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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-20 are pending. Claims 9-13 remain withdrawn. Claim 20 is new.
In view of the amendment, filed 06/19/2026, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 03/26/2026:
Claim rejections under 102 and 103
Nonstatutory double patenting rejections
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher et al., US 20170157812 A1 (of record), in view of Constantinou, US 20210187794 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Becher discloses a gasket molding method for molding a gasket on a workpiece (method for producing a gasket on a component using a shaping tool, Abstract; the shaping tool being a mold, [0016]), comprising, in the order recited:
An application step (Fig. 3 step 1, introducing sealing material; the sealing material being applied by a squeegee, [0044]) for applying an active energy ray curable liquid (sealing material, [0044], which is curable by UV irradiation, [0046]) into a cavity of a molding die (into a cavity of the shaping tool, [0044]) using a dispenser (using a squeegee that applies sealing material into the cavity, [0044], i.e., that dispenses sealing material and thus is a dispenser);
A bonding step (Fig. 3 steps 2-3, placing the component onto the lower face of the shaping tool provided with the shaping material and pressing the component onto the tool, [0045]) for bonding the molding die coated with the active energy ray curable liquid and the workpiece (pressing the shaping tool provided with the sealing material and the component together, [0045]), wherein both position control and load control are performed (the component is placed onto the molding tool and pressed onto the molding tool, [0045], such that both position control (positioning of the component relative to the molding tool by placing the component onto the molding tool) and load control (pressing the component onto the tool) are performed);
A curing step (Fig. 3 step 4, curing, [0046]) for curing the applied active energy ray curable liquid by irradiation with an active energy ray (curing the sealing material with UV irradiation, [0046]); and
A mold release step (Fig. 3 step 5, removing the tool, [0047]) for pulling off the gasket from the molding die together with the workpiece (the tool is removed from the component to be sealed and the gasket joined to the same, [0047]).
Becher discloses that contrary to a typical injection molding process, clamping of the component with the mold and the attendant pressing pressure are dispensed with ([0025]). Becher is silent as to the molding die and the workpiece being bonded with a load of 1 MPa or less.
In the analogous art of molding UV curable materials (Abstract, [0023]-[0024]), Constantinou discloses molding a UV curable material to another workpiece material through a radiation transparent mold ([0089]-[0090], Figs. 7A-7E) wherein the materials are bonded in the mold with the application of pressure in a range of about 20 to about 60 psi (about 0.1 to about 0.4 MPa) prior to their curing and removal from the mold ([0091]-[0092], Figs. 7A-7E). The prior art range is entirely within the claimed range of 1 MPa or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify for the bonding step of Becher that the molding die and the workpiece were bonded with a load of 1 MPa or less in order to establish a suitable bonding pressure for compressing the materials together prior to their curing and consolidation to ensure adherence of the materials in the final product as taught by Constantinou.
Regarding claim 2, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, in the application step, the active energy ray curable liquid is applied in an amount equal to or more than 100% of a volume of the cavity (Becher: the sealing material is applied to the cavity until the cavity is completely filled with the sealing material, [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the molding die has transparency (Becher: has UV transparency, [0031], [0041], UV transmissibility, [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1. In the exemplified method, Becher discloses the molding die is made from silicone ([0041], [0044]) and thus does not disclose the molding die is made of one or more materials selected from a group consisting of polymethyl methacrylate, cycloolefin polymer, polycarbonate, and glass. However, Becher further discloses that, instead of silicone, suitable materials for the mold cavity include at least glass, polycarbonate, and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, and/or glass in place of the silicone material as a substitution of one known UV-transparent mold material for another yielding predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(B). Note also that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been shown to support a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 6, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, in the curing step, the active energy ray is irradiated from a side of the molding die opposite to a molding surface, wherein the molding surface is a surface of the cavity of the molding die (Becher: is irradiated through the molding die, [0046], i.e., from a side opposite to the molding surface including the sealing material and component).
Regarding claim 8, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the workpiece is a fuel cell component (Becher: the component being designed for use in fuel cells, [0018], [0020]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, in the application step, the dispenser applies the active energy ray curable liquid while moving (Becher: the sealing material is applied and pressed through a screen by way of the squeegee and introduced into the cavity, this step is repeated until the cavity is completely filled with the sealing material, [0044], i.e., there is movement of the dispenser relative to the cavity).
Regarding claim 18, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 17. Becher is silent as to the dispenser moving in a unicursal trajectory. However, Becher discloses the shaping tool 14 and the cavity 13 have an approximately square shape and could alternately have a shape such as a circle or ellipse ([0043], Fig. 2). Accordingly, the cavity into which the liquid is dispensed has a simple, regular shape with no disclosure of overlapping or discontinuous geometry. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the dispenser moves in a unicursal trajectory, e.g., while applying the liquid into the cavity having a unicursal shape, in order to predictably fill the cavity with the liquid.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher et al., US 20170157812 A1, in view of Constantinou, US 20210187794 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Namiki, JP 2008307443 A (of record, text citations to Espacenet translation provided 11/28/2025), and Barrall et al., US 20080280040 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 14, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1. Becher discloses applying the curable liquid into the cavity by screen printing with a squeegee ([0021], [0044]) or an automated robotic system ([0023]). Becher does not disclose the dispenser comprises a tank or syringe, and a pump.
In the analogous art of manufacturing sealing members ([0001]), Namiki discloses a dispenser for dispensing a sealing material (dispensing apparatus 1, Figs. 1-2, [0009]). Namiki discloses the dispenser comprises a tank (sealing material reservoir 22, Figs. 1-2, [0010]) or syringe (valve unit 10, Figs. 1-2) and a pump (pressuring means 21, Figs. 1-2, [0010]).
Analogous art Barrall in the field of seal manufacturing (Abstract) teaches that syringe dispensing was a known alternative to screen printing or other automatic dispensing methods for dispensing sealing material for forming a gasket ([0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dispenser of Namiki comprising a syringe and a pump for syringe dispensing in place of the dispenser of Becher comprising a squeegee for screen printing because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B). In this case, each type of dispensing technique was known in the art for dispensing sealing material.
Regarding claim 15, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 14, and the combination discloses, in the application step, the pump controls the flowrate of active energy ray curable liquid applied by the dispenser (Namiki: the sealing material is pressurized and sent to the valve section 10 by the pressurizing means 21, such that an amount of the liquid to be applied from the valve section 10 is controlled by the pressurizing means 21, in line with the present application, [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 14, and the combination discloses the dispenser comprises a volumetric piston system with a plunger (Namiki: valve unit 10 includes piston 11 and plunger rod 12, Figs. 1-2, [0010]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1. Becher discloses applying the curable liquid into the cavity by screen printing with a squeegee ([0021], [0044]) or an automated robotic system ([0023]). Becher does not disclose the dispenser comprises a nozzle that discharges the liquid in the application step.
In the analogous art of manufacturing sealing members ([0001]), Namiki discloses a dispenser for dispensing a sealing material (dispensing apparatus 1, Figs. 1-2). Namiki discloses the dispenser includes a syringe (valve unit 10) comprising a nozzle 15 for discharging sealing material (Figs. 1-2, [0010]).
Analogous art Barrall in the field of seal manufacturing (Abstract) evidences that syringe dispensing was a known alternative to screen printing or other automatic dispensing methods for dispensing sealing material for forming a gasket ([0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dispenser of Namiki comprising a nozzle for syringe dispensing, such that, in the application step, the nozzle discharges the liquid, in place of the dispenser of Becher comprising a squeegee for screen printing because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B). In this case, each type of dispensing technique was known in the art for dispensing sealing material.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher et al., US 20170157812 A1, in view of Constantinou, US 20210187794 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Williams, US 20080093776 A1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Becher discloses the method according to claim 1. Becher does not disclose in the bonding step, an image of the molding die and the workpiece is taken, and the image is used to check a position or an inclination of the molding die or workpiece.
In the analogous art of molding photocurable materials (Abstract), Williams discloses molding onto a substrate using a flexible, UV-transparent mold (Fig. 2A) wherein positioning of the mold during initial bonding is achieved by use of a CCD camera so that the mold is properly aligned with the substrate ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Becher such that in the bonding step, an image of the molding die and the workpiece was taken, and the image was used to check a position or an inclination of the molding die or workpiece in order to ensure proper alignment between the molding die and the workpiece as taught by Williams.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-6, filed 06/19/2026, with respect to claim amendments and the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Constantinou as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-7, filed 06/19/2026, with respect to nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights