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 Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of claims 1 -11, 15 and 17-23 and cancellation of claim 26 in the reply filed on 8 / 4 /2 5 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/25 . Claim Objections Claim 2 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 3 , ln 1 recites “ The slip form system of claim 18 ” which appears to be a misstatement of “ The slip form system of claim 22 ”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 9, lns 4-5 recite the limitation " the accelerant and/or plasticiser ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to define the plasticiser earlier in the claim. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites the limitation "The slip form system of claim 13” but the scope of the dependent claim cannot be clearly determined when its parent claim is no longer pending in the application . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(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- 3, 7-8 , 15, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Butler ( WO 2020/210173 , already of record) . For claim 1, Butler teach es a slip form system for forming a building structure, the slip form system comprising: an inlet (Fig. 29 – element 418) for receiving a flow of a material mixture (concrete via hose 217) comprising a setting material and an accelerant (Fig. 30, [00125]) ; a slip form (element 410) having first and second longitudinally extending spaced side walls (elements 404, 410) to define a space for receiving a flow of the material mixture from the inlet, the slip form defining cross-sectional dimensions of the formed building structure (element 202) ; a support (element 412) supporting the slip form such that the slip form can continuously move along a building plane from a starting position to a finishing position, the building plane being defined by the building structure to be formed; an actuator (element 468) for continuously moving the slip form supported by the support; and a controller (Fig. 40 – element 608, [00146]–[00148]) in communication with the actuator and configured to dynamically control the moving slip form ; wherein the slip form system is configured such that when a flow of material mixture is received within the slip form , the controller uses information relating to a setting rate of the material mixture to control movement of the slip form to continuously form the building structure ([00146]–[00150]) . For claims 2-3, Butler teaches a sensor for detecting a material property associated with the material mixture that is indicative of the setting rate of the material mixture ; and a sensor for detecting a pressure of the material mixture against an inner portion of a side wall of the slip form, wherein the controller is in communication with the pressure sensor to use the detected pressure to dynamically control the movement of the slip form (Fig. 40, [00146]–[00150]) . For claims 7-8, Butler teaches the controller is configured to control the flow rate of the material mixture and/or the flow rate of components of the material mixture and/or a dosage rate of admixtures ([00148]); and a first inlet (element 217) for receiving the setting material in the form of a slurry, and a second inlet (element 218) for receiving the accelerant. For claims 15 and 17, Butler teaches the system being configured to move the slip form from a starting position where the flow of the material mixture is initiated, to a first finishing position where the flow of the material mixture is stopped, to a second finishing position where the slip form can be removed from the finished, formed building structure ; and the support comprises a release component for moving the slip form out of the building plane ([00117]-[00118]) . For claim 19, Butler teaches the side walls of the slip form are connected through a hinge (element 212, [00120]) such that at least one of the side walls can pivot relative to the other side wall of the slip form. For claims 20-21, Butler teaches a material discharger for discharging the material mixture into the space of the slip form, wherein the material discharger is in fluid communication with the inlet and is configured to evenly discharge the material mixture along the longitudinal space of the slip form ; and in the form of a discharger unit that is moveable along a length of the slip form (Fig. 29, [00118]) . 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 of this title, 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claims 4-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler ( WO 20 20 / 210173 , already of record) . Butler teaches the invention as discussed above. For claims 4-6 and 9-11, the sensor s recited in these claims are well known and i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a penetrometer sensor for detecting a yield stress of the material mixture in the space defined by the slip form, wherein the controller is in communication with the penetrometer sensor to use the detected yield stress to dynamically control the movement of the slip form ; or a sensor for detecting a resistivity of the material mixture within the slip form, wherein the side walls of the slip form comprise electrical contacts such that a current can be applied through the material mixture ; or a flow sensor for detecting a flow rate of the material mixture into the inlet and/or into the slip form, wherein the controller is in communication with the flow sensor to use the detected flow rate to dynamically control the movement of the slip form ; or a torque or current sensor for detecting a respective torque or current of a mixer that is mixing at least the setting material and the accelerant, wherein the controller is in communication with the torque sensor or the current sensor to use the detected torque or current to dynamically control the flow rate of the accelerant and/or plasticizer; or a sensor for detecting a deformation of the formed building structure, wherein the controller is in communication with the deformation sensor to use the detected deformation to dynamically control the movement of the slip form ; or at least one position sensor to detect a position of the slip form, wherein the controller is in communication with the at least one position sensor to dynamically control the movement of the slip form and/or the flow rate of the material mixture into the slip form. Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler ( WO 2020/210173 , already of record) in view of Gramazio et al (WO 2014/121917) . Butler teaches the invention as discussed above. Butler does not teach a reinforcement dispenser for automatically dispensing one or more reinforcement structures into the continuously forming building structure ; wherein the reinforcement dispenser comprises a storage for storing a plurality of reinforcement bars, the storage comprising an opening, and wherein the reinforcement dispenser comprises an actuator for moving an individual reinforcement bar through the opening . However, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to slip forming of concrete s tructures , Gramazio et al teach a reinforcement can be introduced into the apparatus together with the poured concrete so that it is positioned at the intended position ( pg 5 lns 6-11 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gramazio et al with those of Butler by having a reinforcement dispenser for automatically dispensing one or more reinforcement structures into the continuously forming building structure; wherein the reinforcement dispenser comprises a storage for storing a plurality of reinforcement bars, the storage comprising an opening, and wherein the reinforcement dispenser comprises an actuator for moving an individual reinforcement bar through the opening in order to strengthen the formed concrete building structure . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7007 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 11-7 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JAMES SANDERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743