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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 17 in the reply filed on 5 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5 November 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 November 2024 and 7 May 2025 were considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 and 17 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.
In regards to independent claim 1, the claim sets forth the preamble of “A low-carbon casting” in the first line of the claim. The metes and bounds of this particular limitation cannot be determined since it is not clear what structure would or would not be considered to be a low-carbon casting. It is not clear how much carbon can be present within the casting such that it would be considered to be a low-carbon casting.
Claims 2-8 and 17 depend from independent claim 1 and incorporate the limitations therein. Accordingly, claims 2-8 and 17 are rejected for the reasons set forth above in regards to independent claim 1.
As to claims 2-8 and 17, these claims include the phrase “The low-carbon emission casting according to claim 1” as set forth in the preambles of claims 2-8 and the body of claim 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 fails to set forth a low-carbon emission casting.
Given the preambles of the dependent claims 2-8 and limitation in the body of claim 17, claim 1 is being interpreted as being properly directed to a low-carbon emission casting.
As to claims 2-8 and 17 (and Independent claim 1 under the antecedent basis issue discussed above), the phrase ‘low-carbon emission casting” in the first line of claims 2-8 and second line of claim 17. The metes and bounds of this particular limitation cannot be determined since it is not clear what structure would or would not be considered to be a low-carbon emission casting. A review of the specification failed to turn up guidance on the amount of carbon that is allowed in order to be considered a low-carbon emission casting. For the purposes of examination, the Office is construing this term to mean carbon is not a main component formed from the casting process.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-119150 (JP ‘150).
In regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 17, JP ‘150 is directed to cement-based industrial equipment, more particularly to a cement-based industrial machine which when used in a machine tool bed, a column, or the like, suppresses a reduction in machining accuracy due to vibrations generated from a machining. (Lines 9-13) Therefore, the product would include a machining device connected to a casting. When cement concrete is used as a material for machine parts of a machine tool bed, the vibration and machining accuracy during machining operation improve compared to metal, but porous is better from the viewpoint of vibration absorption. (Lines 23-26) The cement concrete corresponds to a casting main body formed by casting and solidification at room temperature and is considered a low-carbon emission casting.
Aggregates and admixtures may be added, including sand, gravel, crushed sand and the like. (Lines 57-61) Additionally, resins, polymers, fibers, and water reducing agents can be provided. (Lines 61-69) For installation of machinery parts, parts, bolts, anchors, and so on can be mounted as parts and members including steel plates, bolts, nuts, etc. can be embedded. (Lines 81-82) If necessary, steel frames or reinforcing bars are set in advance. (Lines 85) These components are considered embedded parts and include connecting portions disposed on one surface of the body since they are formed for installation of the part or mounting the part.
As to claim 2, the body may include at least one groove defined on at least one surface of the casting main body.
As to claim 3, for installation of machinery parts, parts, bolts, anchors, and so on can be mounted as parts and members including steel plates, bolts, nuts, etc. can be embedded. (Lines 81-82) If necessary, steel frames or reinforcing bars are set in advance. (Lines 85) These components can be considered to be fixing parts and include at least one first keyhole. Such components are used for mounting the component and would therefore be considered to be on the bottom surface of the casting main body.
As to claim 4, the placement of the embedded mounting parts is a mere design choice that is a rearrangement of parts. Shifting the position of the mounting components would not have modified the operation of the part. Therefore, the particular placement of the mounting parts is obvious as a matter of design choice. (MPEP 2144.04,VI,C)
As to claim 5, for installation of machinery parts, parts, bolts, anchors, and so on can be mounted as parts and members including steel plates, bolts, nuts, etc. can be embedded. (Lines 81-82) If necessary, steel frames or reinforcing bars are set in advance. (Lines 85) For example a nut can be considered a pipeline with two openings on one surface.
As to claim 6, for installation of machinery parts, parts, bolts, anchors, and so on can be mounted as parts and members including steel plates, bolts, nuts, etc. can be embedded. (Lines 81-82) If necessary, steel frames or reinforcing bars are set in advance. (Lines 85) This would correspond to the claimed structure.
As to claim 7, the product of JP ‘150 is directed to cement-based industrial equipment, more particularly to a cement-based industrial machine which when used in a machine tool bed, a column, or the like, suppresses a reduction in machining accuracy due to vibrations generated from a machining. (Lines 9-13) As such, for use as a machine tool bed, the wall size would fall within the claimed range.
As to claim 8, JP ‘150 sets forth forming the structure into a predetermined shape as necessary. (Lines 84-85) The changing of the shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a mere design choice. (See MPEP 2144.04,IV,B) Additionally, this structure could be an aesthetic design choice. (See MPEP 2144.04,I) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the edge portion as set forth in the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784