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. Election/Restrictions Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-1 6 , drawn to metal injection molding (MIM) apparatus , classified in CPC B22F 3/00. II. Claims 1 7 -18 , drawn to a method of manufacturing a metallic frame using MIM and mixture of metal powder & binder , classified in CPC B22F 1/10. 2. Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the MIM apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process which does not require a binder. For example, the MIM apparatus can form a different product made of binderless metal powder mixture. 3. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). prior art applicable to one invention may not be applicable to another. 4. During a telephone conversation with Sujin Park on 2/26/26 , a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim Interpretation Examiner notes that elected claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114) . F unctional limitations are usually followed by a linking term “for”, “configured to” , “performing”, “carry out”, etc. relating to operation of the apparatus, and do not structurally contribute to the apparatus. Furthermore, e xaminer notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. In this case , “ metal injection molded product ” (claim 1) ; specific metal powder & binder compositions (claims 5-8) are workpiece material s which do not structurally limit the MIM apparatus or support means . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “ restrained gap between the support means and the metal injection molded product is in the range of 1.5 to 5.5% ” (claim 9) must be shown in at least one figure. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-16 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 respect to claim 1 , phrase “metal injection molded system ” is ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by “ molded system”- this implies that apparatus/system has already be en molded. Feature of “ the insides of corners” (line 6) lacks sufficient antecedent basis since ‘ inside corners ’ have not been previously recited. Based on the description in specification and support means used during sintering, it appears that apparatus & support is for the sintering process , not for actual injection molding (which involves injecting a mixture into a mold to make a molded product) . The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim s indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim s are taken to mean: A metal injection molding and sintering system. With respect to claim 9, limitation a restrained gap between the support means and the metal injection molded product is in the range of 1.5 to 5.5% is ambiguous because it is not clear what the percentage mean s and how they are determined ? Applicant’s specification states that a restrained gap is 0% when the sidewalls and the corner supports come into close contact with each other (paragraph [29] ) - however, “close contact” does not clarify whether there is actual contact or not? Moreover, it is confusing on what basis the percentages are measured (a lso note the drawing objection above). The recited conflicting language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean : a gap between the support means and the molded sidewalls is adjustable. With respect to claims 11-1 4 , features the forms of multi-connection inside corner supports disposed to pass through the corresponding support mea ns are ambiguous and lack sufficient antecedent basis. Applicant’s specification repeats the same language without explaining the implied structure. It is unclear how locking arrangement is achieved? The locking should be pointed out in at least one figure . The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: a plurality of inside corner supports . Appropriate corrections are requested. 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 1-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al. (JP 2016 - 147778 A, hereafter “Fukushima”, see attached document) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2013/0315774, hereafter “Cheng”) . Regarding claim 1, Fukushima discloses a molding and sintering system comprising: a metal molded product 4 having molded side walls to make a metallic frame in such a way as to allow the molded side walls to intersect to provide the metal molded product having a closed shape (molded rectangular body 4 shown as a dotted line- figs. 1-4 , [0018] ) ; and a support means 2-3 (figs. 2, 4- support members) disposed at the insides of corners at which the molded side walls intersect to fix the molded side walls thereto so that the molded side walls are prevented from shrinking in longitudinal directions thereof during a sintering process ( [0028], see figs. 2, 4 description) . It is further noted that feature of preventing shrinking is a resulting effect, not a structural feature. Fukush i ma merely differs in that it is lacks metal injection mold ing or metal injection mold ed product . However, MIM is well-known to one skilled in the art. Cheng teaches a metal injection molding (MIM) method [0002] comprising a mold 7 (fig. 2) to produce high precision metal parts (fig. 3- step 2) with a subsequent sintering process (fig. 3- step 5) for sintering multiple molded articles/products in a sintering chamber 81 (fig. 4, [0019]). Cheng teaches the electronic parts today with small parts require relatively high precision and dimensional tolerance [0005]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to produce a metal injection molded part using the molding & sintering system of Fukushima with a motivation to fabricate a desired part, such as precise electronic part, as suggested by Cheng. Thus, Fukushima as modified by Cheng discloses a metal injection molding and sintering apparatus for forming a metal molded product having a closed shape with sidewalls. As to claim 2, Fukushim a shows that the support means 2 (members) comprises inside corner supports fixed to one surface thereof (figs. 2, 4). As to claims 3-4, Fukushima discloses that the support means 2 does not react to the molded side walls by selecting the support means entirely made of an unreactive material (alumina or zirconia- [0030]) that does not react to the metal side walls of molded body/product 4 (example 1). As to claims 5-8, the metal injection molding and sintering apparatus in the combination of Fukushima & Cheng in claim 1 above is configured to process any mixture of metal powder and a binder , including recited compositions. Examiner points out that specific types of powder/binder mixture does not limit the apparatus claims; this feature would only limit a method claim. As to claim 9, Fukushima discloses that a restrained gap between the support means 2 and the metal molded product 4 is adjustable (figs. 1-2) . It is noted this claim is indefinite in scope. As to claim 10, Fukushima shows that the metal molded product 4 has polygonal corners, and the inside corner supports 2 have shapes corresponding to the insides of the polygonal c orners (fig. 2). As to claims 11-14, as best understood in light of indefinite claim language, Fukushima discloses a plurality of inside corner supports 2 (fig. 2). As to claim 15 , Fukushima discloses the mold ing & sintering system further comprising guide members (additional support members 2) for supporting any one or more of the inner surfaces, the width directions, and the thickness directions of the molded side walls (figs. 2, 4). Examiner notes that broad term “guide members” do not require specific structure and can be of any shape. As to claim 16, Fukushima discloses that the additional support me mbers 2 (guide members) are made of an unreactive material (alumina or zirconia - [0030]) that does not react to the molded metal side walls of body/product 4. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/23 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3636 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm , EST. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice . Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of A pplicant. I f Applicant wishes to communicate via email , a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms . The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications , see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms . In limited circumstances , the A pplicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458 . 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 Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov . For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1- 866-217-9197 (toll-free) . /DEVANG R PATEL/ Primary Examiner, AU 1735