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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites viscosity units of “cps” which appears to be centipoise and should be recited as “cP”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-7 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, 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
624
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
496
media_image2.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+).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WU; KUN-TSAN et al.
US 20110318591 A1
OU; WU-ZHENG et al.
US 20160120046 A1
JELTSCH; Thomas et al.
US 20150104638 A1
HAYASHIDA; Takeshi et al.
US 20210000308 A1
Goldbach, Hubert et al.
US 20020168499 A1
Okonski; David A. et al.
US 20200353656 A1
Li; Jing et al.
US 10931800 B2
Hamano; Koji et al.
US 7601289 B2
Kuriya; Hiroyuki et al.
US 5449480 A
Egerer; Gerhard et al.
US 8216501 B2
Groh; Werner et al.
US 5208884 A
Lambert; William Roger et al.
US 6255587 B1
Hsiao; Cheng-ping et al.
US 12305677 B2
Alcazar; Ross et al.
US 8514494 B2
Tachi; Kentaro et al.
US 9281101 B2
Mencel, Jr.; Joseph W. et al.
US 10675798 B2
Itakura; Masahiko et al.
US 11590608 B2
Hill; Matthew D. et al.
US 10148000 B2
Hyuga; Shunta et al.
US 8695211 B2
Takahashi; Kazuhiro
US 10960586 B2
EJIMA MITSUAKI et al.
JP 2014210548 A
XIAO, Cheng-ping et al.
CN 119435533 A
Chien et al.
Impact of Runner Size, Gate Size, Polymer Viscosity, and Molding Process on Filling Imbalance in Geometrically Balanced Multi-Cavity Injection Molding
Xie et al.
Effect of gate dimension on micro injection molded weld line strength with polypropylene (PP) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
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