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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garceau (US 2008/0061213) in view of Hill (US 10,377,065) and Jung (US 2017/0095085).
In reference to Claim 11, Garceau discloses creating a textured concrete edge with inner and outer walls ([0007]-[0008]) (a method comprising: a textured surface onto the exterior surface) with wooden forms ([0010]) (on the interior side, conventional wood-stud framing).
Garceau does not disclose 3D printing.
Hill discloses creating a composite panel (1:49) by using a mold (1:65) by printing onto a textured surface of the mold (19:25-35) (3D printing, onto a textured form, a wall panel comprising an interior side and an exterior side, the textured form configured to impart a textured surface onto the exterior side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the concrete walls with textured surfaces creation method of Garceau using 3D printing onto the textural pattern creation of Hill because the pattern can mimic building materials (19:25-35). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the textural pattern of Hill during the method of Garceau because achieving a wood like texture on concrete can be emulated using the textured form of Hill. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the structure of Garceau by 3D printing on Hill’s form.
Jung discloses three-dimensional printing studs and tracks made of lightweight material ([0042]) (3D printing, on the interior side, structural elements designed to mimic, in at least one of dimensions and spacing, vertical and horizontal framing members in conventional wood-stud framing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the concrete walls with studded structure creation method of Garceau using the studs and track of Jung because the additional parts allow for hanging on the three-dimensionally printed walls ([0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the three-dimensionally printed stud and track system of Jung during the creation method of Garceau because the system allows for greater stability ([0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the structure by Garceau to form the studs of Jung to allow for a mimicked stud frame.
In reference to Claim 14, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 11, as described above.
Hill discloses creating a composite panel (1:49) by using a mold (1:65) by printing onto a textured surface of the mold to mimic the building material (19:25-35) (the textured surface mimics a texture of at least one of natural stone, brick, and wood siding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the concrete walls with textured surfaces creation method of Garceau using 3D printing onto the textural pattern creation of Hill because the pattern can mimic building materials (19:25-35). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the textural pattern of Hill during the method of Garceau because achieving a wood like texture on concrete can be emulated using the textured form of Hill. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the structure of Garceau by 3D printing on Hill’s form.
In reference to Claim 15, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 14, as described above.
Hill discloses using different pigments and colors (18:66-19:7) (the textured surface comprises multiple colors to mimic at least one of natural stone, brick, and wood siding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the concrete walls with textured surfaces creation method of Garceau using 3D printing onto the textural pattern creation of Hill because the pattern can mimic building materials (19:25-35). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the textural pattern of Hill during the method of Garceau because achieving a wood like texture on concrete can be emulated using the textured form of Hill. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the structure of Garceau by 3D printing on Hill’s form.
In reference to Claim 16, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 15, as described above.
Garceau discloses using rebar inside the concrete walls ([0021]) (embedding, on interior faces of the structural elements, a material that differs from a primary material of the 3D-printed wall panel, the embedded material designed to enable attachment of drywall or other interior wall materials to the interior side of the 3D-printed wall panel).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garceau (US 2008/0061213) in view of Hill (US 10,377,065) and Jung (US 2017/0095085) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Meyer, et al. (US 2019/0292803).
In reference to Claim 12, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 11, as described above.
Modified Garceau does not disclose 3D printing concrete.
Meyer discloses 3D printing concrete ([0043]) (3D printing comprises 3D printing a concrete mixture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the concrete walls of Garceau using the 3D printing of concrete of Meyer because the ability to create on-site ([0043]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the 3D printing concrete method of Meyer during the creation method of Garceau because the system allows for greater flexibility of where a wall can be created ([0043]). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the structure by Garceau to form the walls of Meyer to allow for a 3D printed wall.
In reference to Claim 13, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 11, as described above.
Hill discloses using different pigments and colors (18:66-19:7) (3D printing comprises 3D printing the exterior side with a colored concrete that is different than that used to 3D print the interior side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the creation method of Garceau using the colored concrete mixture of Hill because the color can achieve the wood color (19:34-35). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the colored concrete mixture of Hill during the method of Garceau because achieving a wood like texture on concrete can be emulated using the colored concretes. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the material by Garceau to gain the color of Hill’s concrete.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garceau (US 2008/0061213) in view of Hill (US 10,377,065) and Jung (US 2017/0095085) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Shaw (US 2012/0317912).
In reference to Claim 18, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 11, as described above.
Shaw discloses a vibrating metal bull float as a finishing tool ([0027]) (vibrating the wall panel that is 3D printed onto the textured form).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the concrete wall making method of Garceau using the vibrating metal bull float of Shaw because it would create a finished surface ([0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the vibrating metal bull float of Shaw during the method of Garceau because achieving a wood like texture on concrete can be emulated using the textured form. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the concrete material of Garceau to gain the texture of Shaw’s form.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garceau (US 2008/0061213) in view of Hill (US 10,377,065) and Jung (US 2017/0095085) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Covey, et al. (US 2022/0034088).
In reference to Claim 17, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 11, as described above.
Modified Garceau does not disclose 3D printing, into the structural elements, cutouts that facilitate routing of at least one of plumbing and electrical wiring through the structural elements.
Covey discloses three-dimensional printing building material (Abstract) where the nozzle is turned off to allow for openings in the wall ([0027]) (3D printing, into the structural elements, cutouts that facilitate routing of at least one of plumbing and electrical wiring through the structural elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the wall creation method of Garceau using the openings of Covey because the nozzle turns off to allow for the openings ([0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Covey during the method of Garceau because Covey allows for traditional wall openings. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the concrete wall by Garceau to be able to have traditional wall applications like Covey.
In reference to Claim 19, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 11, as described above.
Modified Garceau does not disclose 3D printing into the wall panel an opening for at least one of a door and window.
Covey discloses three-dimensional printing building material (Abstract) where the nozzle is turned off to allow for openings in the wall ([0027]) (3D printing into the wall panel an opening for at least one of a door and window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the wall creation method of Garceau using the openings of Covey because the nozzle turns off to allow for the openings ([0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Covey during the method of Garceau because Covey allows for traditional wall openings. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the wall creation by Garceau to be able to have traditional wall applications like Covey.
In reference to Claim 20, modified Garceau discloses the method of Claim 19, as described above.
Modified Garceau does not disclose 3D printing the structural elements onto the wall panel to facilitate the opening.
Covey discloses three-dimensional printing building material (Abstract) where the nozzle is turned off to allow for openings in the wall ([0027]) (3D printing the structural elements onto the wall panel to facilitate the opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the wall creation method of Garceau using the openings of Covey because the nozzle turns off to allow for the openings ([0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Covey during the method of Garceau because Covey allows for traditional wall openings. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the wall creation method of Garceau to be able to have traditional wall applications like Covey.
Response to Arguments
Examiner attempted to contact Applicant’s Representative to approve an Examiner’s Amendment – please contact the Examiner.
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to disclose 3D printing. Examiner argues Hill discloses creating a composite panel (1:49) by using a mold (1:65) by printing onto a textured surface of the mold (19:25-35). Applicant argues the prior art fails to disclose the amendments, but the amendments create a confusion that can be cleared up by removing “in at least one of dimensions and spacing” because the physical aspect of “vertical and horizontal framing members in conventional wood-stud wall framing” is enough to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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 KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742