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
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Wojtaszek et al. (US 2011/0039123).
Regarding claim 1, Wojtaszek discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13A, 13B, 14, a method for producing a connection between at least two metal parts (ABSTRACT), the method comprising:
inserting the at least two metal parts into an injection molding tool (e.g., as shown in Figs. 1, 7, 8, 13A, 13B, 13C, the carrier 10 includes two components made of metal, a first metal component or a front sheet 12 and a second metal component or a rear sheet 14 ([0033], lines 8-10); During the assembly of the sheets 12, 14 and the panel 16, the front sheet 12 is placed into a mold, shown generally at 34, or cavity, in the desired position relative to the rear sheet 14, which is also placed into the mold. This is also shown in steps 56 and 58 in Fig. 14 ([0034], lines 1-5));
mechanically clinching, via a clinching device of the injection molding tool, the at least two metal parts such that the at least two metal parts are connected to each other (e.g., (as illustrated in Fig. 13C) The mold 34 also includes a die portion 30, a punch portion 20 having a large diameter portion 22 and a small diameter portion 24 ([0034], lines 7-9); The area of the front sheet 12 in contact with the small diameter portion 24 is pressed, or “punched,” along with a portion of the rear sheet 14 into the die portion 30 to clinch the front sheet 12 to the rear sheet 14 to form a connection point or a clinch 18, which is shown in Fig. 14 at step 72 ([0035], lines 1-6 from bottom)); and
encapsulating, via an extruder connected to the injection molding tool, the at least two metal parts with a plastic material to at least partially envelop the at least two metal parts with a casting (e.g., molten material is injected into the mold 34 in the area around the joined sheets 12, 14 as dictated by the shape of the mold 34, thereby forming the composite panel 16, completing the formation of the carrier 10 ([0037], lines 8-11)).
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.
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 2, 3, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojtaszek et al. (US 2011/0039123) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Darnell (US 2015/0014882).
Regarding claims 2, 3, Wojtaszek discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 13A, 13B, 13C, there are alignment pins 46 (i.e., a positioning device) which are used for providing proper alignment between each half 36, 38 of the molds 34 and the sheets 12, 14 as the halves 36, 38 are brought together ([0035], lines 7-10).
However, Wojtaszek does not disclose to lift the positioning pins off the metal parts then fill at least one recess left in the casting by the positioning pins.
In the same field of endeavor, molded components, Darnell discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 5, the metal core (12 ([0023], lines 1-3)) is then inserted into a second mold (i.e., the mold 50 ([0037], line 4)) and held in place with pin locators (56, 58 ([0038])). Thermoplastic material is injected into a gap between the metal core and the second mold so as to form the outer shell. The pin locators are retracted and the thermoplastic material is allowed to fill in the spaces previously occupied by the pin locators (ABSTRACT, lines 1-5 from bottom). Here, the pin locators can be considered as playing a function of the positioning device.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Wojtaszek to have the guide pins as Darnell teaches that it is known to lift the positing pins off the metal parts then fill at least one recess left in the casting by the positioning pins. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Wojtaszek discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 13A, 13B, 13C, there are alignment pins 46 (i.e., a positioning device) which are used for providing proper alignment between each half 36, 38 of the molds 34 and the sheets 12, 14 as the halves 36, 38 are brought together, the small diameter portion 24 contacts the front sheet 12, and force is applied to the large diameter portion 22 by the first half 36 of the mold 34, therefore causing an increased amount of pressure to be transferred from the small diameter portion 24 to the front sheet 12. After ‘pressed’ or ‘punched’, the front sheet 12 is clinched to the rear sheet 14 to form a connection point or a clinch 18, which is in Fig. 14 at step 72 ([0035]).
However, Wojtaszek does not disclose that, the jointed metal parts 12 and 14 are taking out the mold then put into another mold for casting.
Darnell discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 5, the metal core (12 ([0023], lines 1-3)) is then inserted into a second mold (i.e., the mold 50 ([0037], line 4)) and held in place with pin locators (56, 58 ([0038])). Thermoplastic material is injected into a gap between the metal core and the second mold so as to form the outer shell. The pin locators are retracted and the thermoplastic material is allowed to fill in the spaces previously occupied by the pin locators (ABSTRACT, lines 1-5 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Wojtaszek to have the guide pins as Darnell teaches that it is known to lift the positing pins off the metal parts then fill at least one recess left in the casting by the positioning pins. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Wojtaszek discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 13A, 13B, 13C, there are alignment pins 46 (i.e., a positioning device) which are used for providing proper alignment between each half 36, 38 of the molds 34 and the sheets 12, 14 as the halves 36, 38 are brought together ([0035], lines 7-10). After ‘pressed’ or ‘punched’, the front sheet 12 is clinched to the rear sheet 14 to form a connection point or a clinch 18, which is in Fig. 14 at step 72 ([0035], lines 1-5 from bottom). Then, at step 74 in Fig. 14, a molten material is injected into the mold around the front sheet and the rear sheet.
However, Wojtaszek does not disclose that, the jointed metal parts 12 and 14 are taking out the mold then put into another mold for casting.
As illustrated in Fig. 1 in the teachings of Darnell, the first mold 38 from the injection material into the shape of the metal core and includes two or more blocks 46, 48 with contours that cooperatively form a tooling cavity ([0035]).
As illustrated in Fig. 5 in the teachings of Darnell, the second mold 50 forms the thermoplastic injection material into the shape of the finished hybrid component around the metal core and includes two or more blocks 52, 54 and a number of retractable pin locators 56, 58 ([0038]).
Darnell discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 5, the metal core (12 ([0023], lines 1-3)) is then inserted into a second mold (i.e., the mold 50 ([0037], line 4)) and held in place with pin locators (56, 58 ([0038])). Thermoplastic material is injected into a gap between the metal core and the second mold so as to form the outer shell. The pin locators are retracted and the thermoplastic material is allowed to fill in the spaces previously occupied by the pin locators (ABSTRACT, lines 1-5 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Wojtaszek to have the guide pins as Darnell teaches that it is known to lift the positing pins off the metal parts (in the second mold) then fill at least one recess left in the casting by the positioning pins. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojtaszek et al. (US 2011/0039123) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nadeau et al. (US 11,130,265)
Regarding claim 6, Wojtaszek does not disclose that, retracting the clinching device and moving a slider into openings in the mold cavity.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding encapsulation, Nadeau discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1 or 7, one aspect of the invention is an injection mold for encapsulating. The injection mold includes a lower mold component, an upper component adapted to form an encapsulation mold cavity at an edge of the substrate when the upper mold component engages the lower mold component. The lower mold component comprises a substrate support and wherein the upper mold component comprises a recess. The injection mold includes a tiltable insert sized and shaped to slide within the recess (col. 2, lines 56-64).
Here, the substrate (i.e., item 11 in Fig. 1 or 7) can be considered as the metal parts to be encapsulated. It is noticed that, when the substrate is installed into the mold cavity, the actuators are in the retraction positions. The tiltable insert (i.e., item 22 in Fig. 1 or 7) can be considered as playing a function of the slider.
Further, Nadeau discloses that, applying a predetermined total pressure on a predetermined area of the substrate with a tiltable insert using a plurality of pressure-exserting actuators to seal the encapsulation mold cavity and prevent displacement of the substrate during injection (col. 3, lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Wojtaszek to have the clinch for the metal parts as Nadeau teaches that it is known to retract the clinching device and move a slider (i.e., an insert) into openings in the mold cavity. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9, 10, Wojtaszek does not disclose a pressure sensor for controlling the quality of the clinching of the two metal parts.
As illustrated in Fig. 7 in the teachings of Nadeau, the force or pressure exerted by the pressure-exerting actuators 30 is dynamically adjusted to effect the necessary tilting of the insert 22 in response to thickness variations in the substrate 12. To this effect, the injection mold 2 may include pressure sensors 54 (e.g., strain gauges (i.e., one type of the displacement sensor (related to claims 8, 9)), piezoelectric sensors (i.e., one type of the structure borne sound sensor) (related to claim 10)) to provide pressure feedback signals to the pressure controller 52 (col. 11, lines 5-12). Here, the actuators 30 can be considered as playing a function of the punch.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Wojtaszek to have the clinch for the metal parts as Nadeau teaches that it is known to have a pressure sensor(s) including strain gauges, piezoelectric sensors for controlling the quality of the clinching of the two metal parts. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights