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
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on September 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the legal term “comprising” in the 1st line.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0064], 5th line, replace “character” with “characters” before “may”.
In paragraph [0066], 8th line, replace “808” with “708” after “memory devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “BladeCenter”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see the last line in paragraph [0065] of the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wowczuk et al. (US 2022/0314307).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wowczuk et al. disclose a method for creating a mold for a memorialization product comprising characters without a backing substrate (see paragraphs [0007]-[0012] and [0077]-[0102]; and Figures 3-8), in which the method comprises the following steps:
generating a 3D model of a product design, wherein the product design includes characters with customized features (see paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0082]; and Figure 3);
generating a mold design based upon the 3D model of the product design (see paragraphs [0010] and [0082]);
optimizing the mold design, wherein optimizing the mold design comprises optimizing parameters that would include optimizing the characters based on a depth and bend radius of the characters (see paragraph [0102]);
generating printing instructions for creating the mold (see paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and Figure 3); and
creating the mold for casting the memorialization product according to the printing instructions (see paragraph [0086] and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Wowczuk et al. disclose that generating the 3D model further comprises the following steps:
receiving product design information, wherein the product design information contains polygonal information (see paragraph [0082]);
converting the polygonal information to voxel information (see paragraph [0082] and Figure 4);
determining an acceptable resolution for the 3D model (see paragraph [0085] and Figure 4); and
generating the 3D model based on the voxel information at the acceptable resolution (see paragraph [0085] and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Wowczuk et al. disclose that the product design information comprises typeset information and wherein generating the 3D model further comprises aligning the characters and converting the typeset information to the voxel information (see paragraph [0085]; and Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Wowczuk et al. disclose that generating the mold design further comprises the following steps:
orienting and positioning the 3D model (see paragraphs [0012] and [0098]; and Figure 6);
determining one or more support structures and one or more slicing patterns for the mold design (see paragraphs [0012], [0099], and [0100]; and Figure 8); and
performing path planning for the mold design, followed by optimizing and generating the mold design (see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Wowczuk et al. disclose that optimizing the mold design comprises (at least) a pour cup strategy and a venting strategy (see paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Wowczuk et al. disclose that creating the mold comprises creating the mold by an additive manufacturing process via 3D sand printing (see paragraphs [0007], [0010], and [0086]).
Regarding claim 8, Wowczuk et al. disclose that casting of the memorialization product is by pouring molten metal into the created mold (see paragraph [0096]).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wowczuk et al. (US 2022/0314307).
Regarding claims 9-11, 14, and 15, although Wowczuk et al. disclose the process steps of the method of independent claim 1, Wowczuk et al. fail to teach a bend radius of a character to a threshold bend radius at 60 degrees from a primary direction of initial flow for the mold to augment the 3D model with a gate connecting the character and an adjacent character, and analyzing a depth of a character in comparison to (or adding and/or equaling) a threshold depth. However, when taken in view of the disclosed parameters in the “optimizing the mold design” step in independent claim 1 of Wowczuk et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create characters with an acceptable threshold bend radius (including at a bend radius within a range that includes 60 degrees) and a threshold depth of a character, so that molten metal would be able to more easily flow and solidify during cooling of the molten metal adjacent each character (see paragraphs [0096] and [0102]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, although Wowczuk et al. disclose the process steps of the method of independent claim 1 and disclose/suggest the features of claims 9 and 11 above, while further including the limitation of the gate comprising a portion parallel to a primary direction of initial flow for the mold (of claim 12), Wowczuk et al. fail to explicitly teach customizing the gate based on the customized features of the characters. However, when taken in view of the disclosed parameters in the “optimizing the mold design” step in independent claim 1 of Wowczuk et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to customize the gate in order to improve control of the flow of molten metal adjacent each of the customized features of the characters so that the molten metal can conform to and evenly fill features of the characters (see paragraphs [0096] and [0102]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure. US 2017/0326623 is also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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 P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 October 13, 2026
