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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, at line 13, the claim recites “the fired core”. The recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. At line 12, the core is subjected to a “firing process” and the result of this process is the formation of “a fused core”. It is not clear why the terminology is different and whether this intends to convey a difference that remains unclear. For the purposes of examination, the “fired core” is understood to be the fused core that results from the firing process. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Additionally, at lines 22 and 24, the claim refers back to “the wax-covered fired core”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. At this point in the process, the wax has been removed as removal of the wax is what produces the void into which the metal is cast. It is not clear whether the recitation intends to set forth that the fired core is still covered with wax or whether the recitation is merely continuing to be utilized as an identifier for the fired/fused core. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “87% binder”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear whether this is necessarily by weight or whether something else is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required (e.g. by reciting “87% by weight binder”).
Regarding 14, at line 6, the claim recites “the fired core”. The recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. At line 5, the core is subjected to a “firing process” and the result of this process is the formation of “a fused core”. It is not clear why the terminology is different and whether this intends to convey a difference that remains unclear. For the purposes of examination, the “fired core” is understood to be the fused core that results from the firing process.
Additionally, at lines 15 and 18, the claim refers back to “the wax-covered fired core”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. At this point in the process, the wax has been removed as removal of the wax is what produces the void into which the metal is cast. It is not clear whether the recitation intends to set forth that the fired core is still covered with wax or whether the recitation is merely continuing to be utilized as an identifier for the fired/fused core. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
The other claims are rejected as dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 2015/0321247), Bhattacharja (US 2012/0148736), any one of Mori et al. (US 2022/0310546), DeCarr et al. (US 2019/0076914), and Anzai et al. (US 4,923,520), and in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) as set forth in the specification of the instant application, published as US 2025/0187064 .
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7-13, Fukushima teaches a method of forming a turbine blade (paragraphs [0002], [0039], [0043] and [0088]; Figure 1) comprising injecting a single crystal ceramic core composition into a mold to form a core having an internal profile of a turbine blade (paragraph [0024]-[0026], [0074], [0087]), the single crystal ceramic core composition including an inorganic portion including and amount of fused silica that overlaps the claimed range (Abstract; paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0020]-[0024], [0028], [0041], [0043]-[0050], [0055], [0056], [0058]-[0062]; balance of silica remaining after utilizing amounts of the other recited materials overlaps the claimed range), wherein the inorganic portion includes an amount that reasonably suggests the claimed range (Abstract; paragraph [0071] e.g. 55-75% by volume); and an organic portion including binder and other components, such as fibers, in amounts that reasonably suggest the claimed range (Abstract; paragraphs [0037], [0038], [0071], [0073] and [0074]), wherein the method further includes: removing the core from the mold and subjecting the core to a firing process to form a fused core (paragraphs [0075]-[0083];
Fukushima teaches fused silica (paragraphs [0058], [0061] and [0085]) but does not teach the fused silica has a spherical shape. However, each of Mori et al. (paragraph [0053]), DeCarr et al. (paragraphs [0008], [0014], [0015], [0051], [0053], [0054], [0056]), Anzai et al. (Abstract; col. 2, lines 15-34; col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 4; col. 8, lines 46-60) teach analogous methods wherein the fused silica has a spherical shape.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Fukushima and any one of the secondary references and to have utilized spherical fused silica as the fused silica in the method of Fukushima, as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of improving the fluidity and moldability of the material (e.g. by reducing viscosity), reducing shrinkage of the core, and improving the strength of the core.
Fukushima teaches the inclusion of other materials with the organic portion and teaches an amount of the organic portion that reasonably suggests the claimed amount in volume, but does not specifically teach the weight amount of the organic portion, including an amount of binder within the claimed range and with the subsequent amount of other materials being utilized (e.g. fibers and other materials in an amount ranging from 11-15% by weight), and as a result, the claimed weight amount of the inorganic portion as well. However, Bhattacharja teaches an analogous method wherein the amount of organic portion utilized overlaps the claimed range, including an amount of binder and other materials/fibers being utilized in amounts that are within or overlap the claimed range (Abstract; paragraphs [0007]-[0028] – describing reasons to utilize the materials with types and amounts within or which overlap the claimed organic portion and binder portion ranges).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Fukushima and Bhattacharja and to have utilized an organic portion and binder in amounts as claimed in the method of Fukushima, as suggested by Bhattacharja, for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharja of producing a core with improved strength and improved uniformity.
In combination, the claimed weight amounts of inorganic portion, organic portion, binder, and fused silica are all utilized in amounts that are either within or which overlap the claimed ranges.
As to the specific steps ultimately utilized to take the specifically claimed core and using it to produce the turbine blade (e.g. from inserting the fired core into a die and continuing to the final leaching step), Fukushima reasonably suggests and implies these steps to one having ordinary skill in the art (paragraphs [0002] and [0003]) and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) as set forth in the published application (paragraphs [0002]-[0006]) makes clear that the manipulative steps utilized to form the core and the blade are conventional and routine in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have utilized the admitted conventional and routine steps of forming a turbine blade with the ceramic core of Fukushima in order to effectively produce the blade in an art recognized suitable and well-known manner. As one having ordinary skill will recognize, the invention is primarily directed to the composition associated with the core itself and not primarily to the process steps utilized to produce the blade separate from the particular core composition. Since the prior art renders producing a core having the claimed composition for forming a turbine blade prima facie obvious, it follows that utilizing the prima facie obvious core in a very conventional manner is also properly rendered prima facie obvious.
As to claims 7, 12 and 13, Fukushima suggests particle sizes that overlap and are sufficiently close to the claimed range and further suggest optimizing the particle sizes and distribution as a routine expedient (paragraphs [0059]-[0062]).
As to claims 8 and 9, Fukushima teaches thermoplastic materials and paraffin-based wax (paragraphs [0073]).
As to claim 10, the combination set forth above in the rejection of claim 3 relies on the fibers described by Fukushima and Bhattacharja to achieve the claimed amounts of polymeric fibers.
As to claim 11, Bhattacharja teaches rayon fibers (paragraph [0024])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roth (US 4,989,664; col. 1, lines 14-25; col. 3, line 36-col. 4, line 11; col. 5, line 50-col. 6, line 22; col. 6, lines 57-63) and Miller, Jr. et al. (US 4,093,017; col. 3, lines 40-57; col. 9, lines 25-45; col. 9, line 62-col. 10, line 5; col. 10, line 64-col. 11, line 62; col. 12, lines 9-17, col. 13, lines 14-24) are each understood to disclose analogous and applicable compositions as alternatives to Fukushima and should be considered prior to replying to this Office Action. Similarly, these references are not understood to not teach or suggest the scope of claims 4-6 and 14-20.
The other cited references are understood to disclose analogous ceramic cores and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights