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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted on 29 January 2024 has been entered. After entry of the amendment, claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Xing et al (US Patent No. 11,434,318 B2).
The reference teaches, in Table 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
418
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The composition is used as a resin mixture for additive manufacturing.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising, at least furfuryl alcohol (present as a separate component as well as in the organic waste liquid) which meets the furfuryl alcohol component, furan resin (present in the organic waste liquid) which meets the reactive furan resin, silane KH-550 which meets the activator as according to the specification the activator may be a silane material, and epoxy soybean oil which meets the epoxidized fatty acid. Note that instant claim 4 recites epoxidized soybean oil as an example of the epoxidized fatty acid component. As the composition is a resin material for additive material it is capable of being used as a binder material. Further note that that the preamble limitation is of no consequence when the composition is the same. Ultimate utility does not make a composition patentable. That is, the future use of a composition adds little or no patentable weight to a composition claim when the composition is the same (ln re Pearson 181 USPQ 641). Patentability does not depend upon intended use (Ex parte Wikdahl 10 USPQ2d 1546). During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). According, as the reference teaches the same components, claim 1 is met.
As for claim 2, soybean oil has 18 carbon atoms which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 3, the reference teaches epoxy soybean oil that would meet an epoxidized plant seed oil.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches epoxy soybean oil which meets the epoxidized soybean oil.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al (US Patent No. 11,434,318 B2) in view of Hutchings et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0055125 A1).
Xing et al was discussed previously, above.
Hutchings et al teaches, in the claims, that it is known in the art to produce a foundry binder system by combining an aggregate with a foundry binder system that comprises an organic foundry binder such as a furan binder, an alkyl resorcinol and a foundry aggregate.
The instant claims are obvious over the combination of references.
As for claim 11, while the Xing et al reference does not recite that the composition may be used as a molding mix, the secondary reference teaches that it is known in the art to formulate a foundry mix by comprising a resin such as a furan resin with a foundry aggregate.. Accordingly it would have been obvious to utilize another type of furan resin, such as that of Xing et al, as the furan resin in the foundry binder system of Hutchings et al because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” One of ordinary skill in the art could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success absent evidence showing otherwise. In other words, the substitution of one furan resin for another would be obvious without producing unexpected results absent evidence showing otherwise.
As for claim 12, the Hutchings et al reference teaches a ratio of aggregate to foundry binder of 100:1 to 100:10 and this range overlaps the claimed range and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 13, this process is taught in the claims of Hutchings et al (see claim 16) as well as the examples.
As for claim 14, the Hutchings et al reference teaches, in claim 17, the formulation of a foundry shape comprising a furan resin binder.
As for claim 15, the Hutchings et al reference teaches, in claim 18, a method of preparing a metal casting using a mold comprising a foundry aggregate and a furan resin binder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitations found in these claims.
References Cited By The Examiner
US Patent No. 11,590,561 B2 teaches a method of producing a sand mold by mixing artificial sand with a furan resin composition.
This reference fails to teach the claimed composition.
PCT International Publication No. WO 01/66281 A1 teaches a furan no-bake foundry binder comprising furfuryl alcohol and/or reactive furan resin, an activator, a bisphenol compound, a polyol, and preferably a silane.
This reference fails to teach the addition of a plasticizer.
US Patent No. 7,125,914 B2 teaches a heat-cured furan binder system comprising: (a) a furan resin; (b) furfuryl alcohol; (c) a dimethyolated furan; d) polyvinyl acetate; and e) an activator selected from the group consisting of resorcinol pitch, bisphenol A tar, and mixtures thereof. The binder may further comprise a silane.
This reference fails to teach the addition of a plasticizer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
February 18, 2026