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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 are pending and the subject of this NON-FINAL Office Action.
Election/Restrictions- Withdrawn
Applicant’s election without traverse of 3D printing and adjusting water-mortar ration in the reply filed on 03/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 2 is rejoined.
Rejections For Enablement- Withdrawn
The rejection is withdrawn because contrary to Applicants’ competitor assertion that Coriolis sensor would not work, Applicants have shown it does. This is also consistent with the prior art, below, which demonstrates that Coriolis sensors used in in-line concrete applications are routine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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; or
(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.
Claims 1-8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RAMESH (US20170058177).
As to claim 1, RAMESH teaches a system for implementing a manufacturing method of construction elements comprising hydraulic binder and aggregates, said system comprising:
a mixing device 30 adapted to mix a dry mortar composition comprising hydraulic binders and aggregates with water, to form a wet mortar (Fig. 1; paras. 0020, 0022 & 0025-26),
an outlet 52 (Fig. 1),
a pumping device 50 adapted to pump and convey said wet mortar towards said outlet (Fig. 1), and
at least one sensor 40 adapted to measure on-line at least two physical properties of said wet mortar on its way from said mixing device to said outlet, said physical properties including viscosity and at least one of flow and density (Fig. 1 and paras. 0041-42). Paragraph 0041 specifically states “in-line viscosity measurement device may be a Coriolis flowmeter, illustrated in FIG. 6A. Coriolis flowmeters, such as the Promass Coriolis flowmeter manufactured by Endress+Hauser, use the torsional movement of a single straight measuring tube 2 and pendulum 1 to measure the viscosity of the fluid. As illustrated in FIG. 6B, the translator movement (a) of the measuring tube 2, used to measure density and mass flow of the fluid, and torsional movement (c) of the measuring tube, and the torsional movement (b) of pendulum 1 are used to calculate viscosity” (emphasis added).
As to claim 2, RAMESH teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage media configured to store said at least two physical properties of the wet mortar (para. 0029, for example- “In various embodiments, the control system (not shown) that has the ability to control the viscosity of the fluid to an optimum value based on the desired job specifics (downhole slurry rate and concentration for a fracturing slurry, for example) is used”; see also para. 0037- “The control unit 185 includes, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), input/output ports, memory, and the like”).
As to claim 3, RAMESH teaches the sensor is configured to simultaneously measure the viscosity and at least one of flow and density of the wet mortar (paras. 0041-42).
As to claim 4, RAMESH teaches the sensor is of the Coriolis type (paras. 0041-42).
As to claim 5, RAMESH teaches the Coriolis type sensor comprises a measuring tube configured to conduct the wet mortar and simultaneously measure the density, the flow, the viscosity and the temperature of the wet mortar (paras. 0041-42, 0038-39).
As to claim 6, RAMESH teaches the Coriolis type sensor comprises exactly one measuring tube (Fig. 6; paras. 0041-42).
As to claim 7, RAMESH teaches a first controller configured to adjust a ratio between the water and the dry mortar depending on value of at least one of said at least two physical properties (paras. 0029 & 0037).
As to claim 8, RAMESH teaches a water supply 20 and means for adjusting a dosage of mixing water, wherein the first controller is configured to control said means for adjusting the dosage of mixing water (e.g. valve regulated based on Coriolis flowmeter measurements; paras. 0036-37, 0041-42).
As to claim 9, RAMESH teaches the means for adjusting the dosage of mixing water comprise a valve and a flowmeter (e.g. valve regulated based on Coriolis flowmeter measurements; paras. 0036-37, 0041-42).
As to claim 12, RAMESH teaches the first controller is configured to control the pumping device (e.g. para. 0007).
As to claim 14, RAMESH teaches a dry mortar storage 10 and a dosing device (valve/metering for dry storage 10; para. 0025, 0028, 0036-37).
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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAMESH (US20170058177) in view of Martinez et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20190105801) and Russell et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0280185).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply familiar concrete slurry mixing techniques to familiar concrete printing devices to achieve familiar mixing regulation in 3D printing with a reasonable expectation of success.
RAMESH teaches concrete slurry in-line, realtime measuring and adjusting of mixes using Coriolis sensor that measures viscosity, density and flow as explained above.
As to claim 11, RAMESH teaches a second controller, and a central main controller configured to control at least one from the first and second controllers (paras. 0028-29, 0031, 0033, 0037). In addition, a master control that controls sub-controllers is so well-known in the art that it is an obvious options based on RAMESH which teaches multiple controllers for various components (e.g. mixer, water tank, dry storage).
As to claims 13 and 15, RAMESH teaches at least one of the first controller, the second controller, and the central main controller is a programmable logic controller (para. 0037- “The control unit 185 includes, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), input/output ports, memory, and the like.”).
RAMESH specifically suggests to apply this concrete slurry mixing technique to known downstream concrete slurry applications (e.g. para. 0022). However, RAMESH does not specifically teach the manufacturing method is a 3-D printing method, said system further comprising a computer-controlled printer having a head comprising said outlet, which is adapted to deposit a layer of mortar on a previous layer of mortar (claim 10).
It is well known in the art to use a 3-D printing method with the nozzle is a printing nozzle of a computer-controlled printer and depositing, by extruding wet mortar through the printing nozzle, a layer of wet mortar on a previous layer of mortar in the area of dispensing mortar, as taught by Martinez et al. [0002]; [0008]) and Russell et al. (abstract; [0005]; [0010]; [0011]; [0015]-[0017]). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a 3-D printing method with the nozzle being a printing nozzle of a computer-controlled printer to deposit, by extruding the wet mortar through the printing nozzle, a layer of wet mortar on a previous layer of mortar for the building application and construction work as taught by Martinez et al. and Russell et al., because selecting one of known methods for material depositing would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed and because said depositing method would operate equally well as the one disclosed by RAMESH and because 3D printing can be faster and less expensive ([Russell et al. [0004]).
Double Patenting- Obvious Type
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Instant claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over conflicting claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12502805.
The instant claims are obvious over the conflicting claims because the conflicting claims anticipate the instant by teaching a species of 3D printer wit the same Coriolis sensor that measures physical properties including viscosity and at least one of flow and density. Specifically, the conflicting claims teach:
1. A 3-D printing method for manufacturing elements comprising hydraulic binder and aggregates, said method comprising:
mixing with a mixing device a dry mortar composition comprising hydraulic binder and aggregates with water, to form a wet mortar,
pumping and conveying said wet mortar using a pump positioned downstream of the mixing device towards a printing nozzle of a computer-controlled 3-D printer,
wherein the wet mortar is conveyed from the pump to the printing nozzle using a hose,
wherein one or more sensors are arranged between the pump and the printing nozzle such that during said conveying of the wet mortar in the hose towards the printing nozzle at least two physical properties of the wet mortar are measured on-line upstream of the printing nozzle before the wet mortar enters the printing nozzle and downstream of the pump after the wet mortar passes through the pump, said physical properties including viscosity and at least one of flow and density,
adjusting a flow of water sent to the mixing device based on data received from the one or more sensors, and
depositing, by extruding the wet mortar through the printing nozzle of the computer-controlled 3-D printer, a layer of wet mortar on a previous layer of mortar.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein said at least two physical properties of the wet mortar are recorded on a computer-readable storage media.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the viscosity and at least one of flow and density of the wet mortar are simultaneously measured using a same sensor of the one or more sensors.
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein the density, the flow, the viscosity and the temperature of the wet mortar are simultaneously measured using the same sensor.
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein a ratio between the water and the dry mortar is adjusted depending on a value of at least one of said at least two physical properties.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the ratio between the water and the dry mortar is adjusted in real time.
7. The method according to claim 5, wherein a predetermined value, respectively a predetermined range is set for at least one of said at least two physical properties, and the ratio between the water and the dry mortar is adjusted so that the value of at least one of said at least two physical properties is equal to said predetermined value, respectively comprised within said predetermined range.
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the dry mortar comprises additives selected from superplasticizers, thickeners, accelerators, retarders, and mixtures thereof.
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the maximum size of the aggregates is less than or equal to 3 mm.
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the dry mortar composition is adjusted so that the wet mortar shows a thixotropic behavior.
11. The method according to claim 1, wherein the density of the wet mortar is between 1800 and 2500 kg/m3.
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the flow of the wet mortar during conveying is between 100 and 20000 L/h.
13. The method according to claim 1, wherein the viscosity of the wet mortar during conveying is between 400 and 3000 cP.
14. The method according to claim 1, wherein the dry mortar composition is adjusted so that a viscosity of the wet mortar increases by a factor of 50 or more 1 second after leaving the outlet.
15. The method according to claim 1, wherein the density of the wet mortar is between 2000 and 2400 kg/m3.
16. The method according to claim 1, wherein the flow of the wet mortar during conveying is between 150 and 1000 L/h.
17. The method according to claim 1, wherein the viscosity of the wet mortar during conveying is between 800 and 1600 cP.
18. The method according to claim 1, wherein a controller is configured to adjust the flow of water sent to the mixing device based on the data received from the one or more sensors.
19. The method according to claim 1, further comprising controlling a speed of the pump using a controller based on data received by the controller from the one or more sensors.
20. The method according to claim 1, wherein the pump is a screw pump.
21. The method according to claim 1, comprising controlling, with a controller using the data received from the one or more sensors, a valve or a flowmeter to adjust the flow of water sent to the mixing device.
Thus, the conflicting claim anticipate the claims here.
In addition, the specification of US12502805 discloses that the “sensors [] arranged between the pump and the printing nozzle such that during said conveying of the wet mortar in the hose towards the printing nozzle at least two physical properties of the wet mortar are measured on-line upstream of the printing nozzle before the wet mortar enters the printing nozzle and downstream of the pump after the wet mortar passes through the pump, said physical properties including viscosity and at least one of flow and density” are Coriolis sensors. In fact, this is the only sensor that achieve these functions disclosed. The specification states
The sensor is preferably of the Coriolis type, and may measure simultaneously the density, the flow, the viscosity and the temperature of the wet mortar.
The Coriolis type sensor preferably comprises a measuring tube conducting the wet mortar while measuring simultaneously (and normally independently) the density, the flow, the viscosity and the temperature of the wet mortar. The Coriolis type sensor preferably comprises not more than one, i.e. exactly one, measuring tube. Preferably, the measuring tube is a straight measuring tube.
The sensor 30 is for example a sensor of the Coriolis type, which is able to measure simultaneously the density, the flow, the viscosity and the temperature of the wet mortar. The system may also comprise another sensor 31 able to measure other properties, for example the pressure.
Thus, the “sensor” in the claims is in fact a Coriolis sensor.
Prior Art
The following prior art also teaches the routine and conventional measure of viscosity and at least one of flow and density (e.g. using Coriolis sensor) in concrete systems: WO2015/032878; US 20170259457; US 20050043900; DE19512098C1; US 20110235460; US 20140060387; US 20200261864; US 20160250775; US 20170066157; US 20160297099; US 20170113195; US 20180154439; US 20190264517; EP 3369540 A1; US20200018741.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743