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 .
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 phrase that can be implied “of the present disclosure” in the 1st line.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last two lines in paragraph [0034] of the specification, it is unclear what is meant by “First, since the core does not lose the pressure of the aluminum hot water, blistering failure of the coarse material is reduced”. Correction and clarification are required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the blended sand" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to add “forming a blended sand by” (or similar) before “blending dry regenerated sand…” in the 2nd line of claim 1. Since claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111511481 A, of which a complete copy of the Chinese document with a machine translation is provided with this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, CN ‘481 discloses a method of manufacturing cores and molds (see abstract; pages 1-5 of the machine translation; and Figures 1-3), in which the method includes the following steps:
blending foundry sand used to manufacture the cores or molds via combining dry regenerated sand (regenerated from a dry process), wet regenerated sand (regenerated from a wet process), and new sand at predetermined ratios; and
manufacturing cores or molds from the blended sand.
In the last full paragraph on page 5 of the translation (beginning with “Here, as a refractory aggregate…”, CN ‘481 recites “It should be noted that the refractory aggregate can be new sand, or can be used as casting sand is used for one or more times of the regenerated sand or recycled sand in the casting mould, so as to also can be the regenerated sand, recycled sand is added with new sand and mixed sand, there is no limit”).
Although CN ‘481 fails to explicitly teach the claimed range of 49 wt% to 95 wt% for the dry regenerated sand, 1 wt% to 49 wt% for the wet regenerated sand, and 1 wt% to 5 wt% for the new sand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any of these respective ranges of mixtures of dry regenerated sand, wet regenerated sand, and new sand, since CN ‘481 discloses mixing all three kinds of sand (inclusive of regenerated, recycled, new, and mixed sand where “there is no limit”) in order to manufacture improved cores and molds, such that these ranges would be discovered merely by routine experimentation, for the purpose of improving fluidity and casting mold/core material, thus improving surface quality of a cast metal product to be cast into and around the mold and core, respectively (see abstract). 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 2 and 3, and as applied similarly to independent claim 1 above, CN ‘481 fails to explicitly teach the claimed range of 69 wt% (or 79 wt%) to 95 wt% for the dry regenerated sand, 1 wt% to 30 wt% (or 20 wt%) for the wet regenerated sand, and 1 wt% to 5 wt% (same range for all of claims 1-3) for the new sand. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any of these ranges of mixtures of dry regenerated sand, wet regenerated sand, and new sand, since CN ‘481 discloses mixing all three kinds of sand (inclusive of regenerated, recycled, new, and mixed sand where “there is no limit”) in order to manufacture improved cores and molds, such that these ranges would be discovered merely by routine experimentation, for the purpose of improving fluidity and casting mold/core material, thus improving surface quality of a cast metal product to be cast into and around the mold and core, respectively (see abstract). 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure. CN 103561885 A is also cited in PTO-892 (a complete copy of the Chinese document with a machine translation is also provided).
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 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights