DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s response filed 3 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 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 .
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.
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, 2, 4-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jezwinski (2008/0135205), in view of Lomasney et al. (US 2018/0071980; hereinafter “Lomasney”; listed in the IDS filed 16 April 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Jezwinski teaches a method of manufacturing foundry tooling, comprising the steps of:
forming a foundry tooling body in accordance with a predetermined model (pattern plate 410, see Fig. 1; [0048]); and
wherein each tooling body surface is configured to contact a malleable blank to product a sand mold suitable for manufacturing a casting (see [0048]-[0049] – malleable blank equated to sand 110 from shot chamber 100 that is forced into molding chamber 150, see Figs. 1-2).
Jezwinski is silent to electroplating the foundry tooling body to add a metallic coating to at least a portion of the foundry tooling body to define at least one plated tooling body surface.
Lomasney teaches electroplating of metals, polymers, or semiconductors (see [0078]) via electrodepositing onto metal workpieces (see [0032]). The coatings applied to a workpiece improve the corrosion resistance of the workpieces and protects the underlying workpiece (see [0123]-[0124]).
In view of Lomasney’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 method of Jezwinski to include electroplating the foundry tooling body to add a metallic coating to at least a portion of the foundry tooling body to define at least one plated tooling body surface, as taught by Lomasney, because it helps to improve the corrosion resistance and protects the underlying workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the foundry tooling body is formed by additive manufacturing (Lomasney: see [0016], [0019], [0050], and [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the foundry tooling is at least one of a pattern (Jezwinski: pattern plate 410, see Fig. 1; [0048]), a core box, and a cope and drag of a pattern.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the metallic coating is composed of nickel (Lomasney: see [0095]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the metallic coating has a thickness from and including 0.006 inches to and including 0.008 inches (Lomasney: see [0121] - a coating has a thickness ranging from about 5 nm to about 5 cm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the metallic coating is composed of a combination of nickel and copper (Lomasney: see [0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney is silent to wherein the copper is a base coat and the nickel is a top coat. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular order of the base coat and top coat would have been a matter of obvious engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the metallic coating has a thickness from and including 0.006 inches to and including 0.008 inches (Lomasney: see [0121] - a coating has a thickness ranging from about 5 nm to about 5 cm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches the method further comprising the step of after the forming step, washing the foundry tooling body (Lomasney: see [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches the method further comprising the step of, after the washing step, curing the foundry tooling body (Lomasney: see [0072]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches a method of manufacturing a casting, comprising the steps of:
manufacturing foundry tooling in accordance with the method of claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above), the foundry tooling defining a first configuration (Jezwinski: pattern plate 410 defines a first configuration, see Fig. 1);
loading the foundry tooling into a molding machine (Jezwinski: molding machine 10, see Fig. 1);
using the molding machine to bring the foundry tooling into contact with a malleable blank (Jezwinski: see [0048]-[0049] – malleable blank equated to sand 110 from shot chamber 100 that is forced into molding chamber 150, see Figs. 1-2) comprised of a mixture of sand and a resin (Jezwinski: sand, see [0048]; though the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney is silent to specifically teaching a resin in combined with the sand, it is the Examiner’s position that this is well known and would have been obvious to include with the sand); and
using the molding machine to further urge the foundry tooling toward the malleable blank such that the foundry tooling exerts pressure upon the malleable blank until the malleable blank transforms into a sand mold (Jezwinski: see [0048]-[0049] – sand mold equated to green sand mold-half A), the sand mold defining a second configuration complementary to the first configuration (Jezwinski: see Figs. 1-4) and, wherein the second configuration defines at least one sand mold cavity (Jezwinski: see Figs. 1-4 – green sand mold-half A defines at least one and mold cavity).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches the method further comprising the step of pouring molten metal into the at least one sand mold cavity to produce a final casting from the sand mold (Jezwinski: pouring liquid metal from the pouring vessels 500 into two mold cavities 510, see Fig. 1; [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney is silent to wherein the molten metal is comprised of one of cast iron, ductile iron, bronze, or brass. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular liquid metal used for casting objects would have been an obvious engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the foundry tooling is at least one of a pattern (Jezwinski: pattern 410, see Fig. 1; [0048]), a core box, and a cope and drag of a pattern.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the metallic coating has a thickness from and including 0.006 inches to and including 0.008 inches (Lomasney: see [0121] - a coating has a thickness ranging from about 5 nm to about 5 cm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the metallic coating is composed of a combination of nickel and copper (Lomasney: see [0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney is silent to wherein the copper is a base coat and the nickel is a top coat. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular order of the base coat and top coat would have been a matter of obvious engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney teaches wherein the metallic coating has a thickness from and including 0.006 inches to and including 0.008 inches (Lomasney: see [0121] - a coating has a thickness ranging from about 5 nm to about 5 cm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(1).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Wetzel (“Jump-Start Tooling with 3-D Printing”, Metal Casting Design & Purhcasing, Nov/Dec 2017, 4 pgs; listed in the IDS filed 17 January 2025) and Curran (“Big Area Additive Manufacturing and Hardware-in-the-Loop for Rapid Vehicle Powertrain Protoyping; A Case Study on the Development of a 3-D-Printed Shelby Cobra, February 1, 2016, 11 pgs; listed in the IDS filed 17 January 2025).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney is silent to wherein the foundry tooling body is composed of a material comprising a polymer containing carbon fibers defining a carbon-fill percentage of approximately 20%.
Wetzel teaches it is known to 3-D print sand casting patterns. Different polymers can be used, depending on the application. Wetzel teaches plastics, such as ABS, are more rigid for sand mold tooling, and are available with “fill” such as graphite, fiberglass, or even wood to increase strength and durability (see p. 24). Curran teaches carbon fiber reinforced ABS plastic with a blend of carbon fiber higher than 15-20% can be used for large 3-D printed workpieces, and the carbon fiber reinforced ABS shows increased strength and significant reduction in distortion (see p. 2-3).
In view of Wetzel’s and Curran’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 method of the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney to include wherein the foundry tooling body is composed of a material comprising a polymer containing carbon fibers defining a carbon-fill percentage of approximately 20%, as taught by Wetzel and Curran, because it is a known material that can be used for 3-D printing which has increased strength and a significant reduction in distortion (Curran: see p. 2-3). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, it is a known material that can be used for 3-D printing of sand-casting patterns (Wetzel: see p. 24), and so the substitution of a known element (the pattern of the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney) for another known element (the carbon fiber reinforced ABS of the combination of Wetzel and Curran) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues, respect to claim 1, that the prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach electroplating the foundry tooling body. More specifically, Applicant argues that Lomasney teaches electroplating a workpiece, which Lomasney defines as, “an object possessing a shape such that, after applying a given thickness of laminated material, yields a mold (e.g., a complete mold or section of a mold.” Lomasney specifically defines a workpiece as a mold itself. In contrast, Applicant has claimed electroplating foundry tooling that is configured to produce a mold, specifically a sand mold. Furthermore, in order to reap the benefits of Lomasney, Applicant argues that Lomasney would require electroplating the resulting sand mold – not the pattern plate (410) that the Office Action alleges is the foundry tooling body. Therefore, Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention besides impermissible hindsight.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. Regarding the requirement that Lomasney defines a workpiece as a mold itself, the pattern plate 410 of Jezwinski is clearly at least a section of a mold as it is used to mold the sand 110 (Jezwinski: see [0048]-[0049]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Lomasney’s teaching of electroplating of metals, polymers, or semiconductors (Lomasney: see [0078]) via electrodepositing onto metal workpieces (see [0032]) in order to improve the corrosion resistance of the workpieces and protects the underlying workpiece (Lomasney: see [0123]-[0124]). In other words, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to electroplating metals onto metal workpieces, equated to the pattern plate 410 of Jezwinski, to improve the corrosion resistance of the workpiece and protect the underlying workpiece. This is similar to the idea that Applicant has claimed electroplating foundry tooling that is configured to produce a mold, specifically a sand mold. Therefore, the combination of Jezwinski and Lomasney, also teaches electroplating foundry tooling that is configured to produce a mold. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that in order to reap the benefits of Lomasney, one of ordinary skill would require electroplating the resulting sand mold, there is nothing in the current claim language that precludes equating the claimed foundry tooling body to the pattern plate 410 of Jezwinski. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 12, that Jezwinski in view of Lomasney fails to disclose, to teach, or suggest using the molding machine to bring the foundry tooling into contact with a malleable blank comprised of a mixture of sand and a resin.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because Applicant has not successfully traversed a finding based on official notice. Applicant is reminded that in order to adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Applicant merely regards the official notice as a conclusory statement that is made in hindsight. Therefore, since Applicant has inadequately traversed the Examiner’s assertion of official notice, the statement that a resin combined with sand for a malleable blank being well-known is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP §2144.03. Furthermore, in order to promote further compact prosecution, the Examiner provides Larsen et al. (US 5647424) as an evidentiary reference that shows it is well known to use resin-bound sand for a malleable blank for molding (see 6:45-58).
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.
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 30 April 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights