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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 6/27/25. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, and 15-20 are pending, wherein claims 7, 9, 12, and 15-20 remain withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 2017/0087631, cited in IDS filed 10/06/23) in view of Frank (US 2015/0306657, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Gold teaches a method for casting a component (paragraph [0011], method for casting metallic components), the method comprising:
providing a casting core (fig 2, paragraph [0014], core 48) within a cavity (cavity 52) of a component mold (shell 50), wherein the cavity (cavity 52) of the component mold defines an outer component shape (fig 2, paragraph [0014]) and the casting core defines an inner component shape (figs 2-3, paragraph [0015], core defines shape of desired component, fig 4, paragraph [0019], core 48’ shown defining inner portion of turbine blade 10’), the casting core comprising:
a core wall (figs 2-4, paragraph [0017], core could be described as having an outer skin 58) comprising a first core material (paragraph [0020], core constructed from solid ceramic material, paragraph [0015], ceramic material with high density) defining a core outer surface (figs 2-4, paragraph [0017], note outer surface 56 of outer skin 58) and a core inner surface disposed opposite the core outer surface (figs 2-4, paragraph [0017], note the inner surface of outer skin 58), wherein the core inner surface defines a core cavity (figs 2-4, paragraph [0017], note cavity inside the outer skin 58), and
a removal facilitation feature comprising a support web contained within the core cavity (figs 2-4, paragraphs [0016-0017], note the macroporosity including cavities, channels, voids 62 together with the support structure 60 which defines the voids 62, the macroporosity facilitates penetration of caustic leaching agent, paragraph [0023], accelerates process of leaching out the core), wherein the support web comprises at least one structural member coupled to the core inner surface (figs 2-4, paragraph [0016-0017], support structure 60 which defines the voids 62, paragraph [0018-0019], support structure may take any suitable form including array of walls, dividers, rods, struts, or beams) and formed of a second core material (paragraph [0020], core constructed from solid ceramic material);
casting a cast component within the cavity of the component mold with the casting core positioned therein (fig 2, paragraph [0014], molten metal introduced into mold cavity);
removing the cast component from the component mold, with the casting core positioned internally within the component (fig 2-4, paragraph [0014], mold is removed, the core is not physically accessible for breaking); and
removing the casting core from the cast component (figs 2-4, paragraph [0014], core may be removed by leaching),
wherein the casting core is formed by an additive manufacturing process (paragraph [0005], core may be manufactured using additive manufacturing methods).
Gold teaches the core having a dense skin with a relatively spare lattice-like interior (paragraph [0023]), recognizing that a lower density results in a higher leach rate (paragraph [0015]), and that the interior of the core facilitates penetration of the leaching agent (paragraph [0016]) due to the presence of macroporosity such as cavities, channels, voids (paragraph [0016]), thus suggesting the interior being at a higher leaching rate than the exterior dense skin. However, Gold is quiet to the second core material leaches at a faster rate than the first core material.
Frank teaches a ceramic core made by additive manufacturing for casting hollow articles such as gas turbine engine airfoil components (paragraph [0002]). Frank’s core includes a core exterior layer that exhibits reduced chemical reactivity with the molten metal or alloy being cast (paragraph [0002]). Frank’s core includes an inner core body 12 and outer core body layer 14, both formed using an additive manufacturing process (paragraph [0018], figures 2A-3), and may further include zones of differing chemistry or physical morphology (paragraph [0009], such as leachant access channels, see fig 3). The inner core body 12 can be made of a lower cost, readily leachable bulk core body ceramic particulate (paragraph [0027], paragraph [0008], more leachable materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gold such that the second core material is a material that leaches at a faster rate than the first core material, in order to make the core more readily leachable as desired by Gold (paragraph [0004]), and that Gold suggests the interior being at a higher leach rate than an exterior dense skin (paragraph [0015-0016], as a lower density increases the leach rate) and that Frank teaches using a cheaper more leachable material (paragraph [0008]) for the interior than an exterior of an additively manufactured core (paragraph [0007-0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Gold is quiet to wherein the core wall comprises a plurality of core layers.
Frank teaches that the outer core body layer 14 can comprise one or more sub-layers provided between outer layer 14 and body 12 (paragraph [0021], fig 4) in order to improve the sintering dynamics between the outer layer to the core body and to accommodate thermal expansion differences between the body and the outer layer to prevent separation/spallation due to thermal expansion mismatches (paragraph [0021]). Two or more sub-layers, compositionally graded in this manner, can be provided (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the core wall comprises a plurality of core layers, so as to accommodate thermal expansion differences and improve sintering dynamics between the core wall formed of a first material and the removal facilitation features which are formed of the more leachable material.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the component mold is formed by the additive manufacturing process simultaneously with forming the casting core (Gold, paragraph [0022], the core 48 and the shell 50 may be built concurrently as part of a single additive build cycle).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the support web comprises: a plurality of support members each having a first support end coupled to a first inner surface attachment location and a second support end coupled to a second inner surface attachment location (Gold, figs 2-4, paragraph [0018], see walls or dividers 64, paragraph [0019], may take any form suitable, including walls, dividers, rods, struts, or beams, arranged as a lattice or structural truss).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the casting core and the support web are formed simultaneously by the additive manufacturing process (note the support structures of Gold are integral to the core, the core is additively formed, suggesting the support structures are formed simultaneously, see claim 9 of Gold, using an additive manufacturing process, forming a unitary core comprising an outer skin and internal support structure).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the support web comprises: a plurality of support members each having a first support end coupled to a first inner surface attachment location and a second support end coupled to a second inner surface attachment location (Gold, figs 2-4, paragraph [0018], see walls or dividers 64), the plurality of support members forming a lattice structure spanning the core cavity (Gold, figs 2-4, paragraph [0018]-[0019], may take any form suitable, including walls, dividers, rods, struts, or beams, arranged as a lattice or structural truss).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches wherein the cast component is a turbine engine component (Gold, paragraph [0011], see figures).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold as modified by Frank as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graham et al (US 2012/0291983, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Gold teaches a core wall (paragraph [0017], outer skin sufficient thick to resist distortion) with a thickness ‘t’ selected based on the rate of action of the leaching agent and the time desired to complete the leaching process (paragraph [0016]), but is quiet to the core wall having a core wall thickness of 0.1 mm to 5 mm.
Graham et al teaches a cast article formed with an internal cavity formed by a ceramic core which is removed from the cast metal, and that the core is formed with a cavity to facilitate removal of the core (abstract). In order to promote disintegration of the cores when they are exposed to a leaching liquid, the walls of the ceramic cores are made as thin as possible, as long as the cores have adequate structural strength (paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the thickness of the core wall to be in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm, as Gold teaches the thickness is selected based on the time desired to complete the leaching process (Gold, paragraph [0016]), and that Graham et al recognizes that the thickness is made as thin as possible as long as the cores retain adequate structural strength, in order to promote disintegration of the cores when they are exposed to a leaching liquid (Graham et al, paragraph [0081]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 102(a) set forth in the previous Office Action, which have correspondingly been withdrawn.
Applicant argues with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, that the previous Office Action conceded that Gold does not teach a first core material and a second core material, and that Frank and Graham fail to cure the deficiencies of Gold, as Frank discloses an outer layer and an inner layer made of a lower cost more readily leachable material, quiet to a plurality of support members comprising a second core material which leaches at a faster rate than the core wall comprising a first core material.
The examiner disagrees. Note that the outer wall of Gold is inherently formed of a material (thus construed as a first material) and the support structure (inner walls/struts/dividers) is inherently formed of a material (thus construed as a second material). For more clarification, what applicant appears to intend to argue is that Gold does not teach that the second core material (material of the support structure) is a different material than the first core material (outer wall), such that the second core material leaches at a faster rate than the first core material.
As discussed in the rejection above, although Gold does not teach using different materials for the support structure, Gold suggests that the interior of the core leaches at a faster rate. Gold’s core can be described as having a dense skin with a relatively spare lattice-like interior that provides a path for leaching agents (paragraph [0023]). The presence of the macroporosity of the interior of the core facilitates penetration of the leaching agent (paragraph [0016]), whereas the skin can have a density greater than 95% (paragraph [0015]), recognizing that a lower density increases the leaching rate (paragraph [0015]). Frank teaches a core having an internal body structure (12) which may include porosity/leachant access channels (paragraph [0009],[0014]) and an outer layer (14) comprising a different ceramic material than the core body (paragraph [0020]), where the core body can be formed of less expensive more leachable materials (paragraph [0008]). One skilled in the art would find it obvious to form the interior support structure of the core of Gold of a material that is more leachable than an exterior layer as taught in Frank, as doing so would increase the rate of leaching of the core which is desired by Gold and that cheaper materials can be used for internal structures that aren’t in contact with the molten metal.
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).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). See MPEP 2141.03(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Graham et al (US 2012/0291983, cited above) teaches a ceramic core including an internal cavity to facilitate removal of the core when filled with a leaching liquid (abstract), wherein the core may be additively manufactured (paragraph [0038], solid freeform fabrication, fused deposition modeling), and that the core may include support structures (paragraph [0087], figs 9-12, partitions, struts, posts).
Propheter-Hinckley et al (US 2016/0151829, previously cited) teaches an additively manufactured core (paragraph [0033]) including core geometries (fig 8, paragraph [0060]), with an exemplary internal lattice structure to enable improved leaching of the core (paragraph [0079-0080]).
Slavens et al (US 10,040,115, cited in IDS filed 10/06/23) teaches an additively manufactured core including interior channels for establishing a leaching path to reduce the amount of time necessary to dissolve the core (col 3 lines 20-40).
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735