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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues “The term "lost core" is well known in the art…. In the method of amended claim 1, a lost core is injected in a polymeric material (to form the desired internal geometry of the desired part). A ceramic is then overinjected around the lost core…. Hearon's dissolvable mold forms the outer shape and has an inner cavity, and thus is not a "lost core."” (Remarks, Pg. 6-8).
Examiner does not find this persuasive for the following reason:
When the specification was reviewed to look for support for the term “lost core” it was found that (A) the specification does provide literal support for the term “lost core” and (B) at least portions of the specification use a core in the same manner as Hearon and in the opposite manner as alleged in the present remarks. For example paragraph 16 of the publication it states, “ceramic injection into the core”.
Thus, while Examiner agrees that the term “lost core” is generally used in the art to refer to forming an internal feature, this interpretation is not supported by the specification. It would not be proper to import unclaimed features (e.g., internal geometry) into the claim based on unsupported extrinsic terminology.
Therefore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Claim Objections
In claim 1, “injecting” should be “injection molding” in order to clarify that the lost core is being made by injection molding of a polymer, not injected into a polymer.
In claim 1, “in a polymeric material” should be --comprising a polymeric material--in order to clarify that the lost core is made of polymer, not injected into a polymer.
Figure 6 shows an injection mold and supports the above language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 1, the term “lost core” is not properly supported by the specification. It does not appear to change the meaning of the claim and could be replaced with --core--.
The specification uses the term “core” in a manner than is inconsistent with the art recognized meaning of the term “lost core”. For example, at paragraph 16 of the publication it states, “ceramic injection into the core”. Thus, the use of this terminology is inconsistent with portions of the specification and thus replacing the term “core” with “lost core” in the claims is not supported.
In any case, the claim requires a core that is dissolved after overmolding to remove the core. Deleting the term “lost” does not appear to change the meaning of the claim (Assuming that the claim is being interpreted correctly).
In reference to claim 1, the term “lost core technique” is not supported by the specification. Deleting the term does not appear to change the meaning of the claim (Assuming that the claim is being interpreted correctly).
Note: Claims 3-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 or 102 as being unpatentable over Hearon (US 20210276077 A1)
In reference to claim 1-4, Hearon discloses the formation of a polymer core (“injected dissolvable inner mold” [P0273]),
overmolding the polymer core with ceramic (“injection of a flowable ceramic composition into a dissolvable mold” [P0273]),
removing the polymer core by dissolution (“the dissolvable, additively manufactured monolithic polymer mold dissolves in water or an organic solvent” [P0008]),
chemical/water debinding and thermal debinding the ceramic (“debinding comprises solvent debinding followed by thermal debinding” [P0278]),
sintering the ceramic (“binder removal and sintering processes” [P0279]).
Hearon does not disclose that the ceramic is a nozzle, however, Hearon forms a turbine element comprising orifices which encompasses nozzle like elements. See Fig 3 and claim 19. Thus, it would be obvious to use the manufacturing means of Hearon to form a nozzle as claimed. Alternatively, the turbine of Hearon is itself considered a nozzle and then Hearon meets the claim under 35 USC 102.
Conclusion
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