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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-17, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman et al. (US 2006/0021731) in view of Floyd et al. (US 2007/0036997).
Regarding independent claim 1, as well as claims 3, 5, and 34, Strangman et al. disclose a method of forming a cast molded part (abstract; paragraphs [0009]-[0020], [0023], [0033]-[0038], [0048], and [0049]), in which the method comprises the following steps:
applying a thermal barrier coating (TBC) system to a sand core used to form an interior surface of the cast molded part, in which the TBC system surrounds the sand core (see paragraph [0037]);
inserting the TBC coated sand core into a mold (see paragraph [0038]);
forming a cast iron part in the mold with the inserted TBC coated sand core (see paragraph [0018]), resulting in depositing a molten casting metal into the mold to form the cast molded part that surrounds the TBC system on the sand core (see paragraph [0039]); and
removing the cast molded part including the cast iron body surrounding the TBC system from the mold, followed by removing the sand core (of which both of these “removing” steps are inherent steps at a conclusion of casting processes, in order to obtain a final cast molded part),
wherein the TBC system comprises a ceramic layer and a metallic layer, wherein the ceramic layer and the metallic layer are applied with an air plasma spray thermal spray process (see paragraphs [0009] and [0023]).
Strangman et al. fail to teach applying the ceramic layer as a gradient layer with selective porosity decreasing from the sand core, wherein the layer applied on the ceramic layer is a porous TBC layer, and a non-porous TBC layer is applied onto the porous TBC layer.
However, Floyd et al. disclose a thermal barrier coating (TBC) (abstract; paragraphs [0019]-[0031]; and Figure 2), in which the TBC includes two TBC layers (see Figure 2) in the form of a porous layer (42) and a non-porous layer (44), wherein porosity decreases from the sand core to protect a surface thereof, for the purpose of preventing molten metal penetrating to the ceramic core (see paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a non-porous layer on top of the porous layer, as taught by Floyd et al., into the method of forming a molded part, as disclosed by Strangman et al., in order to prevent molten metal to penetrate to the ceramic core (Floyd et al.; paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 25-27, Strangman et al. in view of Floyd et al. do not explicitly disclose the ranges of thickness of the ceramic layer and the metallic layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed thickness, since selection of thickness would be merely a design choice depending on the type of casting material and size/shape of the cast product to be made. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges 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 (1980).
Regarding claim 9, Strangman et al. disclose that the ceramic layer comprises yttria stabilized zirconia and the metallic layer comprises iron-based steel (paragraphs [0018], [0019], and [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Strangman et al. in view of Floyd et al. fail to explicitly teach a step of preheating the sand core with the thermal spray process. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to preheat the sand core to a temperature sufficient in order to provide adhesion of these materials with reduced heat stress based on temperature differential.
Regarding claims 11-14 and 28-33, although an adhesion layer of nickel (paragraph [0019]) is added atop the ceramic layer over the sand core, Strangman et al. in view of Floyd et al. fail to teach the ranges of thickness of the adhesion layer, as well as a mixture of metal and polymer that comprises a metal-based polymer composite, including the claimed (metal) Al-based polymers. However, it would have been obvious to provide the claimed amount of the adhesion layer depending on the design choice of the stable structure of the sand core. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges 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 (1980). In addition, since the combined teachings of Strangman et al. and Floyd et al. disclose ceramic materials suitable for use as layers applied to a sand core, it would have been obvious to select any of these other materials that are suitable for improving casting properties. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, the sand core of Strangman et al. comprises silica sand, water, and inert sludge, wherein the core further includes graphite (see paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, Strangman et al. fail to teach anthracite in the sand core. However, since Strangman et al. disclose other materials that are similar to anthracite, it would have been obvious to select any of these other materials that are suitable for improving casting properties. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment received by the USPTO on August 25, 2026. The applicants have amended claims 1 and 5, and the amended portions of these claims are addressed in newly underlined portions of the above 35 USC 103 rejection. Claims 18-24 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-17, and 25-34 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed August 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on pages 7-15 of the amendment, the applicants argue (on page 12 of the REMARKS section) that Floyd et al. disclose an arrangement that is “opposite” of the claimed invention as that of the applicants. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants’ claim 1 includes a porous layer applied over the sand core and a non-porous layer applied onto the porous layer. In this instance, Floyd et al. disclose (in Figure 2) the exact sequence set forth in the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a non-porous layer on top of the porous layer, as taught by Floyd et al., into the method of forming a molded part, as disclosed by Strangman et al., in order to prevent molten metal from penetrating to the ceramic core (Floyd et al.; paragraph [0021]). Regarding claim 5 (amended to be in independent form in the amendment), the applicants argue (in the 1st full paragraph on page 13 of the REMARKS section) that Floyd et al. do not teach the claimed invention of the “gradient layer with a porosity decreasing from the sand core”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In addressing (newly independent) claim 5, the examiner is taking the position that (similarly) for independent claim 1, the applicants are claiming the two layers in sequence (i.e. non-porous layer applied over the porous layer), then the gradient layer would be formed as a decreasing gradient (“porosity decreases” in the teachings of Floyd et al.).
In response to the applicants' argument (throughout pages 7 and 8 of the REMARKS section) that a prima facie case of obviousness has allegedly not been met by the combined teachings of Strangman et al. and Floyd et al. in the 35 USC 103 rejection, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this instance, the teachings of Floyd et al. would improve the method of forming a molded part, as disclosed by Strangman et al., in order to prevent molten metal from penetrating to the ceramic core (see paragraph [0021] of Floyd et al.). In view of the 35 USC 103 rejection and for these additional reasons, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-17, and 25-34 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 September 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights