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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The term “clam shell” generally refers a mold wherein two mold halves are connected by a hinge and the mold is opened by pivoting one of the mold halves via the hinge. However, applicant appears to suggest that what they intend by “clam shell” are two symmetrical mold halves, even if they are not connected by a hinge, as the configuration in Fig 3 would be impossible in a traditional clam shell mold and a hinge is not depicted in any of the Figures or mentioned in the specification. As applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer, the examiner has interpreted claims using this term as simply requiring two outer mold halves of roughly symmetrical dimensions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner appreciates applicant's amendments, but the combination of Weaver and Koji would still render the claims obvious. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Koji notes removing the mandrel and melting the release layer coating the mandrel at 60-80 C and Weaver implicitly removed its coating on the mold during the pyrolysis step which would constitute removing the mandrel layer at a first temperature sufficient to melt or fluidize the 2nd release layer with the cake still within/supported by the mold (Koji) and removing the mold release coating at a higher temperature during pyrolysis (Weaver). Hence, the combination of references would entail removing the respective release coating at the respective claimed temperatures. Given that these steps had both a high degree of predictability and a reasonable expectation of success one of ordinary skill in the art would be highly motivated to combine Weaver and Koji and arrive at the instant invention, see MPEP 2143.02.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
The claim has 2 steps where the 2nd release layer is removed, including after the second release layer is fluidized which would be impossible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 4127629) in view of Koji (JP S491763)
As to claim 1, Weaver teaches a casting method of making silicon carbide bodies [Title] wherein a slurry of silicon carbide and water miscible resin are poured into a mold to form a preform [Abstract, col 2 line 8-20], Weaver notes that the inner surface of the mold is coated with wax which would form a first release layer [col 3 line 1-10], Weaver notes that pyrolyzing the organic content within the preform into carbon content [Abstract, col 5 line 20-30, col 3 line 43-60, col 2 line 8-20]
Weaver does not teach coating a 2nd release coating on a mandrel, the mold cavity being formed by the combination of an outer mold and mandrel, thermally removing the 2nd layer and, removing the mandrel from the assembled mold.
Koji teaches that a method of making ceramic pipe using an outer mold and inner mold (mandrel) form a mold cavity for slip casting and notes this configuration is conventional [0001]. Koji teaches that the mandrel is coated with paraffin wax that is “instantly melted” at around 60-80 C in order to retract the mandrel[0001, 2nd paragraph] as the wax is “easily fluidized” the inner mold is “easily removed” which allows for production of a hollow part “that are quick to release from the mold, free from cracks, and have good dimensional accuracy” [0001]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Weaver and utilized coating a 2nd release coating on a mandrel, the mold cavity being formed by the combination of an outer mold and mandrel, thermally removing the 2nd layer and, removing the mandrel from the assembled mold with the cake remaining in/supported by the mold, as suggested by Koji, as this allowed for hollow ceramic tube parts that “that are quick to release from the mold, free from cracks, and have good dimensional accuracy.”
The combination of Weaver and Koji teach the use of both release layers and Weaver notes that the inner surface of the mold is coated with wax which would form a first release layer [col 3 line 1-10] and the part is subsequently fired at 2070 C the wax would be burnt out at temperature much higher than the 80C of Koji, ie thermally removed [col 3 line 54-58]. Weaver even notes the mold itself is combusted by the heating process and therefore the lower melting wax would certainly be melted/thermally removed [col 4 line 60-68].
Additionally, 763 teaches a method of casting ceramic tube [0001]
As to claim 2, the combination of Weaver and Koji teach the space in said assembled mold between said coated mandrel and said coated mold is forming said mold cavity as explained above.
As to claim 3, the combination of Weaver and Koji teach heating said second release layer to >80 C to thermally remove said second release layer through melting or burning off [Weaver col 5 line 20-30, or Koji 2nd paragraph 0001]. Moreover, it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
As to claim 4, the combination of Weaver and Koji teach heating said preform cake and said first release layer to >500 C to achieve said pyrolyzing and said thermally removing said first release layer [col 5 line 20-30].
As to claim 11, The combination of Weaver and Koji teach the first release layer and/or said second release layers are organic release layers as both use waxes as explained above.
As to claim 12, Weaver teaches slurry is a liquid comprising silicon carbide particles and organic content [Abstract, col 2 line 15-36].
As to claim 13, Weaver teaches the organic content comprises an organic binder [col 2 line 15-36].
As to claim 14, the combination of Weaver and Koji teach the preform part is a tube [0001 of Koji].
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 4127629) in view of Koji (JP S491763), as applied to claims 1-4, 11-14 above, and in further view of Thary (US 5112543).
As to claims 8 and 9, The combination of Weaver and Koji teach the use of release layers but do not specifically state the first release layer is sprayed acrylic.
Thary teaches a method of molding wherein acrylic is sprayed onto the inner wall of the mold in order to form a release layer so the workpiece does not adhere to the interior surface of the mold [Abstract, col 1 line 61-col 2 line 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Weaver and sprayed the acrylic resin onto the inner surface of the mold, as suggested by Thary, as this had proven successful at preventing the molded piece from adhering to the inner surface of the mold.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 4127629) in view of Koji (JP S491763), as applied to claims 1-4, 11-14 above, and in further view of Haniyu (JP 63118212)
As to claim 10, both Weaver and Koji teach using a wax layer as the release material but do not specifically state that the wax is a sheet wax.
Haniyu teaches a method of slurry molding wherein a release film made of sheet wax is utilized in the molding process [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Weaver and utilized a wax sheet as the 2nd release coating, as suggested by Haniyu, as this material had already proven successful as a release coating in slurry molding applications.
Claims 5-7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 4127629) in view of Koji (JP S491763), as applied to claims 1-4, 11-14 above, and in further view of George (US 2015/0044320).
As to claims 5-7, 17, Weaver in view of Koji teaches coating the inner mold but does not explicitly a plurality of clamshell mold parts and where said plurality of mold parts form said mold and the separation between the inner core and mold parts being different in different locations.
George teaches a method overmolding pipe structures[Abstract], wherein a plurality of sectional clamshell type molds are utilized in order to create mold for a bent section of the pipe in order to accommodate an end part that is irregular or bent at reasonable cost and timescale [Fig 10, 0117, 0075]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Weaver and had mold comprises a plurality of mold parts with different areas of separation and made of a plurality of clamshell type molds, as suggested by George, to provide a mold for bent and irregular sections at reasonable cost and time scale.
Claims 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 4127629) in view of Koji (JP S491763), as applied to claims 1-4, 11-14 above, and in further view of Newkirk (US 5585190).
As to claim 15, Weaver does not explicitly state infiltrating said preform part with molten silicon to form a reaction bonded silicon carbide part.
Newkirk teaches a method of casting silicon carbide material [col line 10-40] wherein the silicon carbide preform is infiltrated with a metal matrix of silicon as the choice matrix with particle composition can mixed and matched depending on the desired end properties [col 11 34-42, col 13 line 45-57, col 25 line 65 to col 26 line 15, col 10 line 49- col 11 line 32]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Weaver and infiltrated the silicon carbide with silicon metal, as suggested by Newkirk, in order to create an MMC with engineered mechanical properties.
As to claim 16, the combination of Waver and Koji teach the preform part is a tube as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights