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 AMENDMENT
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 21-25 are pending in the application. Claims 4 and 10-20 have been cancelled.
Amendments to the claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 21, and 23-25, filed on 30 October 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 30 October 2025, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 30 October 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112, §102, and §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --depositing material-- in line 7, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "depositing the polymer material".
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --deposited material-- in line 8, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "deposited polymer material".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furet et al. (WO 2017/191404 A1) in view of Boorish et al. (US 2021/0055710 A1) and Snel (WO 2007/086737 A1), and as further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Is Concrete Soundproof?") (referred to herein as "Dellolio").
Regarding Claims 1 and 21: Furet discloses the additive manufacture of a building (ref. #1), in which a structural wall is obtained by stacking successive layers of a structural material distributed in non-solid form, the building wall comprises two exterior walls (ref. #2) sandwiching a structural wall (ref. #3) ([0003], [0015]-[0018], [0033], and [0062]-[0064] of Furet). Furet also discloses that the building has a front wall, a back wall, a left wall, a right wall, and an intermediate wall (figure 1 of Furet). Specifically, Furet provides for --a 3D-printed structure, comprising: a structure comprising a plurality of sides including a bottom, a top, a left wall and a right wall each constructed using a 3D printing process, wherein the 3D printing process additively deposits polymer material in a continuous bead to generate the plurality of sides by 1) initially depositing the material to form a rear end surface and thereafter 2) the 3D printing process additively depositing the polymer material in a continuous bead to build up the initially deposited polymer material to further construct the bottom, the top, the left wall and the right wall to complete the 3-D printing of the structure, the 3-D printing process finally depositing the material to form a front end surface of the bottom, the top, the left wall and the right wall, wherein the 3-D printed structure is rotated to rest on the bottom upon completion of the 3D printing process, wherein the continuous bead of the 3-D-printed structure includes a continuous exterior print bead and a continuous interior print bead-- {instant claim 1} and --a 3D-printed structure, comprising: a structure comprising a plurality of sides including a bottom, a top, a left wall and a right wall each constructed using a 3D printing process, wherein the 3D printing process additively deposits polymer material in a continuous print bead to generate the plurality of sides by 1) initially depositing the material to form a rear end surface and thereafter 2) the 3D printing process additively depositing material in the continuous print bead to build up the initially deposited material to further construct the bottom, the top, the left wall and the right wall to complete the 3-D printing of the structure, the 3-D printing process finally depositing the material to form a front end surface of the bottom, the top, the left wall and the right wall, wherein the 3-D printed structure is rotated to rest on the bottom upon completion of the 3D printing process, wherein the continuous print bead of the 3-D-printed structure includes a continuous exterior print bead and a continuous interior print bead-- {instant claim 21}.
Furet fails to disclose --a monolithic and continuous rear end surface associated with each of the bottom, the top, the left wall, and the right wall, and a monolithic and continuous front end surface associated with each of the bottom, the top, the left wall, and the right wall--.
Boorish discloses a continuous toolpath for an additive manufactured structure, which provides a continuous toolpath for non-stop deposition during each layer of additive manufacture of the additive structure, wherein the additive structure can be formed with essentially any material or combination of materials using in additive manufacturing (title, figures 8A to 9C, [0082], and [0083] of Boorish).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the toolpath of Boorish with the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet in order to have --a monolithic and continuous rear end surface associated with each of the bottom, the top, the left wall, and the right wall, and a monolithic and continuous front end surface associated with each of the bottom, the top, the left wall, and the right wall-- {instant claims 1 and 21}. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporated the toolpath of Boorish with the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet, from the stand-point of addressing the inability to use materials that ooze excessively as feedstock, by eliminating stops and starts, such that globing and inconsistent surface finishes can be reduced ([0076] of Boorish). (Note: The toolpath of Boorish discloses that the continuous bead doubles back along the same toolpath (figures 8A to 9C of Boorish); wherein the continuous portion along the exterior perimeter is considered equivalent to the claimed "continuous exterior print bead", and the remaining portion is considered equivalent to the claimed "continuous interior print bead". In the instant case, the two exterior walls spaced apart as disclosed by Furet ([0015] of Furet), would both follow the toolpath disclosed by Boorish. Such that the wall would comprise from an interior to an exterior would comprise the exterior wall (E) and the structural wall (S) in the order of E/S/E/E/S/E, wherein the "continuous interior print bead" is each of the two inner exterior walls and the "continuous exterior print bead" is each of the two outer exterior walls.)
Furet in view of Boorish further failed to disclose --the continuous interior print bead is printed to generate a plurality of channels extending between the continuous exterior print bead and the continuous interior print bead, and whereas the continuous interior print bead generates a plurality of channels and cavities between the continuous exterior print bead and the continuous interior print bead-- {instant claim 1} and --the continuous interior print bead is printed to generate a plurality of channels including cavities formed therein, the plurality of channels extending between the continuous exterior print bead and the continuous interior print bead-- {instant claim 21}.
Snel discloses a wall element comprising two outer layers extending at least substantially parallel to each other, between which at least two intermediate layers are provided, wherein each intermediate layer extends between the outer layers in a zigzag fashion, each intermediate layer comprising fist pats that extend at least substantially parallel to the outer layers and second parts that extend between adjacent first parts, wherein first parts of one intermediate layer that face towards one outer layer are connected to said one outer layer, and wherein first parts of the other intermediate layer facing towards the other outer layer are connected to said other outer layer (figures 1 to 2, [Pg. 1: li. 5-16], and [Pg. 1: li. 28 to Pg. 2: li. 4] of Snel). Snel also discloses that each intermediate layer is at least substantially made of a material selected from the group consisting of plastic, and that the intermediate layers are nested ([Pg. 2: li. 24-25] and [Pg. 3: li. 22-24] of Snel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the wall element of Snel with the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet in view of Boorish in order to have --the continuous interior print bead is printed to generate a plurality of channels extending between the continuous exterior print bead and the continuous interior print bead, and whereas the continuous interior print bead generates a plurality of channels and cavities between the continuous exterior print bead and the continuous interior print bead-- {instant claim 1} and --the continuous interior print bead is printed to generate a plurality of channels including cavities formed therein, the plurality of channels extending between the continuous exterior print bead and the continuous interior print bead-- {instant claim 21}. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the wall element of Snel with the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet in view of Boorish, from the stand-point of having great constructional stiffness so as to be exposed to large forces without its shape stability being affected ([Pg. 1: li. 28-32] and [Pg. 2: li. 10-16] of Snel). (In the instant case, the additively manufactured intermediate walls of Furet in view of Boorish (i.e., the walls formed from the two continuous interior print beads), would be formed to have the zigzag profile between the exterior walls (i.e., the walls formed from the two continuous exterior print beads), whereby a plurality of continuous channels including cavities are formed.)
(NOTE: The limitation --wherein the 3D printing process additively deposits material in a continuous bead to generate the plurality of sides by 1) initially depositing the material to form a monolithic and continuous rear end surface associated with each of the bottom, the top, the left wall and the right wall and thereafter 2) the 3D printing process additively depositing material in a continuous bead to build up the initially deposited material to further construct the bottom, the top, the left wall and the right wall to complete the 3-D printing of the structure, the 3-D printing process finally depositing the material to form a monolithic and continuous front end surface associated with each of the bottom, the top, the left wall and the right wall, wherein the 3-D printed structure is rotated to rest on the bottom upon completion of the 3D printing process-- is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. MPEP §2113(I) recites, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As such, only the structure imparted by the product-by-process limitation will be given weight. In the instant case, the structural aspects are considered to be "a monolithic and continuous rear end surface associated with each of the bottom, the top, the left wall, and the right wall" and "a monolithic and continuous front end surface associated with each of the bottom, the top, the left wall, and the right wall"; wherein, so long as a piece of prior art provides a structure comprising said monolithic and continuous rear end surface, said monolithic and continuous front end surface, and a structure comprising a plurality of sides including a bottom, a top, a left wall, and a right wall, then the limitations of the claim are considered taught.)
Regarding Claim 3: Furet in view of Boorish and Snel discloses that the 3D-printing process includes the use of an anchored 3-axis robotic arm operatively associated with the positioning of an extruder to additively deposit the material, and a rotating platform to position the 3D-printed structure for additively depositing the material ([0003], [0015]-[0018], [0033], [0062]-[0064], and [0129]-[0141] of Furet). (In the instant case, the limitation --the 3D-printing process includes the use of an anchored 3-axis robotic arm operatively associated with the positioning of an extruder to additively deposit the material, and a rotating platform to position the 3D-printed structure for additively depositing the material-- has been considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. See MPEP §2113(I). In that the limitation does not impart any structure to the claimed final product, the limitation is considered taught.)
Regarding Claim 6: Furet in view of Boorish and Snel discloses that the plurality of sides are 3D-printed as a complete monolithic structure ([0003], [0015]-[0018], [0033], and [0062]-[0064] of Furet; figures 8A to 9C of Boorish).
Regarding Claim 7: Furet in view of Boorish and Snel discloses that each of the plurality of sides includes an interior surface and an exterior surface, the interior surface and the exterior surface are separated by insulation ("structuring material", e.g., concrete) ([0060]-[0064] and [0074] of Furet; figures 8A to 9C of Boorish; and as explained above).
Furet in view of Boorish and Snel does not explicitly recite that the structuring material (e.g., concrete) is an "insulation". However, it has been evidenced by other non-patent literature that concrete can be an insulation with respect to sound. Dellolio discloses that concrete is better at blocking airborne sound that materials like wood or drywall ([Pg. 1: paragraph 1] of Dellolio). Therefore, as evidenced by the non-patent literature the concrete can be an insulation.
Regarding Claim 8: Furet in view of Boorish and Snel discloses that an interior surface includes at least one of the following: a wall covering, a wall finishing, a ceiling cladding ([0085] of Furet).
Regarding Claims 22 and 24: Furet in view of Boorish and Snel discloses that the plurality of channels are four sided and trapezoidal shaped (figures 1 to 2 of Snel).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furet et al. (WO 2017/191404 A1) in view of Boorish et al. (US 2021/0055710 A1) and Snel (WO 2007/086737 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Kudsk (US 2021/0381485 A1).
Furet in view of Boorish and Snel is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 9: Furet in view of Boorish and Snel discloses that an exterior surface can include a finishing coat or any other wall finishing element ([0085] of Furet), but fails to disclose --a UV protection layer--.
Kudsk discloses an additively manufactured structure of a thermoplastic (e.g., recycled plastic) material, and that the surface thereof can comprise a surface layer that forms a barrier to the environment to shield it form the elements such as UV radiation (i.e., a UV protection layer) ([0004], [0027], [0033], and [0037] of Kudsk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the UV protection layer of Kudsk as the finishing coat of the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet in view of Boorish and Snel in order to have --a UV protection layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the UV protection layer of Kudsk as the finishing coat of the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet in view of Boorish and Snel, from the stand-point of resisting degradation from environmental exposure ([0037] of Kudsk).
Regarding Claim 2: Furet in view of Boorish, Snel, and Kudsk discloses that the material can be a recycled plastic and the 3D-printing process includes the use of a 3-axis robotic arm operatively associated with the positioning of an extruder to additively deposit the material ([0027] and [0033] of Kudsk). (In the instant case, the limitation --the 3D-printing process includes the use of a 3-axis robotic arm operatively associated with the positioning of an extruder to additively deposit the material-- has been considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. See MPEP §2113(I). In that the limitation does not impart any structure to the claimed final product, the limitation is considered taught.)
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furet et al. (WO 2017/191404 A1) in view of Boorish et al. (US 2021/0055710 A1) and Snel (WO 2007/086737 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Saberton (US 2021/0154911 A1).
Furet in view of Boorish and Snel is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claims 23 and 25: Furet in view of Boorish and Snel failed to disclose that --the material is comprised of one or more of a recycled plastic and a glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), and is glass fiber filled--.
Saberton discloses additive manufacturing or 3D printing of varied bead profiles, wherein the 3D printed material can include resins (e.g., glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate [PETG]) and beads that further contain reinforcing materials such as fiber fillers (e.g., glass fiber) ([0002], [0018], [0020], and [0034] of Saberton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the 3D printed material of Saberton with the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet in view of Boorish and Snel in order to have --the material is comprised of one or more of a recycled plastic and a glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), and is glass fiber filled--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the 3D printed material of Saberton with the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet in view of Boorish and Snel, from the stand-point of greatly increasing the shear strength of the printed part in the X-Y plane ([0002] and [0020] of Saberton).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furet et al. (WO 2017/191404 A1) in view of Boorish et al. (US 2021/0055710 A1) and Snel (WO 2007/086737 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hernández (US 2020/0256051 A1).
Furet in view of Boorish and Snel is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 5: Furet in view of Boorish and Snel failed to disclose --a front wall and a rear wall are independently added to the 3D-printed structure after completion of the 3D-printing process, the front wall and rear wall operatively attached to the 3D-printed structure and the front wall and rear wall enclosing the 3D-printed structure--.
Hernández discloses a room formed by a plurality of construction materials comprising precast floors, precast ceilings, precast walls with window, precast walls without window or door, and/or precast walls with door (figure 3, [0013], [0026], and [0027] of Hernández). Hernández also discloses that the wall, floor, and ceiling can be coupled together ([0058] of Hernández).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the room of Hernández with the 3D-printed structure of Furet in view of Boorish and Snel in order to have --a front wall and a rear wall are independently added to the 3D-printed structure after completion of the 3D-printing process, the front wall and rear wall operatively attached to the 3D-printed structure and the front wall and rear wall enclosing the 3D-printed structure--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the room of Hernández with the 3D-printed structure of Furet in view of Boorish and Snel, from the stand-point of using cost-effective automated systems using robotic arms for construction and assembly of walls, floors, and ceilings ([0001], [0002], [0006], and [0010] of Hernández). (In the instant case, the addition of a pre-fabricated front wall and rear wall to another building structure is disclosed by Hernández (figure 3, [0013], [0026], [0027], and [0058] of Hernández), and would obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form a fully enclosed housing structure using the 3D-printed structure disclosed by Furet in view of Boorish and Snel.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781