DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 10, the limitation “flowing fluid” is unclear as to whether this refers to the same fluid in claim 1. Claims 3-4 have been amended to recite flowing the fluid, while claim 10 was not amended. It is unclear if this is intended to refer to a generic fluid or specifically references the claim 1 fluid.
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 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 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.
Claim 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura (KR 20180044975 A) in view of Sanderson (US 20130101823 A1)
In reference to claim 1, Takamura teaches that “When the molten metal injected into the mold 95 hardens, the core dissolving step (S5) is executed.”
If core dissolving occurs while the molten material hardens then the core dissolving process would result in cooling and dissolving as claimed.
Takamura continues: “In this core dissolution step (S5), each of the cores made of ceramic is dissolved with an aqueous alkali solution. At this time, the mop receptacle holes formed in the respective mop receptacle cores serve to guide the alkaline aqueous solution to the platform passage formed in the platform passage core and to discharge the alkaline aqueous solution to the outside.” (top of Pg. 5)
Takamura does not disclose that the insert is porous.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, soluble mold elements, Sanderson teaches forming the dissolvable insert via additive manufacturing techniques such that the dissolvable insert comprises forming the porous core having a lattice structure to support an outer surface of the dissolvable insert, the outer surface forming internal features of the article (“using a mold that has an insert that corresponds in shape to the network of the voids 14. FIG. 3 shows a unit cell of a mold insert 20 used” [P0046]. See Fig 13.
“mold insert 20 may be made …stereolithography” [P0049]
“mold insert 20 may be made of a material that can be dissolved” [P0047] and “water-soluble rapid prototyping materials, such as those describe in U.S. Pat. No. 6,070,107;” [P0047].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by forming the dissolvable insert via additive manufacturing techniques such that the dissolvable insert comprises forming a porous core.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been specifically motivated to integrate the teaching of Sanderson in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; achieve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
