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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “201” (see Figure 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0064], it is believed that one of “[Fig. 1]” or “Figure 1” should be removed.
In paragraph [0065], it is believed that one of “[Fig. 2]” or “Figure 2” should be removed.
In paragraph [0066], it is believed that one of “[Fig. 3]” or “Figure 3” should be removed.
In paragraph [0067], it is believed that one of “[Fig. 4]” or “Figure 4” should be removed.
In paragraph [0068], it is believed that one of “[Fig. 5]” or “Figure 5” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, 2nd line, replace “on” with “one” after “at least”.
In claim 2, last line, it is believed that “,” should be added after “AlN”.
In claim 5, 2nd line, delete “of” after “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is 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 1-10 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 whole" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the adhesion layer" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the adhesion layer" with "the at least one adhesion layer" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least on(e) adhesion layer" in the 2nd line of claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the shape" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the cooling circuits" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the desired shape" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the surface" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the protuberances" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the protuberances" with "the at least two protuberances" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two protuberances" in the 5th line of claim 6.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the protuberances" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the protuberances" with "the at least two protuberances" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two protuberances" in the 5th line of claim 6.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the protuberances" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the protuberances" with "the at least two protuberances" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two protuberances" in the 3rd line of independent claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the moulding cavity" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
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, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reilly (US 2007/0221359).
Regarding independent claim 1, Reilly discloses a casting core (abstract; paragraphs [0017]-[0025]; and Figures 1-5), in which the casting core (120,122) comprises the following structural features (also refer to Figure 2):
a main portion (in the form of main body portions (124,126)) made of molybdenum (see paragraphs [0017] and [0024]; and Figure 2); and
at a surface of the main portion (124,126), at least two protuberances (in the form of terminal portions (128,130)) made of a refractory material,
wherein a whole of the main portion (124,126) and the at least two protuberances (128,130) being covered with an anti-oxidation coating, with the refractory material of the at least two protuberances (128,130) being a ceramic (see abstract; and paragraph [0017]).
Regarding independent claim 6, Reilly discloses a process for manufacturing a casting core (abstract; paragraphs [0017]-[0025]; and Figures 1-5), in which the process of manufacturing the casting core (120,122) comprises the following process steps (also refer to Figures 1 and 2):
forming a main portion (in the form of main body portions (124,126)) made of molybdenum in a desired shape (paragraphs [0017] and [0024]; and Figures 1 and 2);
disposing at least two protuberances (in the form of terminal portions (128,130)) made of a refractory material at a surface of the main portion (124,126), the refractory material of the at least two protuberances (128,130) being a ceramic (see abstract; and paragraph [0017]); and
coating the main portion (124,126) and the at least two protuberances (128,130) with an anti-oxidation coating (see abstract; and paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Reilly discloses that the process for manufacturing the casting core (120,122) includes a step of coating by either chemical vapor deposition or physical vapor deposition (see paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 10, Reilly discloses a method for manufacturing a hollow part made of a metal material by casting (abstract; paragraphs [0017]-[0025]; and Figures 1-5), in which the method comprises the following steps (also refer to Figure 1):
disposing the casting core (120,122) according to claim 1 in a casting mold (not shown, but refer to Figure 1), wherein the casting core (120,122) has the at least two protuberances (128,130) that are in contact with the mold (see paragraphs [0018]-[0021]; and Figure 2);
pouring a molten metal material into a molding cavity of the casting mold comprising the casting core (120,122) – see paragraph [0022]; and Figure 1; and
conducting shakeout of the mold and removal of the core (120,122), as shown in Figure 1 (see paragraphs [0022] and [0023]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly (US 2007/0221359).
Regarding claim 2, Reilly discloses all structural features of the casting core of claim 1, and further including that the casting core (120,122) has a coating material of alumina (considered as a protective layer, as claimed (see paragraph [0017])). In addition, Reilly discloses that other non-metallic materials may be applied for oxidation protection (as an adhesion layer – see paragraph [0017]). Although Reilly discloses numerous non-metallic materials such as silica, zirconia, chromia, mullite, and hafnia, the claimed list of carbides and nitrides are not explicitly disclosed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the claimed carbides (including hafnium carbide) and nitrides would be readily selected either in combination with (or rather than) the numerous oxides (including hafnia), since these groups of refractory ceramics are highly resistant to high temperatures and erosive wear, thus being suitable for coating and/or adhesion layers, for the purpose of protecting the casting core from high temperatures of molten metal to be cast around it in the casting mold (see paragraph [0017]). With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly (US 2007/0221359) in view of GB 2465181 A, a copy of which was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated June 4, 2025.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Reilly discloses all structural features of the casting core of claim 1, but does not disclose that the at least two protuberances are formed by a single refractory metal rod passing through the main portion of the core from one side to the other.
However, GB ‘181 discloses a casting core for use in casting a turbine component (abstract; 1st full paragraph on page 10 through 2nd paragraph on page 12; and Figures 5-9), in which the casting core (core portion (49)) includes a single refractory material rod (through-rod segment (43)) made of a refractory material comprising alumina (see 1st full paragraph on page 10) forming the protuberances (see Figures 7 and 8) and passing through the main portion of the core (49) from one side to the other, in which the single refractory material rod is advantageous for support and alignment between the casting core and shell, thus improving fabrication of the turbine component with higher precision (see 1st paragraph on page 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the casting core disclosed by Reilly, by forming the at least two protuberances by a single refractory metal rod passing through the main portion of the core from one side to the other, as taught by GB ‘181, in order to provide support and alignment between the casting core and shell, thus improving fabrication of the turbine component with higher precision (GB ‘181; see 1st paragraph on page 10).
Regarding claim 5, Reilly discloses that the main portion (124,126) of the casting core (120,122) has a shape of cooling circuit passageways of a turbomachine blade (see paragraph [0002] of Reilly).
Regarding claim 7, Reilly discloses the process for manufacturing the casting core of claim 6, and the combined teachings of Reilly and GB ‘181 disclose/suggest the step of disposing the at least two protuberances formed by a single refractory metal rod passing through a through-opening of the main portion of the core (in referring to applicants’ claim 3 above), but neither Reilly nor GB ‘181 discloses that this step is achieved by shrinking the refractory material rod. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using contraction and/or expansion techniques by using at least changes in temperature and/or pressure to cause contraction (shrinking) of the refractory material rod, for the purpose of fitting through the through-opening in a more secure manner, thus improving support and alignment between the casting core and shell, thus improving fabrication of the turbine component with higher precision (see 1st paragraph on page 10 of GB ‘181).
Regarding claim 9, Reilly discloses the process for manufacturing the casting core of claim 6, but fails to teach that the main portion of the casting core is made by additive manufacturing or injection molding of metal.
However, GB ‘181 discloses a casting core for use in casting a turbine component (abstract; 1st full paragraph on page 10 through 2nd paragraph on page 12; and Figures 5-9), in which the main portion of the casting core (core portion (49)) includes a single refractory material rod (through-rod segment (43)) made of a refractory material and operably made by stereolithography as an additive manufacturing technique (see last paragraph on page 8; 1st full paragraph on page 10; and Figures 3, 7, and 8), for the purpose of manufacturing a casting core with more accurate dimensions, thus resulting in a more precise replica of a turbine component after a casting process (see last paragraph on page 8; and 1st full paragraph on page 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the casting core disclosed by Reilly, by using the additive manufacturing (stereolithography) technique of GB ‘181, in order to manufacture a casting core with more accurate dimensions, thus resulting in a more precise replica of a turbine component after a casting process (GB ‘181; see last paragraph on page 8; and 1st full paragraph on page 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure. US 2007/0114001 (Snyder et al.) 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 January 30, 2026