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
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11-15 are pending and the subject of this FINAL Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
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.
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) 1-6, 8-9 and 11-15 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 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 1, 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 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 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).
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]).
Response to Arguments
The rejection is maintained because Applicants fail to address the Examiner’s arguments. Specifically, Applicants argue that a skilled artisan would have had no reason to apply a Coriolis sensor to a 3D printer based on the oil-field application of RAMESH. The Examiner specifically addressed this concern in the rejection. Applicants do not contend with these arguments, instead opting to address a straw-man.
First, Ramesh is concerned with oilfield operations and drilling. There is no teaching or suggestion in Ramesh of 3D manufacturing, 3D printing, a nozzle, or deposition of layers.
Second, there would have simply been no motivation to modify Ramesh (which has nothing to do with printing) with any reference to achieve 3D manufacturing or 3D printing. This is because the structure of Ramesh is very different than the structure of a system directed to 3D manufacturing or 3D printing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not attempt to modify Ramesh (a reference concerned with oilfield operations and drilling) to include a printer having a head comprising a nozzle, which is adapted to deposit a layer of mortar on a previous layer of mortar.
Thus, the Office's assertion of modifying Ramesh with the discussions of Martinez and Russell is based entirely on impermissible hindsight.
Third, although Martinez and Russell may mention printing, these references fail to disclose or suggest the particular claimed structure - for example, the particular nozzle and computer-controlled printer of Claim 1.
Thus, Ramesh, Martinez, and Russell do not describe, suggest, or render obvious at least the above-noted features
(Reply, pgs. 6-7). The Examiner argued the following:
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])
(Non-Final, pgs. 6-7). In other words, a skilled artisan in the field of concrete slurry pouring or extruding just like in RAMESH, such as 3D printing using concrete, would have been well-aware of the option to use Coriolis sensors to detect concrete slurry characteristics inline. A skilled artisan in the field of concrete slurry extrusion is not an automaton that ignores concrete slurry measuring techniques. The use of a Coriolis sensor in inline concrete slurry extrusion, deposition, etc. is obvious, especially here where Applicants fail to provide any unexpected results.
Applicants also argue that RAMESH does not measure anything between mixing and nozzle. However, claim 1 only requires “sensor adapted to measure on-line at least two physical properties of said wet mortar on its way from said mixing device to said nozzle.” In other words, the sensor is not located anywhere; rather, the wet mortar must be measured anywhere as long as the physical properties belong to those found on its way from said mixing device to said nozzle. That is the purpose of the “in-line” sensor 40 of RAMESH as explained in paragraphs 0025-26, 0028 and 0041-42.
Even if the claims specified a location of the sensor between the mixer and nozzle (i.e. tube, pipe, etc.), yet RAMESH suggests this option at paragraphs 0048-50. Specifically, RAMESH states that a sensor 740 can be used to characterize “the shear of the fluid and may also calculate the apparent viscosity, discussed in greater detail below. After the fluid has been shear and rheologically characterized, the fluid may recycled to the mixer upstream of static mixer 712, fed to a pump to be pumped downhole in a wellbore, or both” (para. 0050). In other words, the sensor to determine rheology (e.g. Coriolis sensor) can be located at a position between mixer and concrete slurry exit.
In addition, this is an obvious option as suggested by e.g. MARTINEZ (para. 0063; “A sensor can be included to determine the flow rate of build material 51 onto the build table 32”); WO2015/032878 (Coriolis sensor 24, Fig. 1); and US 20170259457 (Coriolis sensor 68 just past mixer 22 exit on way to discharge; para. 0047 and Figs. 1-2). It achieves the same function as in RAMESH, and simplifies the system (e.g. less tubes) yielding efficiency gains.
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.
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 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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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 1684
Prosecution Insights