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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-26 and 28-31 are pending. Claims 10-15, 23-26 and 28 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7, 9, 16-19, 21, 22 and 29-31 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9, 16-19, 21, 22 and 29-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claims 2, 21, 29 and 30 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.
Claim 2 recites that the particulate, amorphous silicon dioxide particles are spherical. However, parent claim 1 recites two different particulate amorphous silicon dioxide particles (one in the composition and one in the mold/core). Therefore, it is unclear as to which particles are being referred to in claim 2. Thus, claim 2 is indefinite. Claim 29 depends from claim 2 and is indefinite for the same reasons. For examination purposes, claim 2 has been interpreted as “where the primary particles of the particulate, amorphous silicon dioxide in the coating composition are spherical” and claim 29 has been interpreted as “wherein the primary particles of the particulate, amorphous silicon dioxide in the coating composition possess”.
Claim 30 recites that the particulate, amorphous silicon dioxide possess a sphericity. However, parent claim 16 recites two different particulate amorphous silicon dioxide (one in the composition and one in the mold/core). Therefore, it is unclear as to which particles are being referred to in claim 30. Thus, claim 30 is indefinite. For examination purposes, claim 30 has been interpreted as “wherein the primary particles of the added particulate, amorphous silicon dioxide possess”.
Claim 21 recites as an optional limitation that the mold or core comprises particulate, amorphous silicon dioxide. However, parent claim 19 already requires the mold or core to comprise particulate, amorphous silicon dioxide. Therefore, it is unclear as to how this limitation would limit the parent claim. Thus, claim 21 is indefinite. For examination purposes, until the claim is clarified, if prior art meets the limitation of the parent claim then it will be interpreted as also necessarily meeting the limitations of claim 21.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 16-19, 21, 22 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengbu et al. (CN 105170890, of which reference is made to the previously provided English machine translation) in view of Stoetzel et al. (WO 00/05010) and Haanepen et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0032689) and Weicker et al. (WO 2006/024540, of which reference is made to the provided English translation).
I Regarding claims 1-7, 9, 16-19, 21, 22 and 31, Bengbu teaches a process comprising providing an improved casting coating composition for improving a casting finish degree (abstract) on molds for foundry use that can be used for casting iron or steel (Background Technology and 1st paragraph under Summary of the Invention section) where the coating composition comprises water (claim 1), Ludox which is a spherical amorphous particulate silica (claim 1) in an amount of approximately 3-5.4 wt% (claim 1), diatomaceous earth in an amount of 9-15 wt% (abstract, and note that diatomaceous earth is a particulate powder which is generally 80-90 wt% silica), maleic anhydride (claim 1), a rheological additive (the water-based thickener, see claim 1), a binder (the organic adhesion agent) in an amount less than 2 wt% (claim 1) and a further refractory element, such as mica (claim 2) which is not counted as part of the amorphous silicon dioxide and the composition provides improved stability (last paragraph before Detailed Description section). Bengbu teaches the composition having a solids content less than 80 wt% (claim 1). Bengbu suggests the use of the coating composition for treatment of molds in a foundry as noted above. However, Bengbu fails to explicitly teach application of the composition by dipping to a provided water-glass uncoated mold, where the mold comprises particulate, amorphous silica which is synthetic and selected from the group consisting of precipitated silica and fumed silica. Bengbu further fails to teach the composition comprising an organic compound selected from the group as claimed. Bengbu also fails to explicitly teach the Ludox (silica) present in a range of 14.3-30% or 14.3-17% and the silica having a particle size of 1 to 10 microns.
First, Bengbu teaches the Ludox present in an exemplary embodiment in an amount up to 5.4 wt% (claim 1) and also does not disclose any negative consequences from the presence of more Ludox (see throughout). Additionally, Bengbu specifically teaches the inclusion of further silica in the form of diatomaceous earth in an amount of 9-15 % (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bengbu’s process by utilizing 14.3% of Ludox in place of 3-5.4% and a portion of the diatomaceous earth. Further, Bengbu specifically notes that the composition only includes a few cheap elements and is configurable (last paragraph of the Summary of the invention section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for the silica through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Second, Stoetzel teaches a similar coating composition comprising an organic compound, water and refractory material (abstract) for coating on molds (abstract). Stoetzel teaches a process comprising providing an uncoated water-glass bound particulate amorphous silica mold (Example 1, page 4), applying the coating composition to the mold by dipping (Example 1, page 5). Stoetzel further teaches the addition of a compound selected from diacetin, triacetin, propylene carbonate and butyrolactone to the coating composition (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bengbu’s process by applying Bengbu’s coating composition to a waterglass-bound particulate amorphous silica containing mold by dipping as disclosed by Stoetzel. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bengbu’s process by including diacetin, propylene carbonate, and/or triacetin in the composition. First, one would have been motivated to modify Bengbu’s process by utilizing Bengbu’s coating for application to water-glass molds as disclosed by Stoetzel as Bengbu teaches application of their coating to a mold without reciting the specific process to accomplish this (see above) and Stoetzel teaches the process for coating casting molds. It would have been obvious to use Stoetzel’s known process to accomplish the coating suggested by Bengbu as one could have performed the coating as disclosed by Stoetzel with a reasonable expectation of success (as both Bengbu and Stoetzel are teaching similar compositions for casting on molds as outlined above), and the predictable result of providing a process for coating a water-glass molds by dipping. Second, one would have been motivated to modify Bengbu’s process by inclusion of diacetin, propylene carbonate and/or triacetin as Stoetzel teaches that this additive provides improved strength to the mold cores (page 8).
Third, Bengbu in view of Stoetzel fail to teach the particle size as claimed. However, Haanepen teaches a coating composition for coating moulds or cores for foundry use (abstract) wherein the composition comprises refractory particulate filler (abstract). Haanepen teaches that the filler should include a fraction with a particles size of less than 38 microns and particularly no more than 10 microns (0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bengbu in view of Stoetzel’s method by selecting the silica to have a particle size of less than 10 microns (which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) as disclosed by Haanepen. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Haanepen teaches that the use of fine particles prevents veining defects (0016).
Finally, Weicker teaches incorporating synthetic particulate amorphous silicon dioxide into waterglass-bound foundry casting molds (abstract) wherein the synthetic silicon dioxide is precipitated or fumed silicon dioxide (bottom of page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bengbu in view of Stoetzel and Haanepen’s process by using a waterglass-bound mold that includes precipitated or fumed silica as disclosed by Weicker. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Weicker teaches that the inclusion of the synthetic silica yields improved molds which enhances the casting strength of the mold immediately and also during prolonged storage under high humidity (page 4).
II. Regarding claims 29 and 30, Bengbu in view of Stoetzel and Haanepen and Weicker teach all the limitations of claims 2 and 18 (see above), but fail to teach the sphericity of the silica. However, the sphericity is a result-effective variable as altering the sphericity will change the packing of the silica particles in the coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
3. Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengbu in view of Stoetzel and Haanepen and Weicker as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in view of Takama et al. (WO 2018/043412, reference is made to the previously provided English machine translation).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Bengbu in view of Stoetzel and Haanepen and Weicker teach all the limitations of claims 2 and 18 (see above), but fail to teach the sphericity of the silica. However, Takama teaches the use of silica having a sphericity of greater than 0.9 (middle of page 9) in applications involving sand molds (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bengbu in view of Stoetzel and Haanepen and Weicker’s process by selecting silica having a sphericity of greater than 0.9 as disclosed by Takama. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Takama teaches that more spherical particles improve the filling property of the mold (page 9) and would be expected to improve the coating filling property when utilized in a mold coating.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-26 and 28-31 are pending.
Claims 10-15, 23-26 and 28 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-7, 9, 16-19, 21, 22 and 29-31 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
October 15, 2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717