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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 2/26/2026.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim rejections under §112(b)
Applicant Argues
Claims 11 and 17 have been amended to address the indefinite issues.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 11 and 17 under §112 has been withdrawn.
Regarding claim rejections under §101
Applicant Argues
The claimed subject matter represents a complex set of operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Examiner Response
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-17 under §101 has been withdrawn.
Regarding independent claim rejections under §102
Applicant Argues
Jang performs material-level optimization of a solid specimen, not architectural-scale design generation. Jang does not address macro-scale load-bearing elements or their assembly into habitable structures. Jang does not disclose or enable any design-to-fabrication workflow and end-to-end workflow is wholly absent from Jang.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., architectural-scale design generation, assembly into habitable structures, end-to-end workflow) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG (KR20190117835A) in view of BOYD (US20190217527A1) (hereinafter – “JANG-BOYD”).
Regarding claim 1
JANG teaches a method comprising1:
generating a building design that includes one or more construction component (ll. 311-318: “porous structure design unit determines the porous structure according to a given load by using a phase-optimal design based on the porous structure that mimics the spongy bone of the human skeleton structure to maintain the strength of the structure and reduce the mass” topology optimization design method begins with step 311 where the porous structure design unit sets the design space (i.e., building design) and design variables (i.e., construction components)); and
applying a biomimetic topology optimization algorithm to the building design to define a structure of the one or more construction component ll. 322-330: in step 312 porous structure design unit may perform the design optimization based on biomimetics of spongy bone … porous structure design unit may acquire behavior information of the target structure).
JANG is not relied on for the construction component being for a building.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BOYD, FIG. 1
However, BOYD in analogous art teaches this claim limitation.
BOYD teaches an “apparatus and process of freeform additive manufacturing to create structures that are used as scaffold onto which other materials are applied” ([0014], Fig. 1).
JANG and BOYD are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of CAD and AM systems used to design structural components. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of BOYD to the teachings of JANG such that BOYD’s onsite additive manufacturing method and apparatus could have been used with JANG’s biomimetic structure design unit for the purposes of having a deployable system for manufacturing building structures and components on site. JANG provides the motivation to combine in lines 311-314: porous structure design unit “can be designed to be deployed.”
Regarding claim 2
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JANG also teaches wherein applying a biomimetic topology optimization algorithm comprises applying a numerical method for determining optimal material distribution (Ln. 377-378: topology optimization design is a method of mathematically obtaining a structure having the maximum performance).
Regarding claim 3
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JANG also teaches wherein applying a biomimetic topology optimization algorithm comprises iteratively removing material from areas in which stress is below a predetermined threshold value, wherein the areas are identified based on one or more of a defined boundary volume, load case definition, and design constraints (Ln. 125-133: porous structure design unit performs topology optimization design for biomimetic structure, obtains behavior information of the target structure through finite element analysis, and then sequentially updates the design to obtain a lightweight optimization design. Design variable is relative density of the individual finite element, objective function (predetermined threshold value) is the minimization of the strain energy of the target structure, and the constraints may be the mass and the perimeter of the structure).
Regarding claim 4
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JANG also teaches fabricating the one or more construction component using an additive manufacturing method (Ln. 82-83: method may further include implementing 3D printing using an additive manufacturing method using the designed porous structure).
Regarding claim 10
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
BOYD also teaches a construction component for a building, or a design thereof, produced by a method of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11
JANG teaches a system for design a construction component for a building comprising:
at least one processor (Ln. 482-484: devices and components may include processors); and
a computing platform implemented using the at least one processor (Ln. 485: may be implemented using one or more computers), the computing platform configured for:
at least one of preparing, analyzing, interpreting, and viewing one or more construction component Ln. 377-388: topology optimization is used to obtain a design with a porous (biomimetic) structure […] application for the topology optimization design allows the selection of various design variables).
JANG is not relied on for the construction component being for a building.
However, BOYD in analogous art teaches this claim limitation.
BOYD teaches an “apparatus and process of freeform additive manufacturing to create structures that are used as scaffold onto which other materials are applied” ([0014], Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of BOYD to the teachings of JANG such that BOYD’s onsite additive manufacturing method and apparatus could have been used with JANG’s biomimetic structure design unit for the purposes of having a deployable system for manufacturing building structures and components on site. JANG provides the motivation to combine in lines 311-314: porous structure design unit “can be designed to be deployed.”
Regarding claim 12
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above.
JANG also teaches one or more additive manufacturing component configured for fabrication of the one or more construction component wherein the computing platform controls the one or more additive manufacturing components (Ln. 16-18: invention relates to a lightweight design method and system based on porous structure using topological design and 3D printing in connection with processing technology).
Regarding claim 17
JANG teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions (Ln. 505-516: may be embodied in the form of program instructions that
506 can be executed by various computer means and recorded on a computer readable medium, such as a hard drive).
The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as claim 11 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Claims 5-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG-BOYD in view of DAVIES (US20190303512A1) (hereinafter – “JANG-BOYD-DAVIES”).
Regarding claim 5
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
JANG-BOYD is not relied on for adding one or more additional construction component to the one or more construction component to provide a subassembly for the building.
However, DAVIES does teach this claim limitation (Abstract: “Dependencies between the objects are determined, with the determined dependencies indicating that a first object is to be constructed prior to a second object. Construction orderings are generated based on the determined dependencies, with each construction ordering indicating a unique order in which the objects are to be constructed”).
DAVIES is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of design optimization of structural components. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of DAVIES to the teachings of JANG-BOYD such that DAVIES dependencies determination subroutine could have been used with JANG’s design unit. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine DAVIES with JANG-BOYD because it is well understood in the art that construction component, such as a truss, is a subassembly comprised of construction components, such as a rafter and braces. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine DAVIES with JANG-BOYD according to known methods to arrive at the claimed invention.Regarding claim 6
JANG-BOYD-DAVIES teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations are substantially the same as claim 4 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Regarding claim 7
JANG-BOYD-DAVIES teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above.
BOYD also teaches wherein the one or more additional construction component is added by one or more robotic system (Fig. 1 #102).
Regarding claim 13
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as claim 7 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Regarding claim 14
JANG-BOYD-DAVIES teaches the elements of claim 13 as outlined above.
BOYD also teaches wherein the computing platform controls the one or more robotic systems (Fig. 1, [0070]: “motion is programmed or controlled via computer 108 that is coupled to a controller 109 that controls the motion of the robot 102”).
Claim 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG-BOYD in view of TAMBUYSER (US20240075684A1) (hereinafter – “JANG-BOYD-TAMBUYSER”).
Regarding claim 8
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
JANG-BOYD is not relied on for wherein the additive manufacturing method employs a recycled additive.
However, TAMBUYSER does teach this claim limitation ([0001]: invention relates to additive manufacturing materials that comprise fillers derived from lignocellulosic biomass; [0063]: lignocellulosic biomass may be recycled wood).
TAMBUYSER is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is from the same field of additive manufacturing. Jang teaches an additive manufacturing method to produce large scale structural elements. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine TAMBUYSER with JANG-BOYD such that TAMBUYSER’s use of recycled wood in additive manufacturing could have been used with JANG-BOYD’s additive manufacturing device. TAMBUYSER provides the motiviation in paragraph 0005 “potential benefits of NFPCs [nature fibre plastic composites] as a printing material are attractive – such as in terms of strength, durability, etc.”.
Regarding claim 9
JANG-BOYD-TAMBUYSER teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined.
TAMBUYSER also teaches wherein the recycled additive comprises one or more of recycled bamboo product or recycled wood product ([0063]: biomass may be recycled wood or bamboo).
Regarding claim 15
JANG-BOYD teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as claim 8 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Regarding claim 16
JANG-BOYD-TAMBUYSER teaches the elements of claim 15 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as claim 9 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Debora (US20200130256A1) teaches methods of joining additively manufactured structural components.
Sun (US20220402164A1) teaches a construction method comprising 3d printing biomimetic concrete structures.
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 Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 JANG is directed to and specifically teaches (ll. 14-18) “porous structure-based lightweight design method and system using topological design and 3D printing. More specifically, a topological design is used to design and stack a porous structure optimized for a given load environment. The present invention relates to a lightweight design method and system based on porous structure using topological design and 3D printing in connection with processing technology”
Prosecution Insights