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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applicants’ admitted prior art (see BACKGROUND in paragraphs [0003]-[0006] of applicants’ specification; and “Prior Art” Figures 2 and 3) in view of WO 2015/026535, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0025001), both references of which are cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 2, 2023.
Regarding independent claim 1, as well as claims 3 and 7, the applicants’ admitted prior art (see “Prior Art” Figures 2 and 3) discloses a ceramic casting mold to make a cast (turbine blade) component, in which the ceramic casting mold includes the following structural features:
a core portion (200) and a shell portion (202) with at least one cavity (201) between the core portion (200) and the shell portion (202), in which the at least one cavity (201) is adapted to define a shape of a cast component upon casting and removal of the ceramic mold; and
wherein the cavity (201) defines the turbine blade component.
The applicants’ admitted prior art discloses (in “Prior Art” Figure 2) of a core portion and a shell portion, but fails to teach an interface at a connection (interlocking) point with at least a second core portion and a second shell portion.
However, WO ‘535 discloses a turbine component casting core (abstract; pages 11-15; and Figures 1 and 2), in which two sections (11,13) and/or core pieces (12,14) of the casting core (10) are configured to interface at a connection (interlocking) point, for the purpose of providing a physically locked connection to provide core joint stability (WO ‘535; abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide interlocking features at the interface of two separate cores, as taught by WO ‘535, into the ceramic casting mold disclosed by the applicants’ admitted prior art, in order to provide a physically locked connection to provide core joint stability (WO ‘535; abstract).
The applicants’ admitted prior art in view of WO ‘535 fail to teach at least one standoff feature to provide spacing between core portions and being integral to the core portion made of cured liquid ceramic photopolymer.
However, Lee et al. disclose an integrated core and shell mold (abstract; paragraphs [0046] and [0051]-[0053]; and Figures 6 and 7), in which the integrated core and shell mold includes at least one standoff feature (43) that is integral to casting core portion (50) and operable to abut a portion of the shell mold, for the purpose of supporting the core portion (50) to an outer core during a subsequent casting process (see paragraphs [0046] and [0051]-[0053]; and Figures 6 and 7). Moreover, the at least one standoff feature (43) and the core portion (50) are composed of similar materials. Although Lee et al. lack explicit disclosure that the at least one standoff feature (43) and the core portion (50) are made of a cured liquid ceramic photopolymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use liquid ceramic photopolymers as compositions of these components. 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least one standoff feature to provide spacing between core portions, as taught by Lee et al., into the ceramic casting mold disclosed by the combined teachings of the applicants’ admitted prior art and WO ‘535, in order to provide support for the core portion to an outer core during a subsequent casting process (Lee et al.; paragraphs [0046] and [0051]-[0053]).
Furthermore, regarding the amendment to independent claim 1 that the standoff feature (43) is a “pin”, Lee et al. fail to explicitly teach that the at least one standoff feature is a pin. However, Lee et al. disclose a rod-like structure, being similar to a “pin”. However, there is no claimed distinction of the thickness of the pin that cannot be interpreted as different from the rod-like structure. In this interpretation, the examiner is taking the position that the while Lee et al. do not explicitly teach a pin, a rod-like structure is similar to a pin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pin, since it is a similar structure that would be dependent upon the design expediency of providing an integral and/or abutting structure for the first core portion and/or the first shell portion.
Regarding claims 4-6, Lee et al. disclose that the at least one standoff feature (43) is rod-like (similar to a pin), wherein the pin (rod-like) would be integral to the first shell portion or abuts the first core portion (50). Although Lee et al. fail to explicitly teach that the at least one standoff feature (43) is a bumper feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any configuration depending on the design choice, since pins and bumpers both similarly provide core support and prevent core movement during a casting process, wherein such a bumper (in place of the pin) would be integral to the first core portion and a second bumper integral to the first shell portion.
Regarding claims 8-10, although WO ‘535 discloses that the connection (interlocking) feature is an interlocking dovetail (20,22), as shown in Figure 2 of WO ‘535, the combined teachings fail to teach that the interlocking feature is a fastening tongue or groove, or a rabbet joint with an interlocking peg. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use one or more of any of these interlocking features, since modification of the interlocking connections would be based on design choice and obvious to try in the turbine blade casting art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, the applicants’ admitted prior art discloses a plurality of tie structures (303) joining the core portion (301) and the shell portion (302), wherein the tie structures (303) are adapted to define a plurality of holes in the cast component upon removal of the ceramic casting mold (see BACKGROUND in paragraph [0006] of applicants’ specification; and “Prior Art” Figure 3).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ after final amendment entered upon filing of the request for continued examination received by the USPTO on January 20, 2026 and February 11, 2026, respectively. The amendment to independent claim 1 overcomes the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Claims 12-17 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to non-elected inventions. Claims 1 and 3-11 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on page 5 of the amendment, it is noted that the newly underlined portions in the above 35 USC 103 rejection address the applicants’ amendment to independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “the at least one standoff feature is a bumper or a pin that is integral to the first shell portion and abuts the first core portion, or the at least one standoff feature is a bumper or a pin that is integral to the first core portion and abuts the first shell portion”, as discussed in the telephone interview on January 13, 2026. After further consideration in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “or” (as one option or the other option), the applicants’ amendment pertaining to addition of the limitation “or the at least one standoff feature is a bumper or a pin that is…,” does not overcome the current 35 USC 103 rejection for the reasons set forth in the final rejection mailed November 17, 2025. Based on Figure 10 of the applicants’ drawings (as also discussed in the telephone interview on January 13, 2026), the bumper or pin (1003 and 1004) occur at both the shell (1002) and the core (1001). In order to overcome the prior art rejection, it is recommended for applicants to amend independent claim 1 to clearly set forth these structural features depicted in applicants’ Figure 10, wherein the at least one standoff feature (bumper or pin) is at both the core and the shell.
Conclusion
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 March 5, 2026