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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 June 2024 has been 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.
1. Claims 1-18 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.
With regard to Claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for either of “the material” or “the cold-casting lamination process” appearing in the last line of the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim is presumed directed to a material of the cold-casting or lamination process. Claims 2-18 are similarly rejected to the extent they depend from Claim 1 and do not resolve the noted ambiguity.
Further with regard to Claims 8, 10-11, and 18, the term “preferably” renders each claim ambiguous since it is unclear as to whether recitations which follow constitute claim elements. For purposes of examination, recitations following “preferably” are not understood to be required claim elements.
Further with regard to Claim 14, the term “optionally” renders the claim ambiguous, since it is unclear as to whether recitations which follow constitute claim elements. For purposes of examination, recitations following “optionally” are not understood to be required claim elements.
Further with regard to Claims 17-18, the phrase “such as, e.g.,” renders each claim ambiguous since it is unclear as to whether recitations which follow constitute claim elements. For purposes of examination, recitations following “such as, e.g.” are not understood to be required claim elements.
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 7, 10-12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0237159 to R. Hochsmann (“Hochsmann”) in view of US 2006/0079601 to M. J. Gullo (“Gullo”).
With regard to Claims 1, 7, 11, 15, and 17, Hochsmann teaches a method of producing an additively manufactured casting mold comprising repeated deposition of material layers to obtain a desired shape for subsequent casting of inorganic material (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0018], [0020], [0037], [0040]). Hochsmann teaches depositing a material layer comprising sand (aggregate) and a bonding and/or binding agent (see ¶¶ [0022]-[0023], [0035], [0043]-[0045]) and selectively applying a second material solution comprising a magnesium sulphate bonding agent thereto (see ¶¶ [0029], [0033, [0040]). Although Hochsmann does not expressly teach removing unbonded layer materials, such a step would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to obtain a desired mold shape – particularly in view of the Hochsmann’s instruction regarding selective application bonding agent.
Hochsmann does not teach coating a thus-produced mold with a formwork skin as claimed. Gullo is similarly directed to sand casting, and teaches coating a thermosetting release layer on sand molds to facilitate mold release (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0003]-[0004], [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have coated molds produced by the method of Hochsmann with a thermosetting release layer as taught by Gullo in order to facilitate mold release.
With regard to Claim 2, Hochsmann teaches inclusion multiple types of aggregate material, any of which could be considered a filler (see ¶ [0035]).
With regard to Claim 10, Hochsmann teaches aqueous second material compositions comprising the claimed amount of bonding agent (see ¶¶ [0029], [0036], [0049]).
With regard to Claim 12, Hochsmann teaches recycling mold material (see ¶¶ [0027], [0047]).
3. Claims 3, 8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochsmann in view of Gullo as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0338629 to I. Herzog (“Herzog”).
With regard to Claim 3, Hochsmann does not expressly teach the claimed weight percentages. Herzog is similarly directed to methods of producing molds via layer-by-layer deposition, and teaches a base material comprising binding agent, aggregate, and filler constituents within the claimed amounts (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0070], [0075]-[0079]). It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a mold material with the claimed constituent amounts in the method of Hochsmann, as taught by Herzog, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to Claim 8, Hochsmann does not expressly teach the claimed aggregate size distribution. Herzog teaches aggregate featuring a particle size distribution within the claimed range (see ¶¶ [0036], [0038], [0048], [0104], [0115]-[0116]). It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed aggregate size distribution in the method of Hochsmann, as taught by Herzog, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to Claims 13-14, Hochsmann teaches layered deposition but does not expressly teach 3D printing. Herzog teaches manufacture of molds via 3D printing and that techniques and apparatus therefor are known in the art (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0001], [0005]-[0010], [0019]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have performed the layered deposition process of Hochsmann via 3D printing as taught by Herzog.
4. Claims 4-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochsmann in view of Gullo as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2016/0257072 to Okamoto et al. (“Okamoto”).
With regard to Claims 4-5 and 9, Hochsmann does not the claimed binder and filler materials. Okamoto is similarly directed to an efficient layered deposition of particle-binder mixtures, with selective application binder, featuring high reliability and teaches inclusion of metal oxide and filler materials therefor, including magnesium oxide and methyl cellulose (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0007], [0103]-[0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included materials disclosed by Okamoto in the method of Hochsmann in order to pursue efficient and reliable layered deposition.
With regard to Claim 6, Okamoto teaches usage of particles in layer material featuring the claimed density (see ¶ [0108]).
5. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochsmann in view of Gullo as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2016/0167116 to T. Hartig (“Hartig”).
With regard to Claim 18, Hochsmann does not teach magnesium chloride. Hartig is similarly directed to additive manufacture of mold materials, and teaches magnesium chloride as an alternative to magnesium sulfate (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0001], [0034]). It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed magnesium chloride in the method of Hochsmann with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as noted but it otherwise directed to allowable subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is deemed to be Hochsmann and Gullo; however the references do not teach or suggest casting concrete as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights