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 .
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.
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) 1-5, 8-16 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis (US 5,695,554, cited in IDS filed 11/25/24) in view of Low et al (US 4,411,530, cited in IDS filed 11/25/24).
Regarding claim 1, Landis teaches a method of molding an article, the method comprising:
introducing a heated material into a mold (col 4 lines 45-55, method of casting molten metal, col 1 lines 30-52, molten metal is poured into the mold cavity); and
allowing the heated material to cool (col 1 lines 30-52, molten metal solidifies to form the casting),
wherein the mold (col 5 lines 60-67, green sand mold) includes a mixture of a binder composition (col 5 lines 60-67, foundry sand additive of invention and clay binder), water (col 5 line 60 - col 6 line 2, water), and an aggregate (col 5 lines 60-67, silica sand),
wherein the binder composition (col 5 lines 60-67, additive composition) includes a carbonaceous material (col 5 lines 60-67, humic acid-containing ore and carbon) and an inorganic binding agent (col 5 lines 60-67, sodium bentonite clay binder).
Landis is quiet to the inorganic binding agent being an oxidized inorganic binding agent, wherein the oxidized inorganic binding agent has a ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+ less than 1.2.
Low et al teaches a method for rapid beneficiation of bentonite clay, which occurs through oxidation of ferrous iron (abstract). When ferrous iron in the crystals composing the bentonite clay is oxidized to the ferric state, a larger fraction of the superimposed crystal layers will separate to expose more surface area and increase swelling (col 2 lines 30-50) as well as rheology of the bentonite clay (col 2 lines 50-60). Swelling (i.e., the amount of water adsorbed) increases as the percent of ferrous iron decreases (col 4 lines 50-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bentonite clay of the combination of Landis as modified by Brown, as Landis teaches water-swellable sodium bentonite clay as one of the most commonly employed green sand binders (col 6 lines 1-15), Low et al additionally recognizes that bentonite clay is extensively used in moulding sands (Low, col 1 lines 15-25), and that the oxidation of the bentonite clay improves its swelling properties and rheology properties (Low, col 2 lines 30-60). The improvement of swelling and rheology properties would be beneficial to a moulding sand, as the clay contracts during firing to compensate for expansion of silica sand grains that cause defects such as buckles, rat rails, or scabs.
Although the combination above is quiet as to the ratio of Fe2+ (ferrous) to Fe3+ (ferric), Low et al suggests an oxidation process to oxidize the ferrous iron into the ferric state (col 2 lines 40-60, col 4 lines 50-65), thus lowering the amount of Fe2+ and increasing the amount of Fe3+, which would reduce the ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+. Furthermore, Low et al recognizes that the oxidation increases the swelling and rheology properties (col 2 lines 40-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to optimize the amount of oxidation, such that the ferrous iron is oxidized into the ferric state, at a ratio of less than 1.2, so as to increase the swelling and rheology properties that would be beneficial for a molding sand to prevent expansion related defects. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
The combination of Landis as modified by Low et al is quiet to wherein the mold releases less than 0.10 mg/g BTEX after the introducing of the heated material into the mold.
However, note that this is a property that results from the claimed composition. Additionally, Landis teaches that the use of the humic-containing ore and carbon causes a reaction in-situ to activate the carbon, enabling the carbon to absorb and/or adsorb gaseous volatile organic compounds (which includes benzene, col 5 lines 1-5) within the mold to satisfy VOC emissions requirements (abstract).
As the combination teaches the composition as claimed as discussed above, and that Landis further teaches the reduction of VOC emissions as a result of the use of the carbon and humic-containing ore (oxidized lignite/leonardite), the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 12, Landis teaches a mold (col 4 lines 45-55, method of casting molten metal, col 1 lines 30-52, molten metal is poured into the mold cavity, col 5 lines 60-67, green sand mold), comprising:
a green sand composition (col 5 lines 60-67, green sand mold), comprising:
a binder composition (col 5 lines 60-67, foundry sand additive of invention and clay binder), comprising:
a carbonaceous material (col 5 lines 60-67, humic acid-containing ore and carbon); and
an inorganic binding agent (col 5 lines 60-67, sodium bentonite clay binder); and
an aggregate (col 5 lines 60-67, silica sand).
Landis is quiet to the inorganic binding agent being an oxidized inorganic binding agent, wherein the oxidized inorganic binding agent has a ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+ less than 1.2.
Low et al teaches a method for rapid beneficiation of bentonite clay, which occurs through oxidation of ferrous iron (abstract). When ferrous iron in the crystals composing the bentonite clay is oxidized to the ferric state, a larger fraction of the superimposed crystal layers will separate to expose more surface area and increase swelling (col 2 lines 30-50) as well as rheology of the bentonite clay (col 2 lines 50-60). Swelling (i.e., the amount of water adsorbed) increases as the percent of ferrous iron decreases (col 4 lines 50-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bentonite clay of the combination of Landis as modified by Brown, as Landis teaches water-swellable sodium bentonite clay as one of the most commonly employed green sand binders (col 6 lines 1-15), Low et al additionally recognizes that bentonite clay is extensively used in moulding sands (Low, col 1 lines 15-25), and that the oxidation of the bentonite clay improves its swelling properties and rheology properties (Low, col 2 lines 30-60). The improvement of swelling and rheology properties would be beneficial to a moulding sand, as the clay contracts during firing to compensate for expansion of silica sand grains that cause defects such as buckles, rat rails, or scabs.
Although the combination above is quiet as to the ratio of Fe2+ (ferrous) to Fe3+ (ferric), Low et al suggests an oxidation process to oxidize the ferrous iron into the ferric state (col 2 lines 40-60, col 4 lines 50-65), thus lowering the amount of Fe2+ and increasing the amount of Fe3+, which would reduce the ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+. Furthermore, Low et al recognizes that the oxidation increases the swelling and rheology properties (col 2 lines 40-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to optimize the amount of oxidation, such that the ferrous iron is oxidized into the ferric state, at a ratio of less than 1.2, so as to increase the swelling and rheology properties that would be beneficial for a molding sand to prevent expansion related defects. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
The combination of Landis as modified by Low et al is quiet to wherein the mold releases less than 0.10 mg/g BTEX after the introducing of the heated material into the mold.
However, note that this is a property that results from the claimed composition. Additionally, Landis teaches that the use of the humic-containing ore and carbon causes a reaction in-situ to activate the carbon, enabling the carbon to absorb and/or adsorb gaseous volatile organic compounds (which includes benzene, col 5 lines 1-5) within the mold to satisfy VOC emissions requirements (abstract).
As the combination teaches the composition as claimed as discussed above, and that Landis further teaches the reduction of VOC emissions as a result of the use of the carbon and humic-containing ore (oxidized lignite/leonardite), the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the combination teaches the carbonaceous material is oxidized (col 7 lines 18-60, the humic acid-containing ore may be highly oxidized leonardite or less oxidized ores such as lignite and coal).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, note the rejection of claim 1 above. Although the combination is not explicit to a ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+ is less than 1, as Low et al recognizes the improvement in properties when ferrous iron is oxidized to ferric in the bentonite clay, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to optimize the amount of oxidation, such that the ferrous iron is oxidized into the ferric state, at a ratio of less than 1, so as to increase the swelling and rheology properties that would be beneficial for a molding sand to prevent expansion related defects. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combination suggests wherein the binder composition comprises from about 70% by weight to about 90% by weight of the oxidized inorganic binding agent (overlapping range, see below).
Landis discloses the additive composition as including the humic acid-containing ore and carbon together with other commonly used additives including the bentonite binder (col 5 lines 60-67)). However, Landis discloses the percentage of the binder and the carbonaceous materials with respect to the foundry sand mixture, such as 1% to 15% of the binder based on the total dry weight of the mixture (col 5 lines 5-22), 0.1% to 10% (preferably 0.1% to 2%) by weight of the ground ore (col 5 lines 5-22), and 0.1% to 10% (preferably 0.1% to 2%) by weight of the carbon source (col 5 lines 5-22).
Note that an example at the endpoints of the preferred ranges of Landis show 15 parts of binder per 19 parts of the additive composition (15 parts binder plus 2 parts ore plus 2 parts carbon), which is 79%, falling within the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally note that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of the binding agent in the binder composition, as Landis teaches that the amount of binder may be adjusted to whatever amounts that will produce the desired strength, hardness, or other desirable physical properties (col 6 lines 20-40).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the combination teaches wherein the oxidized inorganic binding agent includes sodium bentonite (Landis, col 5 lines 60-67, sodium bentonite clay binder) and/or the carbonaceous material comprises oxidized lignite or oxidized leonardite (Landis, col 7 lines 35-60, highly oxidized leonardite or less oxidized lignite, col 2 lines 53-62, leonardite is a highly oxidized form of lignite).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the combination teaches the aggregate includes silica sand (Landis, col 5 lines 60-67).
Regarding claims 9-11, the combination is quiet to the mold releases (claim 9) less than 0.08 mg/g BTEX, (claim 10) less than 0.06 mg/g BTEX, (claim 11) less than 0.05 mg/g BTEX, after introducing the heated material into the mold.
However, note that this is a property that results from the claimed composition. Additionally, Landis teaches that the use of the humic-containing ore and carbon causes a reaction in-situ to activate the carbon, enabling the carbon to absorb and/or adsorb gaseous volatile organic compounds (which includes benzene, col 5 lines 1-5) within the mold to satisfy VOC emissions requirements (abstract).
As the combination teaches the composition as claimed as discussed above, and that Landis further teaches the reduction of VOC emissions as a result of the use of the carbon and humic-containing ore (oxidized lignite/leonardite), the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 21, Landis teaches a binder composition for use in a mold formed from a green sand casting composition including the binder composition and aggregate (intended use, col 5 lines 60-67), the binder composition comprising:
a carbonaceous material (col 5 lines 60-67, humic acid-containing ore and carbon); and
an inorganic binding agent (col 5 lines 60-67, sodium bentonite clay binder); and
wherein the carbonaceous material is oxidized (col 7 lines 18-60, the humic acid-containing ore may be highly oxidized leonardite or less oxidized ores such as lignite and coal).
Landis is quiet to the inorganic binding agent being an oxidized inorganic binding agent, wherein, when oxidized, the oxidized inorganic binding agent has a ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+ less than 1.2.
Low et al teaches a method for rapid beneficiation of bentonite clay, which occurs through oxidation of ferrous iron (abstract). When ferrous iron in the crystals composing the bentonite clay is oxidized to the ferric state, a larger fraction of the superimposed crystal layers will separate to expose more surface area and increase swelling (col 2 lines 30-50) as well as rheology of the bentonite clay (col 2 lines 50-60). Swelling (i.e., the amount of water adsorbed) increases as the percent of ferrous iron decreases (col 4 lines 50-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bentonite clay of the combination of Landis as modified by Brown, as Landis teaches water-swellable sodium bentonite clay as one of the most commonly employed green sand binders (col 6 lines 1-15), Low et al additionally recognizes that bentonite clay is extensively used in moulding sands (Low, col 1 lines 15-25), and that the oxidation of the bentonite clay improves its swelling properties and rheology properties (Low, col 2 lines 30-60). The improvement of swelling and rheology properties would be beneficial to a moulding sand, as the clay contracts during firing to compensate for expansion of silica sand grains that cause defects such as buckles, rat rails, or scabs.
Although the combination above is quiet as to the ratio of Fe2+ (ferrous) to Fe3+ (ferric), Low et al suggests an oxidation process to oxidize the ferrous iron into the ferric state (col 2 lines 40-60, col 4 lines 50-65), thus lowering the amount of Fe2+ and increasing the amount of Fe3+, which would reduce the ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+. Furthermore, Low et al recognizes that the oxidation increases the swelling and rheology properties (col 2 lines 40-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to optimize the amount of oxidation, such that the ferrous iron is oxidized into the ferric state, at a ratio of less than 1.2, so as to increase the swelling and rheology properties that would be beneficial for a molding sand to prevent expansion related defects. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
The combination of Landis as modified by Low et al is quiet to wherein the mold releases less than 0.10 mg/g BTEX after introduction of a heated material into the mold.
However, note that this is a property that results from the claimed composition. Additionally, Landis teaches that the use of the humic-containing ore and carbon causes a reaction in-situ to activate the carbon, enabling the carbon to absorb and/or adsorb gaseous volatile organic compounds (which includes benzene, col 5 lines 1-5) within the mold to satisfy VOC emissions requirements (abstract).
As the combination teaches the composition as claimed as discussed above, and that Landis further teaches the reduction of VOC emissions as a result of the use of the carbon and humic-containing ore (oxidized lignite/leonardite), the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis as modified by Low et al as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Brown (US 2003/0101907, cited in IDS filed 11/25/24).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combination is quiet to the composition including a high aspect ratio silicate.
Brown teaches a sand casting foundry composition that reduces thermal defects that cause veining (abstract). The sand grains are mixed with a plurality of shale particles (abstract). Anti-veining occurs because the shale particles include mineral components which have an inherent characteristic of crystal structure collapse upon exposure to metallurgical temperatures, yielding space which is consumed by thermal expansion of the sand grains in the foundry composition, avoiding the creation of mechanical forces and stresses within the foundry shape that cause cracks and fissures in the foundry shape that lead to veining (abstract). The shale particles are obtained from naturally occurring shale, which is a fine-grained, detrital, fissile, sedimentary rock, composed of particles that contain phyllosilicate mineral components (paragraph [0027]). Example minerals which are frequently found in shales include muscovite and biotite mica (paragraph [0027]). Phyllosilicates are silicate minerals having a continuous, two-dimensional, sheet-like structure (paragraph [0028]). The invention can use flake-like particles of shale (paragraph [0029], flake-like is construed as being high aspect ratio).
As Landis recognizes that the additive composition may be used together with any other commonly used foundry sand additive (col 5 lines 60-67), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a high aspect ratio silicate, such as the flake-like particles of shale of Brown, to the additive composition of Landis, so as to prevent veining defects when the composition is used in forming the sand mold for casting.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the combination teaches wherein the high aspect ratio silicate includes mica, muscovite or biotite (Brown, paragraph [0027], muscovite and biotite mica frequently found in shale).
Regarding claim 19, the combination is quiet to the binder composition comprises from about 0.1% by weight to about 5.0% by weight of the high aspect ratio silicate.
However, Brown recognizes that shale particles of adequate size and sufficient volumetric quantity are required in order to obtain the desired anti-veining effect (paragraph [0038]) and that when the shale particles are too small and there is an insufficient volumetric quantity of shale particles, very little or no significant anti-veining effect will be achieved (paragraph [0039]). Thus, to establish and control the anti-veining effect achieved by the shale particles, it is desirable to used predetermined desired sizes so that the desired degree of volumetric space achieved by the physical yielding of the shale particles is controlled by the quantity of the shale particles added to the mixture (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the amount of the high aspect ratio silicate to be about 0.1% by weight to about 5% by weight of the binder composition, as Brown recognizes controlling the weight of the shale particles so as to achieve a desired degree of volumetric space so as to control the anti-veining effect.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis (US 5,695,554, cited in IDS filed 11/25/24).
Regarding claim 21, Landis teaches a binder composition for use in a mold formed from a green sand casting composition including the binder composition and aggregate (intended use, col 5 lines 60-67), the binder composition comprising:
a carbonaceous material (col 5 lines 60-67, humic acid-containing ore and carbon); and
an inorganic binding agent (col 5 lines 60-67, sodium bentonite clay binder); and
wherein the carbonaceous material is oxidized (col 7 lines 18-60, the humic acid-containing ore may be highly oxidized leonardite or less oxidized ores such as lignite and coal).
Note that the claim requires either or both the carbonaceous material and inorganic binding agent is oxidized. In this interpretation, only the carbonaceous material is oxidized (oxidized leonardite), and thus the limitation of “wherein, when oxidized, the oxidized inorganic binding agent has a ratio of Fe2+ to Fe3+ less than 1.2” is not required.
Landis et al is quiet to wherein the mold releases less than 0.10 mg/g BTEX after introduction of a heated material into the mold.
However, note that this is a property that results from the claimed composition. Additionally, Landis teaches that the use of the humic-containing ore and carbon causes a reaction in-situ to activate the carbon, enabling the carbon to absorb and/or adsorb gaseous volatile organic compounds (which includes benzene, col 5 lines 1-5) within the mold to satisfy VOC emissions requirements (abstract).
As Landis teaches the composition as claimed as discussed above, and that Landis further teaches the reduction of VOC emissions as a result of the use of the carbon and humic-containing ore (oxidized lignite/leonardite), the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735