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 .
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 7/29/26 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. Claim 1 as stated do not require that the first release layer have a melting temperature higher than the second release layer. The claims as stated merely describe the relative temperature of the 2 thermal removal steps. In other words, whether or not the pyrolyzing step wherein the release coating attached to the mold is removed a higher temp than the mandrel coating removal. The combination of Weaver and Koji objectively teach these features. For the sake of argument, even assuming the requirement of the 2 different melting temperatures, this feature would still be taught in view of Thary which discloses acrylic which is a higher melting point material than wax. 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 § 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 by heating the assembled 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 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 as 80 C is “approximately 85 C” it would meet the claim [0001, 2nd paragraph of Koji]. 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 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, claim 4].
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 4 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 Reilly (US 8865607).
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, col 3 line 54-58] but does not explicitly state that this is within an inert environment.
Reilly teaches a method of making silicon carbide bodies [Abstract] wherein the environment is inert [col 5 line 5-48]. 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 an inert atmosphere for pyrolysis, as suggested by Reilly, as this had demonstrated success at producing silicon carbide bodies. Moreover, this was just combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and use of known technique to improve similar devices, see MPEP 2143.
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) and Kasprzyk (US 5985186).
As to claims 5-7, 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.
As to claims 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.
Kasprzyk teaches a method of making a silicon carbide pipe [Abstract] wherein different portion of the pipe have different internal diameters in order to aid in mandrel retrieval, achieve desired thickness, and that these techniques were “known to those skilled in the art” [col 5 line 5-35]. 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 Kasprzyk and utilized the mandrel and mold such that different portions of the pipe have different internal diameters, as suggested by Kasprzyk, to aid in mandrel retrieval, achieve desired thickness, and that these techniques were “known to those skilled in the art.”
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
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 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