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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in paragraph “A” that Toledo does not meet the claim because “rails and member 92 are never used together as a single, unitary guiding element”. 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., “single, unitary guiding element”) 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).
Applicant argues in paragraph “B” that “there is not teaching or suggestion in Toledo that suggests that the rails should be removed” but this is not found persuasive. Toledo does not explicitly teach removing the at least one guiding element. Toledo teaches that it is the object of this invention to provide a block system that can be readily assembled and disassembled without requiring specialized tools or substantial previous training or experience, Col. 2, line 31-35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to disassemble and remove at least one guiding element of Toledo in the construction method of Toledo because it is designed to be disassembled without specialized tools and the parts can be re-used to reduce costs.
Applicant argues in paragraph “C” that the fastening means “is expressly disclosed as enabling the selective fastening of only certain blocks so that non-glued blocks and guiding elements can later be removed ([0037],[0039])”. Examiner notes that paragraphs [0037] and [0039] do not appear to be the correct citation and no support is found for this statement in such paragraphs. Furthermore, 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., “non-glued” and “selective fastening”) 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).
Applicant argues in paragraph “C” that the “method requires post-construction removal of a unitary guiding element”. 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., “unitary guiding element”) 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).
Applicant argues in paragraph “D” that the “the single claimed ‘guiding element’ cannot be met by two distinct elements in the prior art that never function together as one” but this is not found persuasive. In fact, claim 1 recites “at least one guiding element” and it would be improper for Examiner to limit the claim to a single guiding element. Claims 3 and 4 recite “the at least two guiding elements”. Claims 8 and 9 recite mutually exclusive guiding elements arranged perpendicular or not perpendicular. Fig. 11-14 of applicant’s disclosure depict multiple guide elements (2) that are not functioning a single unitary element. Therefore, it would be improper to interpret claim 1 to recite a single guiding element and render the remaining claims in conflict with claim 1.
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., “single guiding element”) 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).
Applicant argues in paragraph “E” that “modifying Toledo to include a removable, vertical guiding element would render it inoperable for its intended purpose, as it would lose its only means of lateral alignment and support” is not found persuasive. Toledo teaches the same parts that applicant has claimed including blocks with interior holes and vertical guiding elements. Once the cement is set, the vertical guide elements can be removed and the blocks hold alignment and support. The argument that this would render the method of Toledo inoperable is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues in paragraph “F” that “there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Toledo to modify the system to use a vertical, removable guiding element as claimed. The examiner's rationale is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction,” is not found persuasive. Toledo teaches that it is the object of this invention to provide a block system that can be readily assembled and disassembled without requiring specialized tools or substantial previous training or experience, Col. 2, line 31-35. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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) 1-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo (US Pat. No. 10,190,313 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Toledo meets the claimed method of additive forming of a 3D object by layering solid base blocks comprising the following steps:
a. arranging at least one guiding element oriented in a direction of forming of the 3D object; (Base leveling and alignment tool 80, tool 80 includes transversal members 82 with guiding rails 87; 87a, Col. 6, lines 53-57, Fig. 7-8)
b. depositing a first layer comprising at least one solid base block in a horizon of the first layer; (Examiners notes that Fig. 7 is a cross-section of Fig. 1, which depicts base blocks 215, base half blocks 315 and base column blocks 415, see Col. 3, line 50)
c. depositing at least one further layer comprising at least one solid base block at a horizon spatially spaced from the horizon of the first layer in the direction of forming the 3D object; (Toledo depicts 3 layers of blocks 15 and base blocks 215, Fig. 1) while at least one base block of the at least one layer is arranged in the region of the at least one guiding element and is arranged with at least one cooperating means, (Examiner notes that “cooperating means” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Paragraph [0029] of the instant specification discloses it to include a “4 hole”. Toledo teaches channels 137; 137a; 157; 157a; 177 and 177a of base block 115, Fig. 4 and 4A. This permits an accurate alignment of the blocks, Col. 7, lines 45-53) cooperating with the said at least one guiding element (Guiding rails 87; 87a are cooperatively received within channels 137; 137a; 157; 157a; 177 and 177a of base block 115 . This permits an accurate alignment of the blocks, Col. 7, lines 45-53) and the at least one base block is arranged with a fastening means; (Examiner notes that “fastening means” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Paragraph [0029] discloses it to include “glue”. Toledo teaches cementitious substance 100 is placed under the base blocks also above and below tool 80, see Col. 7, lines 5-10).
Toledo does not explicitly teach d. removing the at least one guiding element.
Toledo teaches that it is the object of this invention to provide a block system that can be readily assembled and disassembled without requiring specialized tools or substantial previous training or experience, Col. 2, line 31-35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to disassemble and remove at least one guiding element of Toledo in the construction method of Toledo because it is designed to be disassembled without specialized tools and the parts can be re-used to reduce costs.
Regarding claim 2, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein at least one base block of each layer is arranged in the region of the at least one guiding element (Toledo depicts tool 80 and 180 to be present on each layer, see Fig. 1A, Col. 4 lines 24-30) and is arranged with at least one cooperating means, (Guiding rails 87; 87a are cooperatively received within channels 137; 137a; 157; 157a; 177 and 177a of base block 115 . This permits an accurate alignment of the blocks, Col. 7, lines 45-53) cooperating with the said at least one guiding element. (tool 80 and 180, Fig. 1A and 11).
Regarding claim 3, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one solid base block of the at least one layer is arranged in the region of the at least two guiding elements ( Rails 87; 87a, Fig. 8a) and is arranged with at least two cooperating means, (within channels 137; 137a; 157; 157a; 177 and 177a of base block 115; Col. 7, lines 45-53) of which each cooperates with at least one of these guiding elements. (Guiding rails 87; 87a are cooperatively received within channels 137; 137a; 157; 157a; 177 and 177a of base block 115 . This permits an accurate alignment of the blocks, Col. 7, lines 45-53)
Regarding claim 4, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1 wherein the at least one solid base block of the at least one layer is arranged in the region of the at least two guiding elements (Rails 87; 87a, Fig. 8a) and is arranged with at least one cooperating means cooperating with these at least two guiding elements. (Guiding rails 87; 87a are cooperatively received within channels 137; 137a; 157; 157a; 177 and 177a of base block 115 . This permits an accurate alignment of the blocks, Col. 7, lines 45-53)
Regarding claim 5, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the at least two solid base blocks are different. (Toledo teaches primary blocks 15, primary half blocks 115, base blocks 215, base half blocks 315 and base column blocks 415. With these five types of blocks, all vertical structures can be built, see Col. 3, lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 6, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the first layer is arranged on at least one base plate. (tool 80 forms a base plate, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the horizon of the at least one further layer is parallel to the horizon of the first layer. (Toledo depicts each layer of blocks 15 and 115 to be parallel, Fig. 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 8, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one guiding element is oriented in a direction perpendicular to the horizon of the first layer. (transversal members 82, Fig. 9 and 9A).
Regarding claim 9, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one guiding element is oriented in a direction other than perpendicular to the horizon of the first layer. (Rails 87; 87a, Fig. 8a, are parallel to the horizon)
Regarding claim 10, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein all solid base blocks are arranged with fastening means. (Examiner notes that “fastening means” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Paragraph [0029] discloses it to include “glue”. Toledo teaches cementitious substance 100 is placed under the base blocks also above and below tool 80, see Col. 7, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 11, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the fastening means is an adhesive. (Toledo teaches cementitious substance 100 is placed under the base blocks also above and below tool 80, see Col. 7, lines 5-10, which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “adhesive”).
Regarding claim 12, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1.
Toledo does not explicitly teach wherein after step c) the base plate is removed.
Toledo teaches that it is the object of this invention to provide a block system that can be readily assembled and disassembled without requiring specialized tools or substantial previous training or experience, Col. 2, line 31-35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to disassemble and remove the base plate of Toledo in the construction method of Toledo because it is designed to be disassembled without specialized tools and the parts can be re-used to reduce costs.
Regarding claim 14, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the base blocks with the at least one cooperating means (channels 137; 137a; 157; 157a; 177 and 177a of base block 115, Fig. 4 and 4A) are arranged in the region of the at least one guiding element by means of the at least one alignment means. (a location pin or nail 86 that penetrates in the supporting surface S keep tool 80 in place, see Fig. 9 and 9A).
Regarding claim 15, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein after step (c) but before step (d) the at least one base block, arranged with a fastening means, is pressed together with at least one other base block by means of at least one guiding element. (Guiding rails 87; 87a are cooperatively received within channels 137; 137a; 157; 157a; 177 and 177a of base block 115 . This permits an accurate alignment of the blocks, Col. 7, lines 45-53).
Regarding claim 16, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein after completion of the additive forming of the 3D object, at least one base block is removed.
Toledo teaches that it is the object of this invention to provide a block system that can be readily assembled and disassembled without requiring specialized tools or substantial previous training or experience, Col. 2, line 31-35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to disassemble and remove a base block of Toledo in the construction method of Toledo because it is designed to be disassembled without specialized tools and the parts can be re-used to reduce costs.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo (US Pat. No. 10,190,313 B1) in view of Chan (US PG Pub. 2019/0193298 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Toledo as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the 3D object is reinforced by a thermal process.
Chan teaches wherein the 3D object is reinforced by a thermal process. (Chan teaches a method of glazed brick blocks specifically designed for efficiently setting up and construction an entire community with various constructions, [0002], where the glazing compound of brick blocks is cured and heat-treated in gas-fired tunnel kilns, thus becoming an integral part of the masonry brick block unit, see [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the heat treatment of Chan with the brick building method of Toledo because it cures the material and ensures it is integrated into the brick, see Chan [0032].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ali (US 2021/0395149 A1) teaches a printable cementitious composition comprising a cement binder, an aggregate, at least one pozzolanic additive, an accelerator, water, and nanoclay, see Abstract.
Oberhouse (US 2020/0362558 A1) teaches a wall reinforcement system is provided. The wall reinforcement system includes a plurality of spaced apart channels formed in a side of a wall. At least one reinforcement rod is positioned in each of the channels. The at least one reinforcement rod is formed from basalt fibers. An adhesive mixture is positioned in each of the channels and configured to retain the at least one reinforcement rods within the channels, see Abstract.
Swank (US 2018/0334800 A1) teaches A fire resistant structural masonry assembly has a plurality of connected triangular masonry units, end caps, minor corners, major corners, lintels, and rebar. Mortar is affixed to the first and second mortar beds and of the triangular masonry units and between the first end cap mortar bed and the first side or the second side of the triangular masonry unit, see Abstract paragraph.
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 MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744