DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 23 July 2026, amending claims 1, 3-4, 6, 10, 15-16, adding claims 21-23, and canceling claims 2, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 17-20, 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, and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (DE 1 729 168 B) in view of Weaver et al. (US 4,965,037 A).
Regarding claim 1, Held discloses a method for manufacturing a composite component (title/abstract) comprising:
obtaining a name plate (abstract; FIG. 1), equated with the claimed desired decorative image configured to be displayed on an exterior surface of a decorative automotive component (abstract, FIG. 1);
forming an injection mold having a relief-like surface, equated with the claimed negative of the desired decorative image formed on an interior mold surface (FIG. 1; ¶ 4);
preparing a first surface of a portion of a thin metal foil, equated with the claimed providing a flat metal stock plate that is not pre-formed by a stamping operation corresponding to the desired decorative image (FIG. 1-2; ¶ 4);
applying an adhesive to a first surface of the flat metal stock plate (¶ 9);
placing the stock metal material into the injection mold, equated with the claimed positioning the flat metal stock plate within the injection mold such that a second surface of the flat metal stock plate faces the negative of the desired decorative image (FIG. 1-2; ¶¶ 4, 6, 18);
injecting plastic mold material into the injection mold (FIG. 1-2; ¶¶ 4, 18);
wherein the injection mold causes the mold material to deform the stock material such that the image projects from a second surface of the portion of stock material (FIG. 1-2; ¶¶ 4, 18).
further steps of cooling and removing are implied when forming the finished part, equated with the claimed cooling the plastic mold material such that the plastic mold material bonds to the flat metal stock plate through the adhesive; and
removing the decorative automotive component from the injection mold;
wherein the desired decorative image is formed on the exterior surface of the flat metal stock plate solely by deformation caused by pressure of the plastic mold material injected behind the flat metal stock plate and without a separate stamping operation used to form the desired decorative image prior to insertion of the flat metal stock plate into the injection mold (FIG. 1-2; ¶¶ 8-9).
Held does not appear to expressly disclose adding an additive to the injection material, the additive increases the surface energy of the injection material to increase adherence of the injection material to stock material.
However, Weaver discloses a similar process of injection molding composite components (title/abstract) in which the injected material chemically bonds with the insert and also includes chain extender, curing agent, and optional additives which improve the chemical reaction (6:3+, 6:45+).
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 Held to include the materials of Weaver, in order to ensure permanent bonding of the insert to the injected material with expected results.
Regarding claim 15, Held discloses depressions on an interior mold surface define the negative of the decorative image (¶¶ 4, 18).
Regarding claim 16, Held discloses pressure from the plastic mold materialinjected behind the flat metal stock plate forces the flat metal stock plate into the depressions to form raised projections on the exterior surface (¶¶ 4, 18).
Claims 3-4, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (DE 1 729 168 B) in view of Weaver et al. (US 4,965,037 A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Meschke et al. (US 10,201,105 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Held does not appear to expressly disclose aluminum.
However, Meschke discloses similar method of forming composite injection molded components (title/abstract) wherein the metal insert is aluminum (4:15+).
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 Held to include the aluminum of Meschke, because such materials are known in the art and could be substituted with expected results.
Regarding claim 4, Held suggests the stock material is a plate having a thickness 2.0 mm or less (abstract, ¶ 6).
Regarding claim 22-23, Meschke suggests that the plastic molded part can have functional features 1013 for example facets 1016 which can engage and couple to other housing component or internal device composites or provide increased strength or weakness (¶ 76; FIG. 10A-B)
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (DE 1 729 168 B) in view of Weaver et al. (US 4,965,037 A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Winget et al. (US 6,620,371 B1).
Held does not appear to expressly disclose the injection pressure.
However, Winget discloses a similar method of injection molding composite components (title/abstract) at pressures of 50-15k psi (claim 3).
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 Held to include the pressures of Winget, because such pressures are conventional in the art and could be used to deform the stock material with expected results.
Claims 10 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (DE 1 729 168 B) in view of Weaver et al. (US 4,965,037 A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kalair et al. (WO 2024/206420 A1)
Held does not appear to expressly disclose a vehicle sill plate or a vehicle brand name, model designation, logo, pattern.
However, Kalair discloses a similar method for injection molding composite components (title/abstract) for use as a vehicle sill plate and including a vehicle brand name, model designation, logo, pattern (¶¶ 4, 6, title/abstract).
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 Held to include the uses of Kalair, because such intended uses are known in the art and could be made with expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Held is a different process than claimed and does not address Weaver. The Examiner disagrees, see the rejection above. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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