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
This is a final Office action in response to a non-final Office action reply filed on 10/21/25, in which claims 1 and 4 were amended.
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 4 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 4 recites the limitation "wherein each cross section of a bar (B)" and it is unclear what is meant by “a bar (B)”. Further, there is no definition of a bar (B) provided in the Specification.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Austin et al (US 2014/0252668).
For claim 1, Austin et al teach a method of production of a 3D printed earth wall for an earth building, wherein the method includes steps of: a) preparing a building composition (1), b) preparing a construction area (2), c) compacting the building composition (1), d) providing the building composition (1) in a form of an elastic rod (R) forming a first layer (L1) of the 3D printed earth wall (3) to the predetermined construction area (2) by a 3D earth wall printing device (4), e) repeating step d) for building further layers (L2 to LX) of the 3D printed earth wall (3) according to a specific construction design, wherein each subsequent layer (LX) is positioned on top of the previous layer (LX-1) in vertical direction ([0015]-[0022], [0052]), f) the 3D printed earth wall (3) would be cured, wherein the cross section of the rod (R) forming each layer of the building composition (1) is substantially rectangular ([0086]).
For claim 2, since the cross section of the rod (R) forming each layer of the building composition (1) is substantially rectangular, each rod (R) of the layers (L1 - LX) would comprise a bottom part (5), top part (6) and two sides (7, 8), wherein each of the bottom part (5) of the layers (L2 to LX) is bound to the top part (6) of the adjacent layers (L1 to LX-1) respectively, forming a permanent joint (9).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin et al (US 2014/0252668).
Austin et al teach the invention as discussed above. In addition, again following from the cross section of the rod (R) forming each layer of the building composition (1) being substantially rectangular, the bottom part (5) would have a first size (10) and the top part (6) would have a second size (11), measured perpendicular to the 3D printed earth wall (3) respectively, wherein the first size (10) is substantially equal to the second size (11), and the joint (9) would have a third size (13), measured perpendicular to the 3D printed earth wall (3).
Though Austin et al do not explicitly teach the third size (13) equals at least 80% of the first size (10) and the second size (11), it is implied with a rectangular cross section having the first size (10) substantially equal to the second size (11) that the third size (13) would be about 100% of the first size (10) and the second size (11) and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the third size (13) equal at least 80% of the first size (10) and the second size (11) in order to provide a strong bond between the layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/21/25 were fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that a material of the "rod" in the Austin reference is described as an extrusion of an earth-based material (see [0015]-[0022]) but nowhere discloses that the material is provided in the form of an elastic rod, and the claimed "elastic rod" provides functional advantages, including deformation under stress and improved bonding.
Examiner, however, points out that like the claimed "elastic rod", Austin’s rod would deform under stress and have reliable bonding.
Applicant also asserts that Austin discloses preparing and delivering a composition, but there is no teaching of a separate compaction step.
Examiner, however, points out that in Austin a certain amount of compacting would happen during the mixing and delivery processes.
Applicant asserts too that while the Examiner points to Austin to paragraph [0086], as anticipating the "substantially rectangular cross-section" limitation, that passage merely lists possible cross-sectional shapes and does not provide a clear, unambiguous disclosure of "substantially rectangular" as required by anticipation law. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Examiner, however, points out that Austin [0086] explicitly states a rectangular cross section so it does anticipate the limitation.
Applicant also asserts that the Austin reference merely describes stacked deposition of layers and there is no disclosure of a permanent joint formed between layers, and stacking does not inherently form a permanent joint, as joints may remain temporary or subject to separation absent curing, interlocking, or chemical bonding.
Examiner, however, points out that Austin’s joints are cured so they would form a permanent joint.
Applicant also asserts that the limitation of claim 3 "A rectangular cross-section" does not necessarily yield a joint having >80% thickness relative to rod dimensions, and the claimed ratio is not a routine optimization but a specific structural relationship that provides unexpected advantages, including superior interlayer bonding strength and enhanced wall stability, and Austin contains no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to select this threshold.
Examiner, however, points out that Austin doesn’t have to provide a motivation for the routine optimization for this threshold as the motivation to provide a strong bond between the layers would be realized by one of ordinary skill.
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 extension fee 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 JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 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