DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 20 February 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 11, 13, 14, 19 have been amended, claim 12 has been canceled, new claim 21 has been introduced, and claims 1-11 and 13-21 remain pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 September 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham et al. (US 2012/0291983; hereinafter “Graham”; listed in the IDS filed 10 June 2024).
Regarding claim 11, Graham teaches a casting assembly for forming a cast component, comprising:
a first body (core 20g, see Figs. 14 and 15; [0115]) having a first interior surface (surface forming cavity 214, see Figs. 14 and 15; see [0117]) and a first exterior surface (exterior surface of core 20g, see Figs. 14 and 15), spaced from the first interior surface (see Figs. 14 and 15), with the first exterior surface defining a part surface of the cast component (see Figs. 14 and 15 and [0122]), and the first interior surface at least partially bounding a casting hollow (see Figs. 14 and 15), wherein the casting hollow defines a centerline (see Figs. 14 and 15), wherein the first interior surface (surface forming cavity 214, see Figs. 14 and 15) includes a curve between a first upper portion to a first lower portion of the first body (cross section of cavity 214 is curved (see Fig. 15) and extends between a first upper portion, equated to the left half of Fig. 14, to a first lower portion of the first body, equated to the right half of Fig. 14) to define a curved portion having a non-zero radius of curvature (see Fig. 15 – cross section of cavity 214 is oval shaped, so it has a non-zero radius of curvature), wherein the curved portion extends in a Z-direction (see Figs. 14 (Z-direction is left to right) and 15 (Z-direction is into and out of the page)) and the centerline is a non-linear centerline (see Fig. 14 – cavity 214 has bend in it located near portion labeled ‘20g’) including a plurality of curves (see Fig. 14 – cavity 214 has two bends equated to two curves); and
a second body with a second exterior surface spaced from a second interior surface (mold 32, see Figs. 2 and 5; [0122]), with at least a portion of the second interior surface spaced from and facing the first exterior surface (see Figs. 2 and 5; [0122]).
Regarding claim 18, Graham teaches wherein a shape of the first exterior surface of the first body is complementary to at least a portion of an airfoil, blade, vane, shroud, fuel nozzle, combustion liner, shroud hanger, combustor dome, deflector, or fairings (exterior surface of core 20g, see Figs. 14 and 15, is complementary to the cavities in the airfoil 26g in Fig. 13; see [0110]).
Regarding claim 19, Graham teaches wherein the casting hollow includes an opening at the first upper portion or the first lower portion of the first body (opening 202, see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 20, Graham teaches wherein the second body (mold 32, see Fig. 2; [0028] and [0122]) includes at least one window (pour cup 36, see Fig. 2; [0028]).
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) 1-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (US 2012/0291983; listed in the IDS filed 10 June 2024), in view of Weber et al. (US 2014/0341724; hereinafter “Weber”; listed in the IDS filed 10 June 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Graham teaches a casting assembly for forming a cast component, comprising:
a first body (core 20g, see Figs. 14 and 15; [0115]) having a first interior surface (surface forming cavity 214, see Figs. 14 and 15; see [0117]) and a first exterior surface (exterior surface of core 20g, see Figs. 14 and 15), spaced from the first interior surface (see Figs. 14 and 15), with the first exterior surface defining a part surface of the cast component (see Figs. 14 and 15 and [0122]), and the first interior surface at least partially bounding a casting hollow (see Figs. 14 and 15), wherein the casting hollow defines a centerline, wherein the centerline is a non-linear centerline (see Figs. 14 and 15); and
a second body with a second exterior surface spaced from a second interior surface (mold 32, see Figs. 2 and 5; [0122]), with at least a portion of the second interior surface spaced from and facing the first exterior surface (see Figs. 2 and 5; [0122]).
Graham is silent to a ligament extending between the first exterior surface of the first body and the second interior surface of the second body.
Weber teaches a ligament (core tie 200, see Fig. 8; [0035]) extending between the first exterior surface (exterior surface of core forming cooling passageway 120, see Fig. 8) of the first body (core forming cooling passageway 120, see Fig. 8; [0020] and [0035]) and the second interior surface of the (interior surface of mold or shell 230, see Fig. 8) second body (mold or shell 230, see Fig. 8; [0035]). Weber teaches that this core tie provides rigidity to the core and aids in positively locating core(s) within the three-dimensional space of an empty mold (see [0020]).
In view of Weber’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of Graham to include a ligament extending between the first exterior surface of the first body and the second interior surface of the second body, such as the core tie of Weber, because it provides rigidity to the core and aids in positively locating the core within the three dimensional space of the mold.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., to support the first body with respect to the second body as part of the casting assembly), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 2, the combination Graham and Weber teaches wherein a cross-sectional area of the ligament increases or decreases as the ligament extends from the first exterior surface to the second interior surface (Weber: core tie 200, see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Graham and Weber teaches wherein the ligament is a plurality of ligaments extending from the first exterior surface to the second interior surface (Weber: see Fig. 8 and [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Graham and Weber is silent to wherein the first body is a plurality of first bodies, wherein at least one of the plurality of first bodies defines the casting hollow. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the use of a multi-piece constructure instead of the integral structure of Graham and Weber would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as it is well known to use a multi-piece constructure for a core.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Graham and Weber is silent to wherein the first body is a plurality of first bodies, wherein at least one of the plurality of first bodies defines the casting hollow. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the use of a multi-piece constructure instead of the integral structure of the combination of Graham and Weber would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as it is well known to use a multi-piece constructure for a core.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Graham and Weber teaches wherein the first interior surface (Graham: surface forming cavity 214, see Figs. 14 and 15) includes a curved portion defined by a radius of curvature (Graham: see Fig. 15 – cross section of cavity 214 is oval shaped).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Graham and Weber teaches wherein the casting hollow includes an opening at a first upper portion or a first lower portion of the first body (Graham: opening 202, see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Graham and Weber teaches a structural element located within the casting hollow (Weber: a plurality of core ties 200, see Figs. 1-2; [0020]), wherein the structural element is at least one of a protuberance from the first interior surface or a support structure that spans the casting hollow (Weber: Core ties 200 may extend, for example, from core 112 to an inner surface of the mold, from one core 112 to another, or from one leg 111 of core 112 to another leg 113 of core 112, see Figs. 1-2; [0020]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Graham and Weber teaches wherein the assembly further comprises a set of support structures (Weber: at least two of the plurality of core ties 200 is equated to the claimed set of support structures; see [0020] and [0035]; see Figs. 1-2) and a set of stiffening structures (Weber: another at least two of the plurality of core ties 200 is equated to the claimed set of stiffening structures; see [0020] and [0035]; see Figs. 1-2) located within the casting hollow (Weber: see Figs. 1-2 and [0020]).
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Weber (US 2014/0341724; listed in the IDS filed 10 June 2024).
Regarding claim 13, Graham is silent to a ligament extending between the first body and the second body, wherein the ligament includes a first ligament leg and a second ligament leg partially defining a ligament gap.
Weber teaches a ligament (one of the plurality of core ties 200 is equated to the claimed ligament; see [0020] and [0035]) extending between a first body (core forming cooling passageway 120, see Fig. 8; [0020] and [0035]) and the second body (mold or shell 230, see Fig. 8; [0035]). Furthermore, Weber teaches wherein the ligament includes a first ligament leg (Weber: rod member 218, see Fig. 6; [0030]) and a second ligament leg (Weber: bead 220, see Fig. 6; [0030]) partially defining a ligament gap (Weber: see Fig. 6 – gap equated to space between second leg 123, rod member 218, and bead 220). Weber teaches that core ties provide rigidity to the core and aids in positively locating core(s) within the three-dimensional space of an empty mold (see [0020]).
In view of Weber’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of Graham to include a ligament extending between the first body and the second body, wherein the ligament includes a first ligament leg and a second ligament leg partially defining a ligament gap, as taught by Weber, because it provides rigidity to the core and aids in positively locating the core within the three dimensional space of the mold.
Regarding claim 14, Graham is silent to a ligament extending between the first body and the second body and a structural element located within the casting hollow.
Weber teaches a ligament (one of the plurality of core ties 200 is equated to the claimed ligament; see [0020] and [0035]) extending between a first body (core forming cooling passageway 120, see Fig. 8; [0020] and [0035]) and the second body (mold or shell 230, see Fig. 8; [0035]). Furthermore, Weber teaches wherein the assembly further comprises a structural element (another at least one of the plurality of core ties 200 is equated to the claimed structural element; see [0020] and [0035]; see Figs. 1-2) located within the casting hollow (Weber: see Figs. 1-2 and [0020]). Weber teaches that core ties provide rigidity to the core and aids in positively locating core(s) within the three-dimensional space of an empty mold (see [0020]).
In view of Weber’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the assembly of Graham to include a ligament extending between the first body and the second body and a structural element located within the casting hollow, as taught by Weber, because it provides rigidity to the core and aids in positively locating the core within the three-dimensional space of the mold.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Graham and Weber teaches wherein the structural element (Weber: another at least one of the plurality of core ties 200 is equated to the claimed structural element; see [0020] and [0035]; see Figs. 1-2) is a protuberance from the first interior surface or a support structure that spans the casting hollow (Weber: see [0020] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Graham and Weber teaches wherein the structural element is a set of support structures and a set of stiffening structures (Weber: core ties 200 provide rigidity to core 112; see [0020] and Figs. 1-2; Since Weber teaches there can be a plurality of core ties 200 which provide rigidity to the core(s) and aid in positively locating the core(s) within the three dimensional space of an empty mold so they can be said to be both stiffening and support structures. At least two of the plurality of core ties can be considered support and at least two other core ties can be considered stiffening structures; see [0020]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Graham and Weber teaches wherein the structural element is a stiffening structure projecting from the first interior surface into the casting hollow a distance as measured from the first interior surface to an outermost extent or interior surface of the stiffening structure (Weber: see [0020] and see Figs. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 11, that the prior art fails to teach that the centerline of the first body of the casting assembly is a non-linear centerline having a plurality of curves as required by amended claim 11.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the current claim language. The current claim language requires that the casting hollow defines a centerline and that the centerline is a non-linear centerline including a plurality of curves. Graham teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 11 (see rejection above).
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the prior art fails to teach or suggest “a ligament extending between the first exterior surface of the first body and the second interior surface of the second body to support the first body with respect to the second body as part of the casting assembly,” as required by amended claim 1. Applicant argues that as the core ties of Weber are meant to be leached out of the body that has been cast, the core ties of Weber do not extend between a first body and a second body to support the first body with respect to the second body as part of the casting assembly.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Weber teaches a ligament (core tie 200, see Fig. 8; [0035]) extending between the first exterior surface (exterior surface of core forming cooling passageway 120, see Fig. 8) of the first body (core forming cooling passageway 120, see Fig. 8; [0020] and [0035]) and the second interior surface of the (interior surface of mold or shell 230, see Fig. 8) second body (mold or shell 230, see Fig. 8; [0035]). Weber teaches that this core tie provides rigidity to the core and aids in positively locating core(s) within the three-dimensional space of an empty mold (see [0020]). Furthermore, the current claim language is drawn to a casting assembly so it does not preclude equating an intermediate assembly (as taught by the combination of the prior art above) with the equated casting assembly. In other words, there is nothing in the current claim language that requires the casting assembly be equated to a final casting as Applicant alleges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 28 September 2025
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights