Detailed Action1
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 10, 2025 has been entered.
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the pattern portion is formed to not fully penetrate the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material. Figure 4 of Applicant’s drawings appear to show the grooves of the pattern portion extending through the thickness of the extruded member—which would “penetrate the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material”. In addition, Applicant’s specification does not explicitly state that the pattern portion does not penetrate the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the pattern portion is formed to not fully penetrate the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material. In lights of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear what is intended by this limitation. Applicant’s disclosure illustrates the grooves penetrating through the thickness of the extruded material. Thus, is Applicant attempting to say that the pattern portion can partially penetrate the outer circumferential surface?
Claim 8 also recites the cast material has the tubular metal structure having the hollow closed cross section. It is unclear how the cast material can have the structure of the tubular metal structure since the tubular metal structure having the hollow closed cross section is part of the extruded material. The cast material will have a different tubular structure than the extruded material.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2013/0009390 (“Charest”) in view of USPGPub No. 2014/0311273 (“Nagasawa”) and Extrusion, Wikipedia, screen shot taken on October 6, 2022, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrusion (“NPL”).
Regarding claim 1, Charest teaches a method of manufacturing a vehicle chassis part (para. [0002], wherein the engine cradle and/or frame are considered part of the chassis). Claim 1 also recites forming a pattern portion on … an extruded material. Charest teaches providing stubs 20a & 20b that have holes or slots at an end thereof (fig. 4c, paras. [0014], [0052] & [0060]-[0061]), i.e. pattern formed via punching (para. [0081]). The holes 40 have an opening on the outer circumferential surface and extend through the thickness of the extruded material (fig. 4c). Thus, the pattern/holes are on the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material.
Charest further teaches inserting and fixing the extruded material into a mold configured to mold a cast material (figs. 3a-3b, paras. [0047]-[0048]); and injecting molten metal for molding the cast material into the mold to form the cast material (fig. 3c, para. [0049]), wherein a portion of the cast material overlaps the pattern portion of the extruded material to be formed integrally therewith (figs. 3c & 4c, para. [0049], [0052] & [0060]).
Claim 1 also recites the mold includes a cavity, and the cavity includes a space between the mold and the pattern portion formed on an outer circumferential surface of the extruded material inserted into the mold such that the molten metal is injected and filled into the space to form the portion of the cast material. As illustrated in figures 3a-3c & 4a-4c, the mold has a cavity 26 that includes a space between the mold and the pattern/holes on the outer circumferential surface so that molten material is filled into the space and into the pattern to form a portion of the cast material (i.e. fig. 3a illustrates the space before molten material is injected, and, figs. 3c & 4a-4c illustrate the molten material in the space so that it surrounds the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material).
Charest fails to explicitly teach extruding a material to produce an extruded material. However, this would have been obvious in view of NPL.
NPL is directed to extruding (page 1, wherein all references to NPL refer to the document submitted herewith). NPL teaches that it is common to extrude metals (page 8), that extruding can be done in a variety of ways (pages 1-5), and can be used to make complex cross-sections, including tubular elements and elements with hollow cavities (pages 1, 4-5, & 8). NPL also teaches that it is known to use extrusion with a variety of materials (including a variety of metals including steel), and, in a variety of fields including automobiles and other transportation vehicles such as aircraft (pages 1, 3, 8-11).
In this case, Charest teaches a tubular metal piece but is silent as to how the piece is initially formed. NPL teaches that it is common to form metal objects via extrusion, and that it is known to form tubular metal objects used in the automotive field via extrusion. Further, the stubs 20a & 20b of Charest can be formed in a manufacturing process that includes extruding because extrusion processes can produce metal articles having a hollow closed shape. In addition, post-extrusion processes can be done, such as drawing, hydroforming, etc. to change diameters of the tube, and forming the pattern portion. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Charest so that the stubs are formed by extruding a tubular object that is subsequently worked or machined to form the final structure as illustrated in the figures of Charest.
Charest fails to explicitly teach the pattern portion on both an outer surface and an outer circumferential surface of the extruded material (wherein these outer surfaces are interpreted as different outer surfaces). However, this would have been obvious in view of Nagasawa.
Nagasawa is also directed to casting a material 18 around an element 19 to form a vehicle component (paras. [0001] & [0069]-[0070]). Nagasawa teaches the end of element 19, which is casted over by casting material 18, to have a pattern portion thereon for a better connection (see figs. 1-24, paras. [0059]). Nagasawa teaches the pattern portion can have a variety of shapes (see figs. 9-24). One embodiment comprises axially extending grooves 38 that are open on the axial end of element 19 so that the grooves are positioned at both an outer circumferential surface and outer axial surface of element 19 (figs. 21-23, paras. [0081]-[0082]). For better connecting of the casting portion, the grooves 38 may have through holes or an uneven surface therein (para. [0082]).
In this case, each of Charest and Nagasawa teach casting a vehicle component around a hollow tubular component having a patterned portion on an end thereof to provide a stronger connection between the two components. While Charest teaches using through holes or slots, Nagasawa teaches other known pattern portions. For example, Nagasawa teaches the pattern portion described above with respect to figs. 21-23. In addition, since Nagasawa explicitly teaches that through holes can be formed at the bottom surface of the grooves, it would be predictable to combine the through holes taught by Charest with the axially extending grooves taught by Nagasawa. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Charest so that the axial end of the extruded material comprises grooves extending axially therefrom (so that the grooves are on both an outer axial surface and outer circumferential surface of the extruded material), wherein through holes are provided in the grooves and/or between the grooves.
Regarding claim 2, Charest further teaches the extruded material is fixed not to be moved in the mold by a sliding core provided in the mold (figs. 3b-3c, paras. [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Charest further teaches inserting an insert portion of the sliding core into an end of the extruded material such that the insert portion comes into a contact with the end of the extruded material (figs. 3b-3c, paras. [0048]-[0049], wherein the contact prevents collapse of the extruded material).
Regarding claim 4, Charest further teaches the extruded material forms a hollow closed cross-section (figs. 2 & 3a, para. [0046]).
Claim 5 recites the pattern portion comprises a plurality of grooves, and the plurality of grooves have a predetermined depth, width, and interval. As detailed above, Charest was modified in view of Nagasawa to provide a plurality of grooves on the extruded material. As illustrated in figs. 21-23 of Nagasawa, the dimensions of the grooves and number/interval of the grooves are predetermined. In order to manufacture usable, accurate, and identical parts, one of skill in the art appreciates that the dimensions of the extruded material (including the pattern portion) are determined beforehand and are not randomly created.
Regarding claim 6, Charest et al. further teaches the molten metal is filled in the plurality of grooves provided in the pattern portion when the molten metal is injected into the mold (Nagasawa, figs. 21-23, paras. [0081]-[0082]).
Claim 8 recites limitations found in claims 1 and 4. These limitations are rejected for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claims 1 and 4, above. Claim 8 also recites the portion of the cast material is formed to have a closed sectional structure overlapping the pattern portion in a circumferential direction, and wherein the cast material, including the portion overlapping the pattern portion, comprises a tubular metal structure extending from a first end to a second end and having a hollow, closed cross-section. As illustrated in figures 3c & 4a-4c, the cast material has a portion that surrounds the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material. This portion overlaps the pattern and has a tubular structure extending from a first end to a second end with a hollow therein (see figs. 4a-4c). This portion is a closed cross section and a closed sectional structure as it extends 360 degrees around the pattern portion without any gaps along the circumference.
Claim 8 lastly recites the pattern portion is formed to not fully penetrate the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material. As detailed above, the pattern portion of Charest et al. includes axially extending grooves and through holes. Since the through holes are only a portion of the pattern portion, the entire pattern portion does not penetrate the outer circumferential surface. Since the pattern portion only partially penetrates the outer circumferential surface, this reads on this claim limitation.
Assuming arguendo that the pattern portion cannot penetrate the outer circumferential surface at all, it would be predictable and obvious to modify the through holes so that they are slots that do not penetrate through the entire thickness of the extruded material. Charest teaches that slots can be used instead of through holes (para. [0014], [0052], [0054] & [0060]-[0061]). In addition, Nagasawa also teaches that the grooves can have an uneven surface instead of through-holes (para. [0082]).
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2005/0050730 (“Marando”) in view of USPGPub No. 2014/0246847 (“the ‘847 reference”) and NPL.
Regarding claim 1, Marando teaches a method of manufacturing a vehicle chassis part (fig. 1, paras. [0002] & [0035]). Claim 1 also recites forming a pattern portion on … an extruded material. Marando teaches providing a plurality of apertures or protrusions, i.e. pattern portion, on hollow element 40/50 (figs. 8-13, paras. [0041]-[0043]). The holes or protrusions are on the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material (figs. 11-13).
Marando further teaches inserting and fixing the extruded material into a mold configured to mold a cast material (para. [0041]); and injecting molten metal for molding the cast material into the mold to form the cast material (fig. 11, para. [0041]), wherein a portion of the cast material overlaps the pattern portion of the extruded material to be formed integrally therewith (figs. 11-13, paras. [0041] & [0043]).
Claim 1 also recites the mold includes a cavity, and the cavity includes a space between the mold and the pattern portion formed on an outer circumferential surface of the extruded material inserted into the mold such that the molten metal is injected and filled into the space to form the portion of the cast material. As illustrated in figures 11-13, the cast material surrounds and encloses the pattern on the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material. While the mold of Marando is not illustrated, one of skill in the art would reasonably infer that the cavity of the mold includes a space for this portion of the cast material that surrounds and encloses the pattern and the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material. Thus, this space will be between the pattern portion and a surface of the mold and has the molten metal filled therein (see also para. [0041] which teaches the mold/die having a cavity that is filled with the molten metal).
Marando fails to explicitly teach extruding a material to produce an extruded material. However, this would have been obvious in view of NPL.
NPL is directed to extruding (page 1, wherein all references to NPL refer to the document submitted herewith). NPL teaches that it is common to extrude metals (page 8), that extruding can be done in a variety of ways (pages 1-5), and can be used to make complex cross-sections, including tubular elements and elements with hollow cavities (pages 1, 4-5, & 8). NPL also teaches that it is known to use extrusion with a variety of materials (including a variety of metals including steel), and, in a variety of fields including the automobiles and other transportation vehicles such as aircraft (pages 1, 3, 8-11).
In this case, Marando teaches a tubular metal piece 12-14 that is hydroformed (which includes shaping a tube via high pressure fluid), but is silent as to how the initial tube that is hydroformed is made. NPL teaches that it is common to form metal objects via extrusion, and that it is known to form tubular metal objects used in the automotive field via extrusion. Element 40/50 can be formed in a manufacturing process that includes extruding because extrusion processes can produce metal articles having a hollow closed shape. In addition, post-extrusion processes can be done, such as drawing, hydroforming, etc. to change dimensions of the tube, and forming the pattern portion. The examiner also notes that Marando teaches elements 40/50 can be formed via any desired method (para. [0041]). Thus, it would be obvious to modify Marando so that pieces 12-14 are formed by extruding a tubular object that is subsequently hydroformed and/or machined to form the final structure as illustrated in figure 8 of Marando.
Marando fails to explicitly teach the pattern portion on both an outer surface and an outer circumferential surface of the extruded material (wherein these outer surfaces are interpreted as different outer surfaces). However, this would have been obvious in view of the ‘847 reference.
The ‘847 reference is also directed to casting a material 18 around an element 19 to form a vehicle component (paras. [0001] & [0048]). The ‘847 reference teaches the end of element 19, which is casted over by casting material 18, to have grooves therein for a better connection (figs. 2a, paras. [0046], [0048] & [0051]). The ‘847 reference also teaches other embodiments comprising both circumferentially extending grooves 41 and axially extending grooves 42 so that the molten metal fills both grooves (figs. 6-8, paras. [0061]-[0065]). As illustrated in figs. 6-8, the axially extending grooves extend from an outer axial surface of element 19.
In this case, each of Marando and the ‘847 reference teach casting a vehicle component around a hollow tubular component having a patterned portion on an end thereof to provide a stronger connection between the two components. While Marando teaches using protrusions or apertures, the ‘847 reference teaches a known substitute. For example, as illustrated in figs. 6-8, Marando teaches a plurality of relatively thin axially extending grooves 42 that extend from an axial end of the hollow tubular component. These grooves along with the circumferential grooves resist relative movement of the components in both the axial and circumferential directions. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the protrusions of Marando with the plurality of axial and circumferential grooves of the ‘847 reference (wherein the grooves are on both an outer axial surface and outer circumferential surface of the extruded material). This pattern portion will predictably allow for a stronger connection than without a pattern portion.
Regarding claim 4, Marando further teaches the extruded material forms a hollow closed cross-section (fig. 8, paras. [0037] & [0042]).
Claim 5 recites the pattern portion comprises a plurality of grooves, and the plurality of grooves have a predetermined depth, width, and interval. As detailed above, Marando was modified in view of the ‘847 reference to provide a plurality of grooves on the extruded portion. As illustrated in figs. 6-8 of the ‘847 reference, the dimensions of the grooves and number/interval of the grooves are predetermined. In order to manufacture usable, accurate, and identical parts, one of skill in the art appreciates that the dimensions of the extruded material (including the pattern portion) are determined beforehand and are not randomly created.
Claim 6 recites the molten metal is filled in the plurality of grooves provided in the pattern portion when the molten metal is injected into the mold. The ‘847 reference teaches allowing the molten metal to fill the grooves to provide the stronger connection (para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Marando et al. fails to explicitly teach the plurality of grooves have a depth in a range of 100 µm to 200 µm, a width in a range of 100 µm to 300 µm, and an interval in a range of 100 µm to 300 µm. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, Marando et al. teach relatively thin grooves that are relatively close together in order for a more secure connection to the casting material (see figs. 6-8 of the ‘847 reference). However, the ‘847 reference is silent as to the dimensions and spacing of the grooves. Since having axially extending grooves with the claimed dimensions and spacing would still allow for a more secure mechanical connection that without the grooves, and, the final chassis part will still be able to be connected to further chassis parts to form a chassis, the claimed dimensions are not patentably distinct from Marando et al. The examiner notes that the depth is interpreted as the radial extent of the axially extending grooves within the thickness of the tubular component, the width is the circumferential width of the axially extending grooves, and the interval can be interpreted as the circumferential space between adjacent axially extending grooves, or the axial width of the circumferentially extending groove that separates two sets of axially extending grooves (see fig. 6c of the ‘847 reference).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marando in view of the ‘847 reference, NPL, and USPGPub No. 2015/0232129 (“Grundmeier”).
Claim 8 recites limitations found in claims 1 and 4. These limitations are taught by Marando in view of in view of the ‘847 reference and NPL for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claims 1 and 4, above. Marando fails to explicitly teach the portion of the cast material is formed to have a closed sectional structure overlapping the pattern portion in a circumferential direction, and wherein the cast material, including the portion overlapping the pattern portion, comprises a tubular metal structure extending from a first end to a second end and having a hollow, closed cross-section. However, this would have been obvious in view of Grundmeier.
Grundmeier is also directed to manufacturing of an arrangement used in vehicle frames (paras. [0002], [0018] & [0038]). Grundmeier teaches overmolding a component 2 around the outer circumferential surface of tubular component 4 having a locking means 14 on an outer circumferential surface (fig. 2, paras. [0050]-[0052]). Grundmeier teaches the casted component 2 can be hollow by providing a casting core that can be removed after casting so that the casted material is not within the tubular component 4—but only around the outside of the component (fig. 2, paras. [0051] & [0054]).
In this case, each of Marando and Grundmeier are directed to manufacturing of an arrangement used in vehicle frames wherein a cast component is overmolded around tubular component having a locking means/pattern on an outer circumferential surface. While Marando teaches the casted component extending around the outer circumferential surface of the tubular component and filling a portion of the inside of the tubular component, Grundmeier teaches that it is known and predictable to provide adequate connection of frame members by the cast material only extending around the outside of the component and not positioned within the tubular component. This will predictably reduce the weight of the vehicle thereby increasing fuel efficiency because less casting material is used. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Marando so that the cast material is not provided inside the extruded material (for example by using a casting core as taught by Grundmeier).
Given the above modification, when viewing fig. 13 of Marando, the portion of the cast material 52 within the extruded material 50 is removed so that at least the portion of the casted material 52 that surrounds the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material (including the pattern 50c) has a closed hollow cross-section such as that illustrated in figure 2 of Grundmeier (i.e. no cast material is provided inside the hollow extruded material).
Claim 8 lastly recites the pattern portion is formed to not fully penetrate the outer circumferential surface of the extruded material. As detailed above, the pattern portion of Marando et al. includes grooves that do not penetrate through the thickness of the extruded material.
Other Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art is deemed pertinent to the claims and also to the knowledge of one of skill in the art.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art teaches that it is known for a vehicle chassis to comprise both casted materials and extruded material (see paras. [0003]-[0006] of Applicant’s originally filed specification).
KR-20110060540-A teaches that it is known to form parts of a vehicle subframe by first extruding a starting material and then further working the material to form a final extruded part (see second full paragraph on page 1 in the machine translation provided herewith).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10, 2025 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
The examiner agrees that the previous rejections failed to teach the extruding step. Thus, the previous 103 rejections are withdrawn.
On pages 6-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Charest fails to teach the cavity space between the mold and the pattern portion because the claimed spaced is a circumferential cavity, while the space in Charest is a through-hole.
Applicant appears to be misinterpreting the rejection. The through-holes of Charest are part of the pattern portion. The cavity space is a circumferential space around and exterior to the pattern portion as illustrated below. This space reads on the claimed cavity space.
PNG
media_image1.png
788
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On pages 9-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Marando fails to teach the cavity space between the mold and the pattern portion. Applicant argues the pattern portion is surrounded by the cast material as follows: “the cast material is simply formed in contact with the pattern portion, likely by conforming around it, and no intervening space between the pattern portion and the mold cavity surface is disclosed or suggested.”
Applicant’s argument appears to be that Marando intentionally forms a pattern portion on an outer surface of the extruded material in order to better connect the extruded material with the cast material, but does not provide a space in the mold that allows the cast material to surround the pattern portion (even though the pattern portion is surrounded by the cast material). Yet, the pattern portion is still somehow surrounded by the cast material (the examiner is still unclear as to Applicant’s working theory of how this happens). Does Applicant believe there are holes or openings in the mold that allow the cast material to escape from the mold and cover the pattern portion? If so, how does the cast material that surrounds the pattern portion have an outer surface that is completely cylindrical and only surround the reduced diameter portion of the extruded material? If molten metal under pressure were escaping from holes or openings of a mold the molten metal would spew out uncontrollably and would not be limited to the reduced diameter portion of the extruded material that comprises the pattern portion. In addition, how would the mold be sufficiently filled with molten metal if the molten metal were able to escape from holes or openings? Possibly if the mold were in a position so that the holes/openings were at a top of the mold. But then the molten metal wouldn’t flow through the holes/openings and surround the pattern portion because gravity would force the molten metal downward onto the top of the mold. Also, how would the molten metal enclose the pattern portion as illustrated in Marando if no mold surfaces are provided to hold the molten metal in place before it cools and solidifies?
The examiner believes the above is an unreasonable inference as to how the molding of Marando takes place. Injection molding and casting are well-known processes that includes injecting molten material into an enclosed space (the space being in the shape desired) and allowing the molten metal to solidify before removing the mold. This is also how Marando teaches the casting step (see para. [0041]). The pattern portion is formed for a specific reason—i.e. to have cast material flow therearound. Thus, clearly the mold is created to hold the cast material in position around the pattern portion until it cools and hardens. Creating a mold that does not surround the pattern portion, and hoping that molten metal flows out of openings/holes in the mold to surround the pattern portion is not a reasonable inference. Applicant’s disclosure also seems to acknowledge this (see para. [0045] on page 11 of the originally filed specification which teaches that close contact is provided between the mold cores and extruded material to prevent scattering of molten metal injected into the mold).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (571-272-3460). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”