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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/28/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13 and 15 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawlath (DE 102018130181 A1, previously cited) in view of Li (CN 108188353 A, cited in IDS filed 12/20/24), Snyder (US 2016/0346831), Deines (US 2018/0161866), and Nguyen et al (US 10,751,951, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kawlath teaches a method of forming a modular 3D printed mold (paragraph [0021], 3D printing, figs 1-9, composite mold 1) from a plurality of 3D printed mold modules (paragraph [0021], 3D printing, figs 1-9, individual molds 2), the method comprising:
depositing additive material to form a first green body (figs 1-9, note individual molds 2, paragraph [0021], each can be formed by 3D printing);
hardening the first green body to form a first 3D printed mold module (paragraph [0011], ceramic materials can be shaped before hardening, paragraph [0021], individual molds produced automatically, in typical generative manufacturing process, liquid material is cured);
depositing additive material to form a second green body (figs 1-9, note individual molds 2, paragraph [0021], each can be formed by 3D printing);
hardening the second green body to form a second 3D printed mold module (paragraph [0011], ceramic materials can be shaped before hardening, paragraph [0021], individual molds produced automatically, in typical generative manufacturing process, liquid material is cured);
wherein the first 3D printed mold module comprises a first complementary surface feature and the second 3D printed mold module comprises a second complementary surface feature (Kawlath, fig 1, note the sunken feature 4, and the protruding surface feature 3, also see figs 2, 5, and 8 showing the connecting elements 3 and corresponding recesses 4), the first and second complementary surface features configured to align the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module (see figures showing the individual mold modules being aligned); and
moving the first 3D printed mold module into close proximity with the second 3D printed mold module to thereby form a mold cavity of the modular 3D printed mold (figs 1-9, note the individual molds 2 were shown separate in fig 1, and are shown moved into close proximity in figs 2-9, to thereby form the composite mold 1).
Kawlath is quiet to the surface features configured to align a vent running between the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module.
Li teaches a sand mold design (figs 3 and 6) for casting including a bottom mold, a middle mold, and a cover mold (machine translation p.2 lines 16-25), where the number of middle molds is several, and they can be overlapped as needed (p.3 lines 3-10). An upper end of the bottom mold is provided with a concave stop 4 (fig 5, p.5 lines 6-23) and the lower end of the middle mold is provided with a convex stop 5 (fig 4). Figures 3-6 show the interlocking of the molds, and that the positioning of the convex and concave stops ensure accurate positioning and reducing misalignment (p.3, beneficial effect number 3). Li further teaches that exhaust holes 11 are arranged on the bottom mold 1, the middle mold 2, and the cover mold 3, and that the exhaust holes are connected (machine translation, p.3 lines 20-22, see exhaust hole 11 in figure 4 to be connected to the corresponding portion in figure 5), and that the exhaust holes are for discharging gas in time during casting and reducing air holes in the casting (machine translation, p.3, beneficial effect 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kawlath so as to include a vent running between the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module, as Li teaches individual sand mold portions having a connected vent is known for discharging gas during casting so as to reduce air holes (Li, machine translation, p.3, beneficial effect 4). Note that Li teaches that the interlocking of the mold ensures accurate positioning and reducing misalignment (Li, p.3, beneficial effect number 3).
The combination is quiet to depositing additive material to form a third green body; hardening the third green body to form a first 3D printed core module; depositing additive material to form a fourth green body; hardening the fourth green body to form a second 3D printed core module; moving the first 3D printed core module into close proximity with the second 3D printed core module to thereby form a mold core, and nesting the mold core in the mold cavity.
Snyder teaches utilizing an additive manufacturing process including the steps of CAD modeling of a casting mold, additively manufacturing the core, additively manufacturing the shell (mold), and assembling the core to the shell (fig 8, corresponding to the claimed nesting of the core into the mold cavity). The core is additively manufactured (paragraph [0007]) and can include non-line-of-sight features that are additively manufactured (paragraph [0008]). A plurality of core portions may be individually manufactured with any one or all being additively manufactured (paragraph [0044]). Snyder teaches that the additive manufacturing process reduces the expense and time in manufacturing the casting molds (paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include steps of depositing and hardening additive material to form a plurality of cores, and nesting the cores into the mold cavity, in order to form a casting having an internal structure, such as channels for cooling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the cores by additive manufacturing, as the additively manufactured cores can be designed to have more complex features such as non-line-of-sight features, and that additive manufacturing reduces the expense and time in manufacturing the molds and cores as compared to the prior art.
The combination of Kawlath as modified by Li and Snyder suggests a plurality of core portions are additively manufactured, but is quiet to moving the core portions into close proximity to thereby form the mold core.
Deines teaches core-shell mold components (abstract) that are manufactured using direct light processing (DLP, paragraph [0034]). Fig. 9 shows a first piece including a partial core 901 and partial shell 902 and a second piece including a partial core 903 and partial shell 904 being moved together and assembled so as to form the core-shell mold (paragraph [0043]). The partial core 901 and partial shell 902 may be an integral piece or may be separate assemblies (paragraph [0043]). The partial core-shell structures are provided with attachment points that facilitate assembly (paragraph [0043]). The two-piece molds have the advantage that they can be inspected prior to assembly and casting, whereas previous integral one-piece molds had the disadvantage that inspection of the mold before casting was difficult (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the core is formed from two pieces that can be attached at attachment points by bringing into proximity, as shown in Deines, as Deines recognizes the advantages of forming a core in two parts, such as by enabling inspection of the parts prior to assembly and casting.
The combination teaches wherein the first 3D printed core module comprises a first alignment element (Deines, fig 13, portion 1304) and the second 3D printed core module comprises a second alignment element (Deines, fig 13, portion 1302), the first and second alignment elements being unique to the first 3D printed core module and the second 3D printed core module to prevent either the first or second 3D printed core module being paired with an extraneous module, the extraneous module not comprising the first alignment element or second alignment element (Deines, fig 13, note that core part 1301 with the positive dovetail is prevented from a part that doesn’t have the complementary dovetail groove).
The combination of Kawlath as modified by Li, Snyder, and Deines teaches of 3D printing, but is not specific to each deposition being in accordance with a digital 3D model.
Nguyen et al teaches 3D printing, where a shell image of the object can be printed, and then reinforced with a hardenable material to form a mold (col 1 lines 30-50). A model of the object can be separated into multiple components with each component allowing direct 3D printing (col 1 lines 35-50). The term “model” refers to a software representation of the object, such as a 3D drawing or model. Thus, a shell model can be construed as a software representation, which can be inputted to a 3D printer to produce a shell mold (col 18 lines 18-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that each of the individual molds being 3D printed were formed in accordance with a digital 3D model, as the use of a digital 3D model enables customizing each of the designs individually via software. Note that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 5-6, the combination teaches wherein the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module are formed by a single 3D printer or formed by separate printers, as Kawlath suggests series production of individual molds (paragraph [0008]) or that all parts of the mold can be manufactured in parallel (paragraph [0021]). Note that Nguyen et al additionally describes (col 25 lines 30-68) an operation where multiple components are printed, and that the printing process can include serially or parallelly printing the multiple components. For example, all components can be printed at a same time, e.g., on multiple different printers for faster throughput (col 25 lines 30-68). In some embodiments, less number of printers can be used, thus two components having short print times can be printed in series in one printer (col 25 lines 30-68).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawlath as modified by Li, Snyder, Deines, and Nguyen et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al (CN 104400879 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, the combination is quiet to inspecting at least one of the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module for defects.
Chen et al teaches a method for making a 3D molded ceramic mold (paragraph [0002]) using computer aided design software to draw a three-dimensional structural model of the ceramic products (paragraph [0008]), use the 3D printer to print the blank (paragraph [0011]), and to take the green body out from the 3D printer, check whether there are any breaks on the surface, and if the breakage is large, it indicates the part needs to be remade (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination to include a step of inspecting at least one of the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module for defects, to ensure there aren’t large breaks and if there are, to remake the part.
Regarding claim 3, the combination suggests detecting a defect of predetermined classification in the 3D printed mold module (Chen, paragraph [0015], check for breaks on surface, if breaks are large); removing from production the 3D printed mold module (Chen, paragraph [0015], take out from 3D printer); depositing additive material in accordance with the digital 3D model in order to form a green body (Chen, paragraph [0015], part is remade, note Kawlath teaches of 3D printing the individual molds); hardening the green body to replace the 3D printed mold module (note combination, Chen suggests remaking the part, Kawlath’s parts were 3D printed and cured); performing a test to detect whether a defect of predetermined classification exists in the third and fourth 3D printed mold module (Chen, paragraph [0016], suggests a second cleaning step, where the cleaning step in paragraph [0015] describes checking for breaks on the surface); and moving the replacement printed mold modules into close proximity with the remaining 3D printed mold module to thereby form the modular 3D printed mold (note combination, where after the part is remade, the composite mold 1 of Kawlath can be formed).
Note that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the inspecting and remaking (if necessary) of each individual mold of the combination, to ensure there aren’t large breaks in said corresponding mold.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawlath in view of Li, Snyder, Deines, Nguyen et al and Chen.
Regarding claim 7, Kawlath teaches a method of forming a casting, the method comprising:
depositing additive material in accordance with a first 3D model to form a first green body (figs 1-9, note individual molds 2, paragraph [0021], each can be formed by 3D printing);
hardening the first green body to form a first 3D printed mold module (paragraph [0011], ceramic materials can be shaped before hardening, paragraph [0021], individual molds produced automatically, in typical generative manufacturing process, liquid material is cured);
depositing additive material in accordance with a second 3D model to form a second green body (figs 1-9, note individual molds 2, paragraph [0021], each can be formed by 3D printing);
hardening the second green body to form a second 3D printed mold module (paragraph [0011], ceramic materials can be shaped before hardening, paragraph [0021], individual molds produced automatically, in typical generative manufacturing process, liquid material is cured);
wherein the first 3D printed mold module comprises a first complementary surface feature and the second 3D printed mold module comprises a second complementary surface feature (Kawlath, fig 1, note the sunken feature 4, and the protruding surface feature 3, also see figs 2, 5, and 8 showing the connecting elements 3 and corresponding recesses 4), the first and second complementary surface features configured to align the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module (see figures showing the individual mold modules being aligned); and
moving the first 3D printed mold module into close proximity with the second 3D printed mold module to thereby form a modular 3D printed mold (figs 1-9, note the individual molds 2 were shown separate in fig 1, and are shown moved into close proximity in figs 2-9, to thereby form the composite mold 1);
depositing molten metal into the modular 3D printed mold (paragraph [0001, 0009], filling a melt, liquid metal); and
hardening the molten metal contained within the modular 3D printed mold (paragraph [0013], the cooled casting implies the liquid metal has solidified and thus hardened);
wherein the first 3D printed mold module comprises a first alignment element (Kawlath, fig 1, sunken features 4, fig 5, dovetail grooves) and the second 3D printed mold module comprises a second alignment element (Kawlath, fig 1, protruding feature 3, fig 5, dovetails), the first and second alignment elements being configured to interlock with one another and unique to a pair of modules to prevent either the first or second 3D printed mold module being paired with an extraneous module (fig 1), the extraneous module not comprising the first alignment element or second alignment element (the modules without the dovetails or dovetail grooves won’t interlock with modules that do have the dovetails).
Kawlath is quiet to the surface features configured to align a vent running between the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module.
Li teaches a sand mold design (figs 3 and 6) for casting including a bottom mold, a middle mold, and a cover mold (machine translation p.2 lines 16-25), where the number of middle molds is several, and they can be overlapped as needed (p.3 lines 3-10). An upper end of the bottom mold is provided with a concave stop 4 (fig 5, p.5 lines 6-23) and the lower end of the middle mold is provided with a convex stop 5 (fig 4). Figures 3-6 show the interlocking of the molds, and that the positioning of the convex and concave stops ensure accurate positioning and reducing misalignment (p.3, beneficial effect number 3). Li further teaches that exhaust holes 11 are arranged on the bottom mold 1, the middle mold 2, and the cover mold 3, and that the exhaust holes are connected (machine translation, p.3 lines 20-22, see exhaust hole 11 in figure 4 to be connected to the corresponding portion in figure 5), and that the exhaust holes are for discharging gas in time during casting and reducing air holes in the casting (machine translation, p.3, beneficial effect 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kawlath so as to include a vent running between the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module, as Li teaches individual sand mold portions having a connected vent is known for discharging gas during casting so as to reduce air holes (Li, machine translation, p.3, beneficial effect 4). Note that Li teaches that the interlocking of the mold ensures accurate positioning and reducing misalignment (Li, p.3, beneficial effect number 3).
The combination is quiet to depositing additive material to form a third green body; hardening the third green body to form a first 3D printed core module; depositing additive material to form a fourth green body; hardening the fourth green body to form a second 3D printed core module; moving the first 3D printed core module into close proximity with the second 3D printed core module to thereby form a mold core, and nesting the mold core in the mold cavity.
Snyder teaches utilizing an additive manufacturing process including the steps of CAD modeling of a casting mold, additively manufacturing the core, additively manufacturing the shell (mold), and assembling the core to the shell (fig 8, corresponding to the claimed nesting of the core into the mold cavity). The core is additively manufactured (paragraph [0007]) and can include non-line-of-sight features that are additively manufactured (paragraph [0008]). A plurality of core portions may be individually manufactured with any one or all being additively manufactured (paragraph [0044]). Snyder teaches that the additive manufacturing process reduces the expense and time in manufacturing the casting molds (paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include steps of depositing and hardening additive material to form a plurality of cores, and nesting the cores into the mold cavity, in order to form a casting having an internal structure, such as channels for cooling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the cores by additive manufacturing, as the additively manufactured cores can be designed to have more complex features such as non-line-of-sight features, and that additive manufacturing reduces the expense and time in manufacturing the molds and cores as compared to the prior art.
The combination of Kawlath as modified by Li and Snyder suggests a plurality of core portions are additively manufactured, but is quiet to moving the core portions into close proximity to thereby form the mold core.
Deines teaches core-shell mold components (abstract) that are manufactured using direct light processing (DLP, paragraph [0034]). Fig. 9 shows a first piece including a partial core 901 and partial shell 902 and a second piece including a partial core 903 and partial shell 904 being moved together and assembled so as to form the core-shell mold (paragraph [0043]). The partial core 901 and partial shell 902 may be an integral piece or may be separate assemblies (paragraph [0043]). The partial core-shell structures are provided with attachment points that facilitate assembly (paragraph [0043]). The two-piece molds have the advantage that they can be inspected prior to assembly and casting, whereas previous integral one-piece molds had the disadvantage that inspection of the mold before casting was difficult (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the core is formed from two pieces that can be attached at attachment points by bringing into proximity, as shown in Deines, as Deines recognizes the advantages of forming a core in two parts, such as by enabling inspection of the parts prior to assembly and casting.
Kawlath teaches of 3D printing, but is not specific to each deposition being in accordance with a digital 3D model.
Nguyen et al teaches 3D printing, where a shell image of the object can be printed, and then reinforced with a hardenable material to form a mold (col 1 lines 30-50). A model of the object can be separated into multiple components with each component allowing direct 3D printing (col 1 lines 35-50). The term “model” refers to a software representation of the object, such as a 3D drawing or model. Thus, a shell model can be construed as a software representation, which can be inputted to a 3D printer to produce a shell mold (col 18 lines 18-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that each of the individual molds being 3D printed were formed in accordance with a digital 3D model, as the use of a digital 3D model enables customizing each of the designs individually via software. Note that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The combination is quiet to inspecting the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module for defects, wherein in response to detecting the defects in the first and second 3D printed mold module, removing from production the first 3D printed mold module, depositing additive material in accordance with the corresponding model in order to form a replacement, and hardening the replacement to replace the corresponding module.
Chen et al teaches a method for making a 3D molded ceramic mold (paragraph [0002]) using computer aided design software to draw a three-dimensional structural model of the ceramic products (paragraph [0008]), use the 3D printer to print the blank (paragraph [0011]), and to take the green body out from the 3D printer, check whether there are any breaks on the surface, and if the breakage is large, it indicates the part needs to be remade (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination to include a step of inspecting both the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module for defects, to ensure there aren’t large breaks and if there are, to remake the part.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches separating the hardened metal from the modular 3D printed mold (Kawlath, paragraph [0013], release of the casting after the melt has cooled).
Regarding claim 11, the combination suggests that the first and the second complementary surface features are nonsymmetrical, as Kawlath teaches an embodiment in which the positive/non-positive connection is in a form-fitting manner that only allows one possible position in which the molds can be connected to one another (Kawlath, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches wherein moving the first 3D printed mold module into close proximity with the second 3D printed mold module to thereby form the mold cavity further comprises aligning the first complementary surface feature with the second complementary surface feature (see figures of Kawlath, note that the protruding and correspondingly shaped sunken features are aligned when the molds are moved together, see fig 2, fig 5, fig 8).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches wherein the first complementary surface feature is further configured to align at least one of a pattern cavity, sprue, riser, or runner present in both the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module (see figs of Kawlath, fig 1 would align the cavity, fig 2 has aligned cavity, figs 3-5 show aligning the sprues and runners).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawlath as modified by Li, Snyder, Deines, Nguyen et al, and Chen as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jaster (US 2020/0198249, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, the combination is quiet to separating the hardened metal from the modular 3D printed mold comprises shaking the mold.
Jaster teaches that removal of casting material from the final part can be accomplished using various methods, including shaking or jarring the part to dislodge a sandy or otherwise granular support or biasing material forming the cast (paragraph [0056]). Jaster teaches an embodiment where the shell, which is additively manufactured, is the mold (paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shaking the mold in order to separate the hardened metal, as Jaster teaches that those having skill in the art would recognize that various methods can be used to dislodge the sandy material from the casting (paragraph [0056]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawlath in view of Li, Snyder, Deines, and Hozner et al (US 2008/0153069, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Kawlath teaches a method for forming a modular 3D printed mold (paragraph [0001], composite mold 1) from a plurality of 3D printed mold modules (paragraph [0001], individual molds 2) where at least one 3D printer deposits additive material to form a first 3D printed mold module to form a first green body (figs 1-9, note individual molds 2, paragraph [0021], each can be formed by 3D printing); and at least one 3D printer to deposit additive material to form a second 3D printed mold module to form a second green body (figs 1-9, note individual molds 2, paragraph [0021], each can be formed by 3D printing), wherein the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module are configured to join to thereby form a mold cavity (see figures); wherein the first 3D printed mold module comprises a first complementary surface feature and the second 3D printed mold module comprises a second complementary surface feature (Kawlath, fig 1, note the sunken feature 4, and the protruding surface feature 3, also see figs 2, 5, and 8 showing the connecting elements 3 and corresponding recesses 4), the first and second complementary surface features configured to align the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module (see figures showing the individual mold modules being aligned).
Kawlath is quiet to the surface features configured to align a vent running between the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module.
Li teaches a sand mold design (figs 3 and 6) for casting including a bottom mold, a middle mold, and a cover mold (machine translation p.2 lines 16-25), where the number of middle molds is several, and they can be overlapped as needed (p.3 lines 3-10). An upper end of the bottom mold is provided with a concave stop 4 (fig 5, p.5 lines 6-23) and the lower end of the middle mold is provided with a convex stop 5 (fig 4). Figures 3-6 show the interlocking of the molds, and that the positioning of the convex and concave stops ensure accurate positioning and reducing misalignment (p.3, beneficial effect number 3). Li further teaches that exhaust holes 11 are arranged on the bottom mold 1, the middle mold 2, and the cover mold 3, and that the exhaust holes are connected (machine translation, p.3 lines 20-22, see exhaust hole 11 in figure 4 to be connected to the corresponding portion in figure 5), and that the exhaust holes are for discharging gas in time during casting and reducing air holes in the casting (machine translation, p.3, beneficial effect 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kawlath so as to include a vent running between the first 3D printed mold module and the second 3D printed mold module, as Li teaches individual sand mold portions having a connected vent is known for discharging gas during casting so as to reduce air holes (Li, machine translation, p.3, beneficial effect 4). Note that Li teaches that the interlocking of the mold ensures accurate positioning and reducing misalignment (Li, p.3, beneficial effect number 3).
The combination of Kawlath as modified by Li is quiet to the method causing at least one 3D printer to deposit additive material to form a third green body; depositing additive material to form a fourth green body; and wherein the first 3D printed core module and the second 3D printed core module are configured to be nested in the mold cavity to thereby form a modular 3D printed mold.
Snyder teaches utilizing an additive manufacturing process including the steps of CAD modeling of a casting mold, additively manufacturing the core, additively manufacturing the shell (mold), and assembling the core to the shell (fig 8, corresponding to the claimed nesting of the core into the mold cavity). The core is additively manufactured (paragraph [0007]) and can include non-line-of-sight features that are additively manufactured (paragraph [0008]). A plurality of core portions may be individually manufactured with any one or all being additively manufactured (paragraph [0044]). Snyder teaches that the additive manufacturing process reduces the expense and time in manufacturing the casting molds (paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include steps of depositing and hardening additive material to form a plurality of cores, and nesting the cores into the mold cavity, in order to form a casting having an internal structure, such as channels for cooling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the cores by additive manufacturing, as the additively manufactured cores can be designed to have more complex features such as non-line-of-sight features, and that additive manufacturing reduces the expense and time in manufacturing the molds and cores as compared to the prior art.
The combination of Kawlath as modified by Li and Snyder suggests a plurality of core portions are additively manufactured, but is quiet to moving the core portions into close proximity to thereby form the mold core.
Deines teaches core-shell mold components (abstract) that are manufactured using direct light processing (DLP, paragraph [0034]). Fig. 9 shows a first piece including a partial core 901 and partial shell 902 and a second piece including a partial core 903 and partial shell 904 being moved together and assembled so as to form the core-shell mold (paragraph [0043]). The partial core 901 and partial shell 902 may be an integral piece or may be separate assemblies (paragraph [0043]). The partial core-shell structures are provided with attachment points that facilitate assembly (paragraph [0043]). The two-piece molds have the advantage that they can be inspected prior to assembly and casting, whereas previous integral one-piece molds had the disadvantage that inspection of the mold before casting was difficult (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the core is formed from two pieces that can be attached at attachment points by bringing into proximity, as shown in Deines, as Deines recognizes the advantages of forming a core in two parts, such as by enabling inspection of the parts prior to assembly and casting.
The combination teaches wherein the first 3D printed core module comprises a first alignment element (Deines, fig 13, portion 1304) and the second 3D printed core module comprises a second alignment element (Deines, fig 13, portion 1302), the first and second alignment elements being unique to the first 3D printed core module and the second 3D printed core module to prevent either the first or second 3D printed core module being pair with an extraneous module not comprising the first alignment element or second alignment element (Deines, fig 13, note that core part 1301 with the positive dovetail is prevented from a part that doesn’t have the complementary dovetail groove).
The combination above is quiet to the 3D printed module is in accordance with digital 3D models, and thus the combination is quiet to a computer program product, wherein the computer program product is embodied by instructions on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that, when executed by a processor, cause the claimed steps.
However, Hozner et al teaches preparing a mold on the basis of mold model data with a CAM/CAD method (abstract) for metal casting (abstract), where the model data describes the shape of the mold (abstract, fig 4). The invention furthermore relates to a computer with a machine-readable medium, for example, a storage medium, for carrying out the method (paragraph [0026-0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the 3D printed modules are in accordance with digital 3D models, as Hozner et al teaches individually shaped castable materials can be manufactured easily and inexpensively (paragraph [0005]), where model data can be scanned for precise data (paragraph [0012]), and that data acquired can be sent to manufacturing while remote from another location (paragraph [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a computer with the readable medium that when executed carries out the claimed method, as the means for controlling the 3D printing of the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to further require “wherein the first 3D printed core module comprises a first alignment element and the second 3D printed core module comprises a second alignment element, the first and second alignment elements being unique to the first 3D printed core module and the second 3D printed core module to prevent either the first or second 3D printed core module being pair with an extraneous module not comprising the first alignment element or second alignment element.”
Applicant argues that Kawlath consistently emphasizes flexibility and modularity as core advantages, emphasizing that the molds are assembled in a “building-block-like manner.” Applicant argues that the positive/nonpositive connection of Kawlath is not unique, as it does not prevent the three instances of identical mold part 2 from interlocking with one another in figure 8.
The examiner disagrees. Note that independent claims 1 and 15 describe the alignment elements as of the “core module,” whereas independent claim 7 was amended to describe the alignment elements of the “mold module,” and not the “core module.
The rejection looks towards Deines for the teaching of the new limitation. The new limitation of the claims is directed to the “core module,” whereas Kawlath is described above as teaching the claimed “mold module.” Secondly, applicant describes that the alignment features are not unique as the identical mold parts of Kawlath can interlock with one another. However, these identical mold parts are not extraneous, as they are identical mold parts, and they also do comprise the alignment element (where they interlock with one another). An extraneous module, without the alignment, would not interlock, as it is the alignment element where the part interlock to.
Regarding Deines, applicant argues that the dovetail and tongue-and-groove attachments are standard interchangeable types that could be used between any compatible components. However, the examiner notes that the compatible components would have to have the corresponding dovetail or tongue-and-groove. Extraneous components without the dovetails, won’t align with the modules that use the dovetails.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 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 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
