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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 31-51, in the reply filed on 9/3/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 52-57, drawn to non-elected Group II, have been canceled in an amendment, filed 9/3/2026. Therefore, only elected claims 31-51 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 51 is 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.
Claim 51 recites the term “a current production layer.” This term may be considered to lack antecedent basis and/or otherwise render the claim indefinite. Specifically, the claim is drawn to a production part, not a method, and therefore, there are no “current” production layer and the claim is indefinite as to what layer is being compared to “preceding” production layers.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 31-45 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavi et al. (US 2020/0206810) in view of Hermann (US 6920910).
With respect to Claims 31-32, Lavi teaches a product part formed from a mold construction system for use in additive manufacturing of a metal object, the production part comprising: a stack of production layers, each of the production layers comprising one or more object regions of a metal object, each object region being surrounded by a mold region, wherein the mold region, surrounding the respective object region, comprises a lateral arrangement of different zones being differently spaced from said respective object region, said lateral arrangement comprising portions/zones that may be considered “metal-facing zones” configured to define a cavity forming the object region to receive the molten metal therein and portions/zones that may be considered “metal-nonadjacent zones around the metal-facing zone” such that each of the one or more metal-nonadjacent zones is separated from the object region by said metal-facing zone, and a surface of the metal object in said respective object region and a facing surface of the metal-facing zone of the mold region are physically coupled between them. (para. 9-17, 33-40, 54, 57-58, 80-87; Fig. 1). In other words, Lavi teaches forming production layers comprising, in a lateral arrangement, a mold region, an object region comprising a metal object, and additional mold region, wherein an arbitrary designation between the portions of the mold regions adjacent and coupled to the metal object may be assigned as “metal-facing” zones and the remainder (e.g. outer portions in Fig. 1) may be assigned as “metal-nonadjacent zones” meeting the instantly claimed limitations. The claim does not require any particular dimensions or shape to such zones.
Furthermore, Lavi teaches wherein the mold regions may be formed of first and second portions, including separate forming and/or processing for first layers and/or inner walls (metal-facing zones) of each mold region and controllable to tailor mold material properties, including physical properties and chemical properties, for example, controllable to harden portions of mold material. (para. 58-62, 80-87).
Thus, Lavi is deemed to teach a product part comprising mold regions comprising metal-facing zones configured to define a cavity forming an object region to receive molten metal therein and thereby form the object regions of a metal object, and metal-nonadjacent zones, wherein each of the one or more metal non-adjacent zones are separated from the cavity by the one or more metal-facing zones, and wherein the mold region may be configured to form one or more regions/zones with higher compressibility (e.g. lower hardness); however, the reference is silent as to specifically configuring the system to form a metal-facing zone configured with higher compressibility relative to at least a sub-zone of the metal-nonadjacent zone.
Hermann teaches a casting device product, the product comprising a mold (mold region) and metal object cast therein, wherein the mold comprises a plurality of layers, including an outer layer (metal-nonadjacent zone) separated from the metal object by a metal-facing zone, wherein the metal-facing zone comprises two layers (sub-zones) including a relatively narrow first metal-adjacent sub-zone and a relatively wide second outward sub-zone, such that the overall metal-facing zone has higher compressibility than the metal-nonadjacent zone due to the combination a more highly compressible second outward sub-zone and the first metal-adjacent sub-zone. (col. 1, ln. 33 to col. 2, ln. 44; col. 3, ln. 25 to col. 4, ln. 11). Specifically, Hermann teaches using a yielding intermediate layer (second outward sub-zone being more compressible) which resiliently compensates for contraction of the metallic component during cooling, thereby preventing cracks that result from internal stresses that are formed by such contraction. (col. 1, ln. 33-62). At the same time, Hermann teaches that the first metal-adjacent sub-zone is not as yielding (i.e. not as compressible) to ensure accurate mold contours for forming a desired cast metal object. (Id.). The reference teaches that the metal nonadjacent zone is less yielding (less compressible) in order to sufficiently support the more yielding/compressible metal-facing zone. (col. 2, ln. 17-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the product part of Lavi, to configure the mold region to comprise the one or more metal-facing zones with higher compressibility, the more compressible metal-facing zone comprising a first metal-adjacent sub-zone and a more yielding second outward sub-zone, as taught by Hermann, in order to prevent cracks/damage to the metal object and/or mold by reducing the formation of unwanted internal stresses due to metal contraction in the mold. Furthermore, it would have been obvious in one of ordinary skill in the art to form the metal-nonadjacent zone(s) with higher rigidity and thus, relatively lower compressibility than the metal-facing zone, as taught by Hermann, in order to maintain sufficient rigidity and strength in the mold to support the metal-facing zone.
With respect to Claim 33, the claim limitations are drawn to product-by-process limitations drawn to the manner in which the product of claim 31 is made. According to MPEP § 2113, "Even 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 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.” Here, the limitations do not further limit the structure of the product of claim 31. Therefore, the product of Lavi in view of Hermann is deemed to meet the instant claim.
Moreover, Lavi teaches wherein the production part is manufactured via an additive manufacturing method in accordance with at least, a building plan, including a 3D mold model divided into a plurality of mold portions wherein the model is designed to provide a shape to a liquid substance, meeting the claimed structure. (para. 10-13, 33-40, 54, 58-62, 80-87).
With respect to Claim 34, Lavi teaches a product party formed by a system capable of controlling the mechanical and chemical properties of the mold material (see rejection of Claim 31 above), and thus, includes the capability to adjust basic mechanical properties such as tensile strength of the mold material, including metal-nonadjacent zones of the mold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the production part to comprise metal-nonadjacent zones with relatively higher tensile strength relative to the metal-facing region, in order to allow for the metal-facing regions to retain higher compressibility, while forming metal-nonadjacent zones with higher strength and thereby, reduce the risk of unwanted deformation of a cast metal object in the one or more mold regions.
With respect to Claim 35, Lavi in view of Hermann teach a system capable of forming mold regions having different properties, in particular, a metal-facing zone having higher compressibility. (see rejection of Claim 31 above). Hermann teaches wherein zone/sub-zone of the metal nonadjacent zone and metal-facing zone, including the first and second sub-zones, each may be formed of distinct materials in order to obtain the desired mechanical properties for the mold. (col. 1, ln. 33 to col. 2, ln. 44; col. 3, ln. 25 to col. 4, ln. 11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the product part of Lavi in view of Hermann, to select at least first and second mold material compositions in order to obtain the structure and properties of the combined product part of Lavi in view of Hermann.
With respect to Claims 36-37, Lavi teaches wherein the mold, thus including the metal-facing zone and inner wall of the object region(s) as well as metal-nonadjacent zones, may be formed from a ceramic-based material suitable for receiving molten metal, deemed to meet the instantly claimed limitations. (para. 13, 34). Likewise, Hermann teaches wherein such zones are formed by ceramic-based material and in particular, the metal-facing zone comprises a refractory compressible ceramic-based material selected to be suitable for deposition of molten metal and achieve the above-detailed benefits. (col. 1, ln. 33 to col. 2, ln. 44; col. 3, ln. 25 to col. 4, ln. 11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Lavi and Hermann, to select refractory compressible ceramic-based material for the metal-facing zone and a less-compressible ceramic-based material for forming the metal-nonadjacent zone, in order to achieve the above-detailed structure and properties.
With respect to claims 38-39, Lavi in view of Hermann teach wherein the metal-facing zone comprises a relatively narrow first metal-adjacent sub-zone and a relatively wide second outward sub-zone, wherein the compressibility of the metal-facing zone formed by the relatively narrow first metal-adjacent sub-zone and the relatively wide, second outward sub-zone provides said higher compressibility of the metal-facing zone as compared to the at least said first sub-zone of the metal-nonadjacent zone. (see rejection of claims 31-32 above). Hermann further depicts examples wherein the relatively narrow first sub-zone appears to be narrower than the second sub-zone by at least a factor of four, meeting the instant claim. (Fig. 1). Moreover, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the relative thickness of the sub-zones based on the need for yielding/compressibility of the cast metal object, and the expected amount of contraction. See MPEP 2144.05; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
With respect to Claim 39, Lavi in view of Hermann teaches wherein the second outward sub-zone of the metal-facing zone is composed of a compressible ceramic-based material (ground corundum), said first metal-adjacent sub-zone of the metal-facing zone being configured as a surface layer (i.e. coating) on a metal-facing side of the second outward sub-zone (comprising ground corundum plus additives including one or more binders). (see Hermann, Fig. 1; col. 1, ln. 33 to col. 2, ln. 44; col. 3, ln. 25 to col. 4, ln. 11).
With respect to Claim 40, Lavi in view of Hermann teach wherein the mold region comprises a metal-facing zone, by a non-metal facing side thereof (e.g. second outward sub-zone), is at least partially adhered to the metal-nonadjacent zone. (see rejection of Claim 31 above; Hermann, Fig. 1).
With respect to Claims 41-45, Hermann teaches wherein the mold region comprises the metal-nonadjacent zone with a shape conforming to the shape of the metal-facing zone. (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the metal nonadjacent zone of Lavi in view of Hermann to have at least one sub-zone conforming to the metal-facing zone, in order to provide sufficient support for maintaining the desired mold shape of the metal-facing zone. (see also rejection of claims 31-32 above). Lavi in view of Herman do not specifically teach configuring the metal-nonadjacent zone to comprise first and second sub-zones as required by claims 41-43; however, as Lavi teaches modifying the properties of a mold region and Herman teaches the benefit of a mold region comprising a plurality of layers having different properties, including differing compressibility/rigidity and formed by different materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the metal-nonadjacent zone to comprise first and second sub-zones comprising differing materials and/or mechanical properties in order to support the mold shape and metal object therein, while reducing internal stresses. In particular, with respect to claims 44-45, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to divide the compressible second outward sub-zone of the metal facing region, as taught by Hermann, to comprise two regions having varying levels of compressibility, wherein on such region is assigned to the metal-facing zone and the outer such region is assigned as a first sub-zone of the metal-nonadjacent zone, in order to reduce internal stresses while maintaining mold shape. Hermann teaches the selection of ceramic-based compressible materials, such as corundum, as detailed in the above claim rejections.
With respect to Claim 51, Lavi teaches wherein mold region of the plurality of production layers is located on top of either at least a part of the preceding mold region of a preceding production layer and/or on at least a part of a preceding metal object region of the preceding production layer, depending on the shape/surface of the metal object. (see Lavi, Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 46-50 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: the prior art of record fails to teach the production part of claim 32, 38, and 41, further comprising the respectively claimed limitations of claims 46-50. In particular, the prior art fails to teach wherein the metal-facing zone and the metal-nonadjacent zone are spaced from one another by an air gap (as in claims 46-48 and 50) and also fails to teach wherein the second outward sub-zone of the metal-facing zone has a varying lateral size along a perimeter thereof to thereby provide a predetermined variation of a mechanical property of said second sub-zone to thereby define in said second sub-zone an arrangement of spaced-apart sites of relatively weak mechanical strength as compared to their surroundings within said first sub-zone (as in claim 49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 111266533A, drawn to a mold comprising a permeable inner liner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights