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.
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, 2, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly (US 2007/0221359) in view of Chikugo et al. (JP 2019-42753 A), of which a complete copy of the Japanese reference with an English abstract was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated May 11, 2026, and with a machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, Reilly discloses a casting core that is configured to be positioned in a casting mold (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]).
Reilly fails to teach the new limitation that “the at least two protuberances are fixed at two distinct contact points by embedding in the casting mould”.
However, JP ‘753 discloses a casting core that is configured to be positioned in a casting mold (abstract; pages 2 and 3 of translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS; and Figure 1), in which the casting core (16) includes protuberances (support members (18)) that are fixed at two distinct contact points by embedding in the casting mold (10), for the purpose of improving positional accuracy of the casting core during a casting process with respect to walls of the casting mold while suppressing thermal deformation (see the 4th full paragraph on page 2 of the translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protuberances of JP ‘753 to replace the protuberances of the casting core disclosed by Reilly, in order to improve positional accuracy of the casting core during a casting process with respect to walls of the casting mold while suppressing thermal deformation (see JP ‘753 in the 4th full paragraph on page 2 of the translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Reilly and JP ‘753 disclose and/or suggest all structural features of the casting core of claim 1, and further including that the casting core (120,122) of Reilly has a coating material of alumina (considered as a protective layer, as claimed (see paragraph [0017]) of Reilly). 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] of Reilly). 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.
Regarding independent claim 6, Reilly discloses a process for manufacturing a casting core that is configured to be positioned in a casting mold (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]).
Reilly fails to teach the new limitation that the at least two protuberances are used “for fixing at two distinct contact points by embedding in the casting mould”.
However, JP ‘753 discloses a casting core that is configured to be positioned in a casting mold (abstract; pages 2 and 3 of translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS; and Figure 1), in which the casting core (16) includes protuberances (support members (18)) that are fixed at two distinct contact points by embedding in the casting mold (10), for the purpose of improving positional accuracy of the casting core during a casting process with respect to walls of the casting mold while suppressing thermal deformation (see the 4th full paragraph on page 2 of the translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protuberances of JP ‘753 to replace the protuberances of the casting core disclosed by Reilly, in order to improve positional accuracy of the casting core during a casting process with respect to walls of the casting mold while suppressing thermal deformation (see JP ‘753 in the 4th full paragraph on page 2 of the translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
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]).
Reilly fails to teach the new limitation that the at least two protuberances are “fixed at two points” with the casting core being disposed in the casting mould.
However, JP ‘753 discloses a casting core that is configured to be positioned in a casting mold (abstract; pages 2 and 3 of translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS; and Figure 1), in which the casting core (16) includes protuberances (support members (18)) that are fixed at two distinct contact points by embedding in the casting mold (10), for the purpose of improving positional accuracy of the casting core during a casting process with respect to walls of the casting mold while suppressing thermal deformation (see the 4th full paragraph on page 2 of the translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protuberances of JP ‘753 to replace the protuberances of the casting core disclosed by Reilly, in order to improve positional accuracy of the casting core during a casting process with respect to walls of the casting mold while suppressing thermal deformation (see JP ‘753 in the 4th full paragraph on page 2 of the translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
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, and further in view of Chikugo et al. (JP 2019-42753 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combined teachings of Reilly and JP ‘753 disclose and/or suggest 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 and/or suggested by the combined teachings of Reilly and JP ‘753, 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, the combined teachings of Reilly and JP ‘753 disclose and/or suggest 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, JP ‘753, 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, the combined teachings of Reilly and JP ‘753 disclose and/or suggest 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 and/or suggested by the combined teachings of Reilly and JP ‘753, 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).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment and replacement drawing sheet received by the USPTO on June 29, 2026. Also, an Information Disclosure Statement dated May 11, 2026 has been considered and initialed, and a copy is provided with this Office Action. The replacement drawing sheet is objected to since reference number “201” was not removed from Figure 3 (also refer to above section 1). The amendments overcome prior objections to the specification and claims, as well as the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Although the applicants’ amendments to independent claim 1 overcome the prior 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed February 9, 2026, new 35 USC 103 rejections are provided for all claims of record in view of the new reference to Chikugo et al. (JP 2019-42753 A). Claims 1-10 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new secondary reference to Chikugo et al. (JP 2019-42753 A), as also provided in the newly underlined portions of the above 35 USC 103 rejection, and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights