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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liles et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0389822 A1) for the reasons of record.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liles et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0389822 A1) for the reasons of record.
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.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liles et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0389822 A1) as applied to claims 8 and 17-19 above, and further in view of White, III et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0300142 A1) and Shuck (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0241883 A1) for the reasons of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are allowable over the prior art references currently of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art references currently of record, alone or in combination, disclose, suggest or teach an apparatus (i.e., a tool) including at least one aft core assembly having an aft open pore structure, and a forward core assembly having a forward open pore structure (as recited in claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 17 July 2026 (in particular, pages 6-9 of the reply) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liles et al teaches the removal of mandrels 20 (and pins 25), while the instantly-claimed process does not recite the removal of mandrels (i.e., aft core assembly and forward core assembly). Examiner agrees that Liles et al teaches the removal of mandrels 20 (and pins 25); however, Liles et al teaches all of the steps (limitations) recited in claims 8 and 20 and thus, claims 8 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2). Examiner notes that neither claim 8 nor claim 20 positively recite either the removal of mandrels (i.e., aft core assembly and forward core assembly), or that the mandrels (i.e., aft core assembly and forward core assembly) remain as part of the process and thus, the maintaining of the mandrels or the removal of the mandrels is not relevant to consideration of patentability of these claims.
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 LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights