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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on July 21st, 2025, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on date.
Rejections of claims 1 and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments, see remarks filed December 3rd, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Dasappa et al. (WO 2017182928 A1) and is provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 20170016201 A1), in view of Giles (US 20180071949 A1) and Dasappa et al. (WO 2017182928 A1; hereafter Dasappa).
Regarding claim 1, Wada (Fig. 1, 2) discloses forming a foundation ([0024]; constructing foundation) to be provided in a plant ([0024]; power generation plant) configured to process a fluid ([0007]; fluid heat medium), the foundation comprising:
forming the foundation in a ground (Fig. 1; [0009]; foundation formed in excavated ground in earth 9) for installation of a device to be provided in the plant (Fig. 1; [0033]; foundation 2 in the ground supports installation of boiler 4), or in a ground for installation of a framework structure configured to support the device or a piping through which the fluid flows (Fig. 1; [0033]; foundation 2 in the ground supports installation of boiler building 3a and steam turbine builder 3b supporting the boiler 4 and steam turbine 5 with piping respectively), wherein a plurality of the foundation is provided and spaced apart from each other and configured to support the device or the framework structure (Fig. 2; foundation 2 can be understood to have different sections corresponding to the respective area directly below the plant components 1b, 2b, 4);
a part of the plurality of the foundation being formed with a tubular cavity (Fig. 1, 2; [0045]; foundation 2 has piping including pipes 8), so that a flow path connected to the piping is formed within the foundation (Fig. 1, 2; [0045]; piping including pipes 8 connect to steam turbine 5, forming a flow path), a portion of the piping is arranged in the flow path (Fig. 1, 2; [0045]; a portion of the piping including pipes 8 is necessarily arranged in the flow path as the pipes 8 help form the flow path) and an end of the piping portion protrudes from a foundation main part (Fig. 2; piping can include pipe portions 10 that protrude from the foundation 2a).
Wada does not disclose a method of manufacturing the foundation by a 3D printer comprising laminating and accumulating the constituent material from the lower layer side by the 3D printer to form a foundation main part to a first height position; feeding a material different from the constituent material by the 3D printer to the foundation main part at a position of forming a piping portion, from the first height position, wherein the material is a metal material or a resin; laminating and accumulating the constituent material around the position of forming the piping portion by the 3D printer; after forming the piping portion having a preset diameter and a preset length, forming the foundation main part to be laminated to a second height position that is higher than the first height position by the 3D printer, and without use of a formwork, so that a flow path connected to the piping is integrally formed within the foundation.
However, Giles teaches a method of manufacturing a foundation ([0184]) by a 3D printer ([0183]) to laminate and accumulate a constituent material from a lower layer side ([0208]; new layers are formed on top of previous layers) and without use of a formwork ([0009]; eliminates needs for formwork) to form the foundation, wherein the foundation can comprise an integral tubular cavity ([0211]; printed “bricks” can have channels) forming a flow path for connection to piping ([0211, 0515]; channels can be used for plumbing as pipes can be extruded with the foundation). Giles further teaches manufacturing the foundation comprises laminating and accumulating the constituent material from the lower layer side by the 3D printer to form a foundation main part to a first height position (Fig. 32; [0208, 0454]; layer-wise depositing starts from the bottom to form a part of the foundation to at least a 2nd layer height, wherein interlocking brick sections are printed and placed both adjacent to other bricks and on top of other bricks in different layers); feeding a material different from the constituent material ([0515]; a wide variety of materials can be used for hollow pipes and tubes that may be incorporated into the bricks) by the 3D printer to the foundation main part at the first height position to form a piping portion (Fig. 26, 32; [0515]; a brick extruded at the 2nd layer height can include hollow pipes and tubes; please note that [0173] states that features of the various embodiments are combinable); laminating and accumulating the constituent material around the first height position of forming the piping portion by the 3D printer (Fig. 26, 32; [0215, 0515]; the bricks formed comprise a cementitious mix around the hollow pipe/tube); and forming the foundation main part to a second height position that is higher than the first height position by the 3D printer (Fig. 32; [0454]; layer-wise depositing starts from the bottom to form the foundation to at least a 3rd layer height, wherein the bricks of the 3rd layer are formed on top of the 2nd layer). Examples of different material that may be used to form the tube/pipe portions include metal ([0296, 0515]). Furthermore, please note that in general the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. See MPEP 2144.04.
Wada and Giles are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of foundation construction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wada with the teachings of Giles to provide a method of manufacturing the foundation by a 3D printer comprising laminating and accumulating the constituent material from the lower layer side by the 3D printer to form a foundation main part to a first height position; feeding a material different from the constituent material by the 3D printer to the foundation main part at a position of forming a piping portion, from the first height position, wherein the material is a metal material or a resin; laminating and accumulating the constituent material around the position of forming the piping portion by the 3D printer; after forming the piping portion having a preset diameter and a preset length, forming the foundation main part to be laminated to a second height position that is higher than the first height position by the 3D printer, and without use of a formwork, so that a flow path connected to the piping is integrally formed within the foundation. The use of 3D printers is well known in the art of foundation construction and doing so would allow for the manufacture of a plant foundation with integral flow paths in an efficient and cost-effective manner (Giles [0181]).
While Giles further teaches a plurality of 3D printer bodies may be employed either sequentially or simultaneously as needed to form the construction ([0830]), Wada, in view of Giles, does not explicitly disclose the 3D printer includes a first printer main body for extruding the constituent material, and a second printer main body for extruding a material different from the constituent material, wherein the first printer main body and second printer main body form the foundation main part and the piping portion respectively.
However, Dasappa teaches a 3D printer ([0005]) comprising a first printer main body ([0005]; first printing nozzle) for extruding a first material ([0005]; first printing material) and a second printer main body ([0005]; second printing nozzle) for extruding a second material ([0005]; second printing material) different from the first material ([0054, 00110]; materials may be different, including different material types). Dasappa further teaches that the first printer main body and the second printer main body can print different portions ([0005]) of a composite 3D printed structure. Dasappa also teaches the printer main bodies may operate sequentially ([0047]) or simultaneously ([0053]).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 707.07(f). In this case, Dasappa is concerned with 3D printing to form composite structures with different types of materials forming different portions of the composite structures, wherein the different types of materials are supplied using different printing bodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wada, in view of Giles, with the teachings of Dasappa to provide the 3D printer includes a first printer main body for extruding the constituent material, and a second printer main body for extruding a material different from the constituent material, wherein the first printer main body and second printer main body form the foundation main part and the piping portion respectively. Doing so would improve inter-layer adhesion and therefore improve mechanical performance of the 3D printed foundation (Dasappa [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wada discloses the method for manufacturing a foundation according to claim 1, wherein the tubular cavity that becomes the flow path is made of the material different from the constituent material for the foundation (Wada Fig. 1, 2; [0044, 0056]; foundation 2 is concrete and pipes 8 are steel).
Modified Wada does not teach the flow path is integrally formed in the foundation through different material joining of the constituent material for the foundation and a constituent material for the flow path performed through use of the 3D printer.
However, Giles teaches 3D printing a foundation with a flow path integrally formed therein ([0515]; 3D printing variety of foundations having hollow pipes or tubes), wherein a 3D printer extrudes a constituent material for the foundation ([0215]; cementitious mix) and a constituent material for the flow path ([0515]; a wide variety of materials can be used for the hollow pipes or tubes as needed).
Wada and Giles are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of building construction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wada with the teachings of Giles to provide the flow path is integrally formed in the foundation through different material joining of the constituent material for the foundation and a constituent material for the flow path performed through use of the 3D printer. The use of 3D printers in construction is well known in the art and doing so would allow for the manufacture of a plant foundation with integral flow paths in an efficient and cost-effective manner (Giles [0181]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wada discloses the method for manufacturing a foundation according to claim 1, wherein an inside of the foundation has a sparse structure obtained by combining reinforcing bar members in a geometric pattern (Wada Fig. 1, 2; [0056]; steel pipes 8 reinforced the foundation 2 and are arranged in a geometric pattern per Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wada discloses the method for manufacturing a foundation according to claim 1, wherein in the step of forming the foundation, a foundation that forms the flow path and a foundation that does not form the flow path are formed in accordance with an arrangement layout of the piping (Wada Fig. 1, 2; [0056]; foundation 2 with pipes 8 is formed by repeated laying in the arrangement shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wada discloses the method for manufacturing a foundation according to claim 1, further comprising: a step of connecting the piping to the flow path formed in the foundation (Wada Fig. 1, 2; [0040, 0045]; pipes 8 connect to piping of steam turbine 5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 20170016201 A1), in view of Giles (US 20180071949 A1) and Dasappa et al. (WO 2017182928 A1; hereafter Dasappa) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20110014381 A; hereafter Kim; page numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wada discloses the method for manufacturing a foundation according to claim 1, further comprising:
forming a foundation hole in the ground (Wada [0009]; excavating a ground), and the foundation is formed in the foundation hole (Wada [0009]; constructing foundation in excavated ground).
Modified Wada does not explicitly disclose a gap between the foundation and a side wall of the foundation hole is filled with earth and sand.
However, Kim teaches a method of forming a foundation (Pg. 1, 3rd ¶; underground pipes construction) comprising forming a foundation hole in a ground (Pg. 2, 2nd ¶; excavating a section of the ground) and filling a gap between a side wall of the foundation hole (Fig. 8; Pg. 3, 2nd ¶; sidewall of excavation section 12) and foundation elements (Fig. 8; Pg. 3, 2nd ¶; pipe 14 and protective plate 32) with earth and sand (Pg. 3, 2nd ¶; filling excavation section with sand and coarse soil after installation of pipe fills gap between pipe 14/protective plate 32 and sidewall of excavation section 12).
Wada and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of foundation construction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wada with the teachings of Kim to provide a gap between the foundation and a side wall of the foundation hole is filled with earth and sand. It is well-known in the art of foundation construction to fill gaps with soil and sand for the purposes of protecting foundation elements from environmental damage, such as inclement weather.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 20170016201 A1), in view of Giles (US 20180071949 A1) and Dasappa et al. (WO 2017182928 A1; hereafter Dasappa) as applied to claim 1, and further evidenced by Takeshi et al. (WO 2018180549 A1; hereafter Takeshi; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wada discloses the method for manufacturing a foundation according to claim 1.
Modified Wada discloses the claimed invention expect for that in the step of forming the foundation, a foundation formed with the flow path and a foundation not formed with the flow path are formed separately in accordance with an arrangement layout of the piping. This amounts to forming the foundation of modified Wada in separate portion instead of an integral structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to in the step of forming the foundation, a foundation formed with the flow path and a foundation not formed with the flow path are formed separately in accordance with an arrangement layout of the piping, since it have been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routing skill in art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V). One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of reducing repair costs as damaged portions of the foundation comprising the flow path can be repaired without having to remove undamaged portions of the foundation without the flow path.
Furthermore, as evidenced by Takeshi et al. (WO 2018180549 A1), it is well-known in the art of plant foundation construction ([0070]) that the foundations can be constructed as separate sections (Fig. 4; [0070-0071]; foundation has a plurality of separate supports 90 that support modules), wherein some sections can support pipes and tubing ([0063]; modules, that are supported, can include pipe sections).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khoshnevis (US 20120038074 A1) discloses a construction 3D printer capable of forming concrete building structures with metal tubing.
Applicant's 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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Susan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754 /SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754