a) a first adhesion promoter material;
(iii) metal part (1);
(iv) a second thermoplastic part (2);
wherein the double-sided composite articles are formed by laser welding, either directly and/or indirectly, to join the first and second thermoplastic parts (2) to the metal part (1). (entire document, e.g., Figures 1-2, etc.; paragraph 0006-0009, 0013, 0016, 0018-0019, 0021, 0023-0026, 0028, 0030, 0036-0039, 0043, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss “substance-locking contact”).
YAMADA-JP ‘496 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize a combination of a primer coating (4) (corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer”) and an intermediate layer (5) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer”) in order to improve adhesion when joining the disparate layers of a composite article (e.g., metal layer (2); polymer layer (3); etc.) by laser welding, as illustrated below:
second member (3) of YAMADA-JP ‘496
(corresponding to the recited “polymeric component” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the thermoplastic part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456)
wherein the second member (3) is a laser-transmitting material (e.g., laser-transparent resin, etc.)
intermediate material (5) of YAMADA-JP ‘496,
(corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the laser-absorptive layer or film at (5) between thermoplastic part (1) and metal part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456)
wherein the intermediate material (5) comprises: a first resin fusible with the resin in primer layer (4); a second resin fusible with the resin of second member (3); and laser-absorbing additives
primer layer (4) of YAMADA-JP ‘496
(corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the adhesion promoter material on the metal part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456)
wherein the primer layer (4):
(i) can comprise thermoplastics (e.g., polyamide, etc.);
(ii) can be reactive with first member (2) (corresponding to the recited “metallic layer”) and/or intermediate layer (5) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer); and
(iii) can further contain adhesive or adhesion-promoting materials (e.g., tackifiers; silane coupling agents, etc.)
first member (2) of YAMADA-JP ‘496
(corresponding to the recited “metallic layer” of claim 1)
wherein first member (2) is a non-laser-transparent material (e.g., metal, etc.)
The reference further discloses that when first member (2) is metal, the primer layer (4) is selected to have good adhesion to the metal of the first member (2). The reference further discloses that upon heating using a laser: (i) the material of primer layer (4) (corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer” of claim 1) and the material of intermediate layer (5) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1) become fused together (corresponding to the recited “substance-locking contact”); and (ii) the material of intermediate layer (5) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1) becomes fused with polymer layer (3) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component” of claim 1) (also corresponding to the recited “substance-locking contact”); thereby providing a joint with excellent bond strength. (Figure 1, etc.; paragraph 0015-0016, 0023-0025, 0027-0029, 0033, 0035-0036; 0040-0041, 0045, 0048-0051, 0053, 0058-0059, 0062, 0069-0073, etc.)
MITOOKA ET AL ‘915 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize polyamide resins to form: (i) a laser-transmitting polymer member (3) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component); and/or (ii) an intermediate member (3) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer”) containing a laser-absorbing additive; in metal (4) / polymer (3) composites in order to facilitate the formation of laser-welded bonds with high bond strength. (Figure 1, etc.; paragraph 0001-0002, 0009-0011, 0028-0034, 0045, 0051, 0054, 0059, etc.)
SAWADA ET AL ‘302 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize thermoplastic resins of the same kind in separate components in laser-welded articles in order to facilitate melt adhesion by laser beam at component interfaces. (paragraph 0020, 0031, etc.)
Regarding claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a laser-absorptive layer (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” and the “second functional layer) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 to each side of the metal part (1) (corresponding to the recited “metallic layer”) in order to facilitate the laser welding of polymer / metal composites of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 and improve the adhesion of thermoplastic part (2) to both sides of a central metal part (1) in a laser-welded double-sided composite article having a (2) plastic / (1) metal / (2) plastic sandwich structure in accordance with KRAUSE ET AL ‘456.
Alternatively, regarding claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known second performance-enhancing functional layer (e.g., a protective coating; an adhesion-promoting coating; a corrosion-resistant coating; UV-blocking coating; a decorative paint coating; etc.) on the side (11) of the metal part (1) (corresponding to the recited “metallic layer”) opposite the laser-absorptive layer at (5) in order to improve various performance properties (e.g., corrosion-resistance; adhesion to subsequently applied layers; resistance to outdoor environmental conditions; visual or aesthetic effects; etc.) of a laser-welded single-sided composite article having a (2) plastic / (1) metal structure in accordance with KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 for specific applications.
Further regarding claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, one of ordinary skill in the art would have:
(i) utilized known adhesion-promoting materials optionally containing laser-absorbing additives (e.g., the reactive and/or adhesive fusible primer (4) of YAMADA-JP ‘496) as an adhesion promoter material on surfaces (11) and (12) of the metal part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456;
and
(ii) utilized known functional (e.g., bonding) layer compositions containing laser-absorbing additives (e.g., the adherent, fusible intermediate layer (5) of YAMADA-JP ‘496) to form the laser-absorptive layer(s) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” and “second functional layer”) in KRAUSE ET AL ‘456;
in order to further improve the interlayer adhesion between the metal part (1) and a thermoplastic part (2) in the laser-welded composites of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456, especially at relatively low laser power settings -- for example, but not limited to, a symmetrical double-sided (1) polymer / (2) metal / (1) polymer composite produced in accordance with KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 which comprises:
(i) a first thermoplastic part (2) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the thermoplastic part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456)
made from a laser-transmissive resin (e.g., polyamide as suggested in KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 and MITOOKA ET AL ‘915);
(ii) a first laser-absorptive layer (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the laser-absorptive layer or film at (5) between thermoplastic part (1) and metal part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456)
-- e.g., the adherent, fusible polymeric laser-absorbing intermediate layer (5) disclosed in YAMADA-JP ‘496 -- for example, comprising the same kind of thermoplastic resin as used in the first thermoplastic part (2) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the thermoplastic part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456), as suggested by SAWADA ET AL ‘302;
(iii-a) a first adhesion-promoter material (corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the adhesion promoter material on the metal part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456) on a first side (12) of metal part (1)
-- e.g., the reactive and/or adhesive fusible primer layer (4) disclosed in YAMADA-JP ‘496;
(iii) metal part (1) (corresponding to the recited “metallic layer” of claim 1);
(iii-b) a second adhesion-promoter material (alternatively corresponding to the recited “second functional layer” of claims 10-11, 13) on a second side (11) of metal part (1) -- e.g., the reactive and/or adhesive fusible primer layer (4) disclosed in YAMADA-JP ‘496;
(iv) a second laser-absorptive layer (alternatively corresponding to the recited “second functional layer” of claims 10-11, 13) -- e.g., the adherent, fusible, laser-absorbing intermediate layer (5) disclosed in YAMADA-JP ‘496;
(v) a second thermoplastic part (2) mad from a laser-transmissive resin (e.g., polyamide as suggested in KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 and MITOOKA ET AL ‘915);
Further regarding claims 1, 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized the same kind (e.g., chemically similar) of resin (e.g., polyamide, as suggested in KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 and MITOOKA ET AL ‘915) in each non-metal layer in the (2) plastic / (1) metal structure in accordance with KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 -- e.g.:
(i) the first thermoplastic part (2) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the thermoplastic part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456);
and
(ii) the first laser-absorptive layer (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the laser-absorptive layer or film at (5) between thermoplastic part (1) and metal part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456) comprising the adherent, fusible polymeric laser-absorbing intermediate layer (5) disclosed in YAMADA-JP ‘496;
in order to facilitate melt adhesion of adjacent layers by laser beam at the interface between: (i) the first thermoplastic part (2) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the thermoplastic part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456); as suggested in SAWADA ET AL ‘302; and (ii) the first laser-absorptive layer (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1, and also corresponding to the laser-absorptive layer or film at (5) between thermoplastic part (1) and metal part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456).
Further regarding claims 1, 5, since:
(i) the primer layer (4) materials disclosed in YAMADA-JP ‘496 (corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer” of claim 1) can be chemically reactive with and/or becomes fused (e.g., melted) to with adjacent layers -- e.g., metal layer (2) (corresponding to the recited “metallic layer” of claim 1) and intermediate layer (5) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1); and
(ii) the intermediate layer (5) materials disclosed in YAMADA-JP ‘496 (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1) becomes fused to adjacent layers -- e.g., the primer layer (4) (corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer” of claim 1) and resin component (3) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component”); upon heating with a laser;
the Examiner has reason to believe that the laser-welded composites of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 utilizing known adhesion-promoter material layer (4) compositions (corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer” of claim 1) and laser-absorptive layer (5) compositions (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer”) in accordance with YAMADA-JP ‘496 would have the recited “substance-locking contact” (i.e., joined on a molecular and/or atomic level) between:
• the metal part (1) (corresponding to the recited “metallic component”); and
• the adhesion-promoter material (corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer”); and
• the laser-absorptive layer at (5) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer”);
thermoplastic part (2);
as recited in claims 1, 5, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant attributes various benefits and advantages to the claimed invention -- for example:
• “It is of further advantage that according to the present claims the polymeric component (3) can be produced in a standard injection molding process. Short cycle time and other injection molding parameters can properly be selected to obtain a polymeric component (3) with ideal properties. Moreover, the joining between the polymeric component (3) and the laminate component (1) can be done with a short cycle time. Joining can take place later in the production chain (e.g. during final assembly). Thus, the laminate component (1) may be produced in a metalworking company or workshop, whereas the polymeric component (3) can be fabricated on an injection molding machine.”;
• “In addition, an increased efficiency can be obtained by modularization. The laminate component (1) represents a uniform part and can be combined with different types of polymeric components (3). A metal press could work with several injection molding machines in one cycle. Further, the present claims provide a high degree of geometrical freedom of the components, since no consideration would have to be given to demolding, undercuts, rib height,
and other aspects of mold design.
• “laminate components comprising a laser-absorbing filler material (107) in the first functional layer show good Breaking Force per Weld Line Length values.”
Applicant further argues that “the cited references do not teach or suggest all the elements of the present claims. Rather, the previously cited references are deficient at least for the reasons above and the reasons of record.”
However, “the reasons above” merely constitute a listing of perceived benefits which Applicant attributes to the claimed invention. Regarding Applicant’s previously presented arguments, Applicant has failed to set forth with specificity persuasive arguments regarding elements of the claimed invention which are allegedly not taught or suggested by the relied upon combination of previously cited references cited in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the present Office Action (i.e., KRAUSE ET AL ‘456; YAMADA-JP ‘496; MITOOKA ET AL ‘915), for the reasons previously discussed in detail in the previous Office Action mailed 12/31/2025.
Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-01.2024]
* * *
II. THE EXPECTATION OF SOME ADVANTAGE IS THE STRONGEST RATIONALE FOR COMBINING REFERENCES
The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
* * *
IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below).
In In re Lintner, the claimed invention was a laundry composition consisting essentially of a dispersant, cationic fabric softener, sugar, sequestering phosphate, and brightener in specified proportions. The claims were rejected over the combination of a primary reference which taught all the claim limitations except for the presence of sugar, and secondary references which taught the addition of sugar as a filler or weighting agent in compositions containing cationic fabric softeners. Appellant argued that in the claimed invention, the sugar is responsible for the compatibility of the cationic softener with the other detergent components. The court sustained the rejection, stating "The fact that appellant uses sugar for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art composition would be [sic, would have been] prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the references." 173 USPQ at 562.
In In re Dillon, applicant claimed a composition comprising a hydrocarbon fuel and a sufficient amount of a tetra-orthoester of a specified formula to reduce the particulate emissions from the combustion of the fuel. The claims were rejected as obvious over a reference which taught hydrocarbon fuel compositions containing tri-orthoesters for dewatering fuels, in combination with a reference teaching the equivalence of tri-orthoesters and tetra-orthoesters as water scavengers in hydraulic (nonhydrocarbon) fluids. The Board affirmed the rejection finding "there was a ‘reasonable expectation’ that the tri- and tetra-orthoester fuel compositions would have similar properties based on ‘close structural and chemical similarity’ between the tri- and tetra-orthoesters and the fact that both the prior art and Dillon use these compounds ‘as fuel additives’." 919 F.2d at 692, 16 USPQ2d at 1900. The court held "it is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness . . . that there be a suggestion or expectation from the prior art that the claimed [invention] will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant," and concluded that here a prima facie case was established because "[t]he art provided the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties." 919 F.2d at 693, 16 USPQ2d at 1901 (emphasis in original).
Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims from the recited combinations of features in the present claims.
(B) Applicant argues that SAWADA ET AL ‘302 “does not cure address the alleged deficiencies of Krause, Yamada, and Mitooka.”
Applicant further argues that “First, Sawada does not define "same kind" for resins as referenced by the Office, so a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have fully appreciated the meaning, extent, or applications of the teachings of Sawada.” However, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, in the absence of an explicit definition to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the phrase “the thermoplastic resin of the same kind” as at least referring to thermoplastic resins of the same commonly recognized chemical category (e.g., polyester resins, polyamide resins, polyolefin resins, polystyrene resins, acrylic resins; urethane resins; etc.), and in particular referring to specific sub-categories of chemically similar thermoplastic resins which would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a high degree of chemical and thermal compatibility (e.g., thermoplastic polyesters derived from diacids and diols; aliphatic polyamides such as nylons such as polyamide 6 (Nylon 6), polyamide 66 (Nylon 66); etc.). SAWADA ET AL ‘302 represents the well-recognized principle in the art that chemically similar polymers generally tend to be chemically compatible and/or miscible, and therefore chemically similar polymers can be reasonably expected to bond well when melted or thermally fused together (e.g., by laser heating, etc.) -- for example, the presence of identical or highly similar chemical structures in two adjacent thermoplastic polymers allow for physical intertwining of the molecular chains of the adjacent thermoplastic polymers upon melting, in addition to allowing for the development of strong intermolecular attractive forces (e.g., Van der Waals forces; hydrogen bonding; etc.) between the molecular chains of the two adjacent thermoplastic materials. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the “meaning, extent, or applications of the teachings of Sawada” is readily apparent from SAWADA ET AL ‘302 is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art -- i.e., that “thermoplastic resins of the same kind” are chemically and thermally similar and therefore are generally expected to bond together upon melting (e.g., when heated by laser, etc.). Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence to the contrary.
(C) Applicant argues that “Second, Sawada is directed to a method of sealing a container and a lid by melt adhesion by laser (see Abstract). That is, Sawada is concerned with container sealing rather than a metal-polymer hybrid part or method of making same as presently claimed. These are entirely different technical problems and solutions. Sawada is therefore non-analogous art and would not have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the present claims. Sawada is deficient at least for these reasons.”
In response to applicant's argument that SAWADA ET AL ‘302 is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case: (i) the field of the inventor’s endeavor is the assembly and bonding together of multiple components; and (ii) the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned is the providing of a “method for manufacturing a metal-polymer hybrid part as well as the metal-polymer hybrid part itself which exhibit enhanced joining stability as well practical applicability. It is another aim of the present invention to provide a laminate component of metal and polymer which can be processed by well-known metal working techniques.”. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, SAWADA ET AL ‘302 is proper analogous art because: (i) the reference is related to assembly and bonding together of multiple components; and (ii) the reference suggests how the bonding together (e.g., via laser) of multiple polymeric components can be improved -- i.e., by utilizing the “same kind” (e.g., chemically similar) thermoplastic resins -- which is relevant because both KRAUSE ET AL ‘456’s composite polymer / metal articles and Applicant’s claimed metal-polymer hybrid part each can contain multiple adjacent polymeric components (e.g., layers) in addition to the metal component, and therefore improved adhesion between those adjacent polymeric components can be reasonably expected to improve the overall intercomponent adhesion and thereby improving the “joining stability” of the resulting metal-containing article which is desired by KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 and is a focus of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims from the recited combinations of features in the present claims.
(D) Applicant has previously argued that the recited presence of: (i) polyamide in the recited first functional layer; (ii) the recited intermediate layer; and (iii) polyamide in the recited polymeric component; provides “several surprising and advantageous technical effects”. In response to applicant's argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In particular:
(i) YAMADA-JP ‘596 discloses the use of an intermediate material (5) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1), wherein the intermediate material (5) comprises: a first resin fusible with the resin in primer layer (4); a second resin fusible with the resin of second member (3); and laser-absorbing additives; while SAWADA ET AL ‘302 suggests the use of thermoplastic resins of the same kind in adjacent components in laser-welded articles in order to facilitate melt adhesion by laser beam at component interfaces. Therefore, since polyamide is mentioned as a preferred material for the thermoplastic part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456, SAWADA ET AL ‘302 reasonably suggests the use of the “same kind of thermoplastic resin” (e.g., polyamide) in the intermediate material (5) (corresponding to the recited “first functional layer” of claim 1) of YAMADA-JP ‘596 in order to facilitate melt adhesion by laser welding;
(ii) both KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 and YAMADA-JP ‘496 discuss the use of a structural component corresponding to the recited “intermediate layer” (i.e., the adhesion promoter material of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456; the primer layer (4) of YAMADA-JP ‘496) to improve adhesion of a polymeric component to a metal component in a laser-welded polymer / metal composite article;
(iii) polyamide is mentioned as a preferred material for the thermoplastic part (2) of KRAUSE ET AL ‘456 (corresponding to the recited “polymeric component”).
Applicant has not provided objective evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims from the recited presence of: (i) polyamide in the recited first functional layer; (ii) the recited intermediate layer; (iii) polyamide in the recited polymeric component; or other features recited in the present claims.
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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
June 9, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights