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 § 102
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) 1, 2, 12, 18, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 110153376 A, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Zhang teaches a feeder insert (Fig. 1 & 2) for use in metal casting in casting molds, having a feeder body (item 2) which delimits a feeder for receiving liquid metal, wherein
- the feeder body has a first end (item 9) with a passage opening for the liquid metal and a second end (item 3) opposite to the first end, and wherein
- the feeder body comprises a central axis (Fig. 1 & 2) extending through the passage opening, wherein
the feeder body is separated at least one partition plane (item 10) extending in a direction of the central axis and is formed from at least a first feeder shell and a second feeder shell (Fig. 2), wherein the first and second feeder shells are connected to each other to form the feeder body (Fig. 2), wherein the first and second feeder shells are substantially identically formed (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 2. Zhang teaches wherein the first feeder shell comprises a first partition surface and the second feeder shell comprises a second partition surface corresponding to the first partition surface for connecting the first and second feeder shells to each other (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 12. Zhang teaches wherein the first and second feeder shells are substantially free of undercuts (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 18. Zhang teaches wherein the feeder body at least section-wise comprises an exothermic heating mass (item 7).
Re Claim 24. Zhang teaches wherein the feeder body - is formed of exothermic feeder material or comprises exothermic feeder material at least section-wise (item 7); or - is formed of insulating feeder material or comprises insulating feeder material at least section-wise (item 6)
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10, 13, 16-18, 23, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pollakowski (EP 1775045 A1, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Pollakowski teaches a feeder insert (Fig. 1-10) for use in metal casting in casting molds, having a feeder body (items 5 & 6) which delimits a feeder for receiving liquid metal, wherein
- the feeder body has a first end (item 10) with a passage opening for the liquid metal and a second end (item 15) opposite to the first end, and wherein
- the feeder body comprises a central axis extending through the passage opening (Fig. 1-10), wherein the feeder body is separated at least one partition plane extending in a direction of the central axis (P3) and is formed from at least a first feeder shell (Item 5) and a second feeder shell (item 6), wherein the first and second feeder shells are connected to each other to form the feeder body (Fig. 1-10), wherein the first and second feeder shells are substantially identically formed (P3).
Re Claim 2. Pollakowski teaches wherein the first feeder shell comprises a first partition surface (item 4) and the second feeder shell comprises a second partition surface (item 4) corresponding to the first partition surface for connecting the first and second feeder shells to each other.
Re Claim 3. Pollakowski teaches wherein the first feeder shell comprises at least one first protrusion and at least one first recess (Fig. 2, item 17) and wherein the second feeder shell comprises at least one second protrusion and a second recess (Fig. 2, item 17) wherein the first protrusion engages in the second recess and the second protrusion engages in the first recess for connecting the first and second feeder shells.
Re Claim 6. Regarding “the protrusions are formed by material appendages of residual material in inlet openings of a core box in which the feeder shell is manufactured”: the limitation is a product-by-process limitation, which does not affect the patentability of the claimed feeder insert.
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
Re Claim 10. Pollakowski teaches wherein the feeder cavity comprises at least one undercut (Fig. 1-10).
Re Claim 13. Pollakowski teaches wherein the feeder body tapers towards the passage opening and thereby defines a feeder neck (Fig. 1-10, item 11).
Re Claim 16. Pollakowski teaches wherein the feeder body comprises, on an inner side facing the feeder cavity and opposite the passage opening, a centering pin recess (Fig. 4, item 30) item for receiving a centering pin tip.
Re Claim 17. Pollakowski teaches wherein towards the feeder cavity the centering pin recess comprises an insertion chamfer (Fig. 4).
Re Claim 18. Pollakowski teaches wherein the feeder body at least section-wise comprises an exothermic heating mass (abstract).
Re Claim 23. Regarding “for use in metal casting in vertically separable casting molds”: this is an intended use of the claimed feeder insert, which does not affect the patentability of the claimed feeder insert.
Regarding “adapted for…” and “configured such that…”: since the feeder insert of Pollakowski and the claimed feeder insert are structurally indistinguishable, the feeder insert of Pollakowski is capable of performing all the claimed functions.
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. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Re Claim 24. Pollakowski teaches wherein the feeder body - is formed of exothermic feeder material or comprises exothermic feeder material at least section-wise (abstract); or - is formed of insulating feeder material or comprises insulating feeder material at least section-wise (abstract).
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) 4, 5, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollakowski.
Re Claim 4. Pollakowski fails to teach wherein a spacing in a range of 20 mm or less is provided between adjacent protrusions and/or recesses.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Pollakowski change a spacing between adjacent protrusions and/or recesses depending on a size of the feeder insert.
Re Claim 5. Pollakowski wherein measured along the central axis in sum, a section of 50% or less is free of protrusions and recesses (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 19. Pollakowski fails to teach wherein the feeder insert has a modulus in a range from about 0.5 cm to 9 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Pollakowski to adjust the volume of the feeder cavity and the surface area of the feeder cavity to ensure that the feeder insert has enough molten metal for the casting process, while minimizing any heat loss.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollakowski as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Baginski et al. (US 2018/0257132 A1, hereinafter Baginski, cited by applicant).
The teachings of Pollakowski have been discussed above.
Pollakowski fails to specifically teach wherein the feeder cavity is part-spherical.
The invention of Baginski encompasses method for producing a riser in a core shooter. Baginski teaches that the feeder cavity is part-spherical (Fig. 4, item 36).
In view of Baginski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Pollakowski to have the feeder cavity in part-spherical, since Baginski teaches the advantage of using it, which is to facilitate the making of the feeder insert in a core shooter (para. 2).
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foseco International (DE 202012102546 U1, hereinafter Foseco) in view of Pollakowski.
Re Claim 1. Foseco teaches a feeder insert (Fig. 1-4, item 10) for use in metal casting in casting molds, having a feeder body (item 10) which delimits a feeder for receiving liquid metal, wherein
- the feeder body has a first end (item 12b) with a passage opening for the liquid metal and a second end (item 12a) opposite to the first end, and wherein
- the feeder body comprises a central axis extending through the passage opening (Fig. 1-4).
Foseco fails to specifically teach that the feeder body is separated at least one partition plane extending in a direction of the central axis and is formed from at least a first feeder shell and a second feeder shell, wherein the first and second feeder shells are connected to each other to form the feeder body, wherein the first and second feeder shells are substantially identically formed.
The invention of Pollakowski encompasses feeder insert. Pollakowski teaches that the feeder body is separated at least one partition plane extending in a direction of the central axis (P3) and is formed from at least a first feeder shell (Item 5) and a second feeder shell (item 6), wherein the first and second feeder shells are connected to each other to form the feeder body (Fig. 1-10), wherein the first and second feeder shells are substantially identically formed (P3).
In view of Pollakowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Foseco to separate the feeder body at least one partition plane extending in a direction of the central axis and is formed from at least a first feeder shell and a second feeder shell, wherein the first and second feeder shells are connected to each other to form the feeder body, wherein the first and second feeder shells are substantially identically formed, since Pollakowski teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to ensure slipping of the debris and the molding sand from the feeder cavity (P3).
Re Claim 14. The combination teaches wherein the feeder body comprises at least one circumferential weak section (Foseco, Fig. 1, item 24) which divides the feeder body into a base portion (item 12b) having the passage opening and an along the central axis coaxial cap portion (item 12a), so that the feeder body is breakable in the weak section, when a force is applied in the direction of the central axis, wherein the base portion and the cap portion are telescopically displaceable into one another section wise (Fig. 2).
19. The feeder insert according to claim 1, wherein the feeder insert has a modulus in a range from about 0.5 cm to 9 cm, preferably from about 1.2 cm to 2.6 cm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 15, and 20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 7. The prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach a holding sleeve partially or completely circumferentially surrounding the feeder body for holding the first and second feeder shells together.
Re Claim 15. The prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach a metallic attachment arranged on the feeder body around the passage opening and having a collar extending in the direction of the central axis.
Re Claim 20. The prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach a metallic attachment arranged on the feeder body surrounding the passage opening and connecting the first feeder shell and the second feeder shell to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7 and 8, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Zhang does not disclose a divided feeder with two feeder shells, because Zhang only teaches that the shell layer 5 is divided and is silent regarding the heating layer 7 and insulation layer 6.
The examiner disagrees with this because the current claim language only requires the feeder body which delimits a feeder to be divided, not the entire feeder insert. The shell layer of Zhang delimits the feeder and is divided, so can be equated to the claimed feeder body.
On page 9, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Pollakowski only teaches feeder divided horizontally or transversely to a central axis.
The examiner disagrees with this because Pollakowski explicitly teaches that the feeder body can be divided vertically (see P3 of machine translation).
On pages 9 and 10, regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 19, applicant argued that the references do not teach the limitations because Pollakowski only teaches feeder divided horizontally or transversely to a central axis.
The examiner disagrees with this because Pollakowski explicitly teaches that the feeder body can be divided vertically (see P3 of machine translation).
On page 11, regarding claims 1 and 14, applicant argued that even if Pollakowski’s feeder insert could be divided vertically, an off-center division of the feeder immediately excludes an essentially identical design of the feed halves as claimed.
The examiner disagrees with this because Pollakowski explicitly teaches that the division is provided at least approximately centrally in the feeder body (see P3 of machine translation).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM- 5 PM.
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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
7/14/2025