DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 24 April 2026, amending claim 2, and adding claims 10-15, are acknowledged.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomizo et al. (US 11,338,484 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Nomizo discloses a method for combining heterogeneous metal parts (title/abstract), comprising steps of:
a) disposing a first metal part and a second metal part in a lower mold cavity of a lower mold, the first metal part and the second metal part being made of different materials (13:66-14:7), wherein the lower mold cavity has a lower portion, and an upper portion on which the first metal part and the second metal part are disposed spaced apart laterally (FIG. 9A-B), a top surface of the first metal part and a top surface of the second metal part being disposed outwardly of the lower mold, the lower mold including a channel that extends from an inner surface in the upper portion of the upper mold cavity to an outer surface of the upper mold and that communicates the upper portion with an external environment, note that this is opposite of the claimed orientation;
b) combining an upper mold and the lower mold with an upper mold cavity of the upper mold facing the lower mold cavity, wherein the upper mold cavity is recessed from a combining surface of the upper mold in a direction away from the lower mold to terminate at an inner base surface, and is defined by the inner base surface and an inner surrounding surface that interconnects the combining surface and the inner base surface, the combining surface of the upper mold being in contact with the lower mold when the upper mold and the lower mold are combined, the inner base surface being in contact with the top surface of the first metal part and the top surface of the second metal part after combining the upper mold and the lower mold; and
c) injecting a bonding adhesive into the channel so as to fill the lower portion of the lower mold cavity and a gap between the first metal part and the second metal part with the bonding adhesive, wherein the bonding adhesive has a viscosity so that the bonding adhesive is unable to flow outside the lower mold after being injecting into the channel (FIG. 3-5; 9:30+).
Although Nomizo suggest that the resin is injected through a channel in the upper mold, the skilled artisan would recognize that it would be prima facie obvious to reverse the orientation of the molds such that the resin is injected through the lower mold (MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Nomizo suggests step d) after step c), wherein step d) involves curing the bonding adhesive after step c) so as to combine the first metal part and the second metal part (10:46+).
Regarding claim 7, Nomizo suggests step e) after step d), wherein step e) involves removing the upper mold, and taking out the first metal part and the second metal part from the lower mold cavity after the first metal part and the second metal part are combined by the bonding adhesive (11:3+).
Regarding claim 11, Nomizo suggests the first metal part and the second metal part are entirely spaced apart from each other (FIG. 9A-B).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomizo et al. (US 11,338,484 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sato et al. (JP 2013-155757 A)
Nomizo discloses thermosetting resins (14:30+).
Nomizo does not appear to expressly disclose the claimed viscosity or epoxy.
However, Sato discloses a similar method of bonding dissimilar metal pipes (title/abstract) with an epoxy resin having viscosity of 100,000 mPa·s (cP) or more (p. 4).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nomizo to include the viscous epoxy of Sato, because such materials are known in the art for the same intended use.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomizo et al. (US 11,338,484 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (Effects of gate design and cavity thickness on filling, morphology and mechanical properties of microinjection mouldings)
Nomizo does not appear to expressly disclose the configuration or dimensions of the channel/gate.
However, Zhang discloses the influence on gate shape and dimensions on mold filling with converging gates having widths on the order of 1.5 to 1.6mm and thickness of 0.08-0.21 mm (pp. 836+ § 2.1. Material and mould; FIG. 2; Table 1).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nomizo to include gates of Zhang, because such gates are known in the art and could be used to prevent underfilling and improve cooling rates of the molded articles (Zhang pp. 835-836 § 1. Introduction).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomizo et al. (US 11,338,484 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Huang et al. (KR 10-2019-0027304 A).
Nomizo discloses removing the burr after demolding (11:12+).
Nomizo does not appear to expressly disclose polishing or painting.
However, Huang discloses a method of joining metal parts by injection molding (pp. 4) wherein the resulting articles are sandblasted, i.e. polished, and spray painted (pp. 4).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nomizo to include the polishing/spray painting of Huang, because such finishing is known in the art and could be preformed to improve the articles aesthetics with expected results.
Claims 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomizo et al. (US 11,338,484 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Okonski et al. (US 2020/0353656 A1).
Nomizo suggests a method for bonding radially spaced pipes and does not appear to expressly disclose the claimed configuration.
However, Okonski discloses a similar method for bonding spaced metal articles 12/14 (title/abstract, ¶¶ 20+; FIG. 2-4) wherein the inner base surface of the upper mold 52 is planar (FIG. 2-4), the top and bottom surfaces of the first metal part is flush with the top and bottom surfaces of the second metal part (FIG. 2-4), and the lower portion of the lower mold cavity is located beneath both the first metal part and the second metal part (FIG. 2-4).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of Nomizo to include the configuration of Okonski, in order to mold alternative structures such as the planar metal panels of Okonski with a method known in the art having expected results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomizo et al. (US 11,338,484 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wu et al. (US 2011/0318591 A1).
Nomizo suggests a method of bonding pipes which extend beyond the mold cavity and therefore does not appear to expressly disclose the claimed two opposite mold edge regions in contact with the first and second metal parts.
However, Wu discloses a similar method of molding spaced articles 10/30 which are enclosed within the mold and are positioned at opposite edges of the mold 42 (FIG. 2).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of Nomizo to include the enclosed articles at the mold edges of Wu, in order to mold alternative structures with a method known in the art having expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Nomizo does not disclose the claimed laterally spaced apart metal parts, pointing to the preferred embodiment shown in FIG. 3. The Examiner agrees that FIG. 3 show that the metal parts are in contact. However, FIG. 9A-B shows an alternative embodiment in which the metal parts are spaced and not in contact, which the Examiner considers to meet the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed “spaced apart laterally.”
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 Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights