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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 3rd, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on February 3rd, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on September 3rd, 2025.
Rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the amendments filed February 3rd, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination of Khoshnevis and Droge fails to disclose, teach or suggest all the limitations of amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Droge teaches the first portion and second portion of the at least one structural support have the same length (Fig. 1; [0026]; first 24 and second 26 arms has a length is between 4.0 inches and 18.0 inches), are oriented parallel to each other (Fig. 1; [0025]; bends 20 and 22 are right angles and arms 24 and 26 both oriented parallel to direction 8) and are embedded in the first and second shells (Fig. 3). Furthermore, it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from Figures 2, 3 and 5-7 of Droge that the first shell and the second shell are parallel to each other. While Droge does not explicitly provide an example of the third portion extending a distance through a space to the second portion, the first portion oriented parallel with at least one portion of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads and the second portion oriented parallel with at least one portion of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads, Droge teaches that variations in the manner of use of the at least one structural support are deemed readily apparent and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0031]). Comparing the orientation of the structural support of the instant application (top figure 4; structural support is 418) to the orientation of the structural support of Droge (bottom figure 4; structural support), it is readily apparent that these limitations amount to a difference of 90 degrees in positioning of the structural support.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
597
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Khoshnevis, in view of Droge, teaches the claimed invention expect for the rearrangement of the structural support. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the structural support of Droge by 90 degrees, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI). Doing so would result in the first structural support portion being embedded in the first shell and having an equivalent surface area as the second structural support portion embedded in the second shell, each of the surface areas being oriented parallel to each orientation of the first shell and the second shell. One would have been motivated to rearrange the structural support by 90 degrees for the purpose of allowing more structural supports to be applied within a given length of the wall structure and therefore further stabilize the first shell and second shell of the load-bearing wall structure relative to each other (Droge [0029]).
Applicant argues the rejections are based on impermissible hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Appellant'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 Appellant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP 2145 (X). The cited prior art references address all of the limitations of the claims and provide a rational and factual motivation for their hypothetical combination.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate an updated grounds of rejection provided below.
Updated Grounds of Rejection
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 2, “wherein at the least one structural” should say “wherein the at least one structural”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevis (US 20070138678 A1), in view Droge (US 20230349148 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Khoshnevis discloses a method of forming a load-bearing wall structure of a building (Fig. 2a; [0050, 0055]; forming building structures, such as a load-bearing wall), comprising:
forming, with a three-dimensional (3D) printing system ([0050]; nozzle extruding structures under computer control), a first portion of a first shell (Fig. 6a; [0064]; a portion of extrudate 611) that comprises a first plurality of stacked elongated beads (Fig. 6a; extrudate 611 is formed of extruded layers of cementitious material beads) of extruded building material ([0010, 0050]; cementitious material to make building structures) that forms a first wythe (Fig. 6a; [0064]; extrudate 611 forms first wythe), the first shell forming a first surface (Fig. 6a; extrudate 611 has a first surface) of the load-bearing wall structure;
forming, with the 3D printing system, a first portion of a second shell (Fig. 6a; [0064]; a portion of extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior) spaced apart from the first shell (Fig. 6a; extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior are spaced apart from extrudate 611), the second shell comprising a second plurality of stacked elongated beads (Fig. 6a; extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior is formed of extruded layers of cementitious material beads) of extruded building material ([0010-0011, 0050]; cementitious material to make building structures) that forms at least two second wythes (Fig. 6a; [0064]; extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior form at least two second wythes), the second shell forming a second surface (Fig. 6a; extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior have a first surface) of the load-bearing wall structure.
Khoshnevis does not explicitly disclose installing at least one structural support that comprises a first portion positioned in the first shell and a second portion positioned in the second shell, the first portion of the at least one structural support coupled via a third portion extending a distance through a space to the second portion, the first portion oriented parallel with at least one portion of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads and the second portion oriented parallel with at least one portion of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads, wherein the first structural support portion is embedded in the first shell and has an equivalent surface area as the second structural support portion embedded in the second shell, each of the surface areas is oriented parallel to each orientation of the first shell and the second shell.
However, Droge teaches 3D printing a load-bearing wall (Fig. 6; [0026]) comprising a first shell forming a first wythe (Fig. 3-4; [0029]; first wall 38) and a second shell forming a second wythe (Fig. 3-4; [0029]; second wall 40), comprising installing at least one structural support (Fig. 1-6; [0024]; elongated members 14 for stabilizing the wall) that comprises a first portion (Fig. 1; [0024]; arm 24) positioned in the first shell (Fig. 1, 4; [0029]; arm 24 of elongated member 14 is positioned in first wall 38), a second portion (Fig. 1; [0024]; arm 26) positioned in the second shell (Fig. 1, 4; [0029]; arm 26 of elongated member 14 is positioned in second wall 40) and a third portion (Fig. 1; [0024]; central section 28) coupling the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 1; [0024]; central section 28 connects arms 24 and 26). The first portion and second portion of the at least one structural support have the same length (Fig. 1; [0026]; first 24 and second 26 arms has a length is between 4.0 inches and 18.0 inches), are oriented parallel to each other (Fig. 1; [0025]; bends 20 and 22 are right angles and arms 24 and 26 both oriented parallel to direction 8) and are embedded in the first and second shells (Fig. 3). Furthermore, it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from Figures 2, 3 and 5-7 of Droge that the first shell and the second shell are parallel to each other.
Khoshnevis and Droge are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing composite building walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Khoshnevis with the teachings of Droge to provide installing at least one structural support that comprises a first portion positioned in the first shell and a second portion positioned in the second shell and a third portion coupling the first portion and the second portion, wherein the first structural support portion is embedded in the first shell and the second structural support portion is embedded in the second shell. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would stabilize the first shell and second shell of the load-bearing wall structure relative to each other (Droge [0029]).
Furthermore, while Droge does not explicitly provide an example of the third portion extending a distance through a space to the second portion, the first portion oriented parallel with at least one portion of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads and the second portion oriented parallel with at least one portion of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads, Droge teaches that variations in the manner of use of the at least one structural support are deemed readily apparent and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0031]). Comparing the orientation of the structural support of the instant application (top figure 4; structural support is 418) to the orientation of the structural support of Droge (bottom figure 4; structural support), it is readily apparent that these limitations amount to a difference of 90 degrees in positioning of the structural support.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
597
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Khoshnevis, in view of Droge, teaches the claimed invention expect for the rearrangement of the structural support. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the structural support of Droge by 90 degrees, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI). Doing so would result in the first structural support portion being embedded in the first shell and having an equivalent surface area as the second structural support portion embedded in the second shell, each of the surface areas being oriented parallel to each orientation of the first shell and the second shell. One would have been motivated to rearrange the structural support by 90 degrees for the purpose of allow more structural supports to be applied within a given length of the wall structure and therefore further stabilize the first shell and second shell of the load-bearing wall structure relative to each other (Droge [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first wythe is a single bead width (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0064]; extrudate 611 has a single bead width defined by outlet 315) of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads.
Regarding claim 3, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of each of the at least two second wythes is a single bead width (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0064]; extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior have a single bead width defined by outlets 317 and a third outlet) of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads.
Regarding claim 4, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior).
Regarding claim 7, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior), wherein the at least one core comprises an enclosed volume with at least one side (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are an enclosed volume with plural sides).
Regarding claim 8, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior), wherein the at least one core comprises an enclosed volume with at least one side (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are an enclosed volume with plural sides), and the at least one core is bounded on three sides by one of the at least two second wythes and by another of the at least two second wythes on another side (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a, Marked Fig. 7a; [0065-0066]; spaces can be trapezoid shaped (701, 705 corresponding to 603, 607) such that top, left and right sides of the space are bound by one second wythe and bottom side of the space is bound by another second wythe).
PNG
media_image3.png
660
974
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior). Herein Droge further teaches positioning the first portion of the at least one structural support between two adjacent stacked elongated beads of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads (Fig. 1, 3-4; left arm 24 of middle 14 is positioned between two adjacent beads of the stack of elongated beads representing the first wall 38).
Regarding claim 11, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior). Herein Droge further teaches positioning the first portion of the at least one structural support between two adjacent stacked elongated beads of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads (Fig. 1, 3-4; left arm 24 of middle 14 is positioned between two adjacent beads of the stack of elongated beads representing the first wall 38), wherein the second portion is positioned between two adjacent stacked elongated beads of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads of the second shell (Fig. 1, 3-4; right arm 26 of middle 14 is positioned between two beads of the stack of elongated beads representing the second wall 40).
Regarding claim 12, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior). Herein Droge further teaches the at least one structural support comprises a U-shaped structural support (Fig. 1; elongated member 14 can be U-shaped).
Regarding claim 13, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 12, wherein Droge further teaches the first portion of the at least one structural support forms a first leg (Fig. 1; left arm 24) of the U-shaped structural support, and the second portion forms a second leg (Fig. 1; right arm 26) of the U-shaped structural support that is connected to the first leg (Fig. 1; 24 and 26 are connected via central arm 28).
Regarding claim 14, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior). Herein Droge further teaches the at least one structural support comprising a first structural support (Fig. 1, 3; middle elongated member 14, corresponding to middle 26), the method further comprising positioning a second structural support (Fig. 1, 3; bottom elongated member 14, corresponding to bottom 26) in the load-bearing wall structure. It would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Khoshnevis with the teachings of Droge to provide positioning a second structural support in the load-bearing wall structure, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI). Doing so would further stabilize the first shell and second shell of the load-bearing wall structure relative to each other (Droge [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior). Herein Droge further teaches the at least one structural support comprising a first structural support (Fig. 1, 3; middle elongated member 14, corresponding to middle 26), the method further comprising positioning a second structural support (Fig. 1, 3; bottom elongated member 14, corresponding to bottom 26) in the load-bearing wall structure and wholly positioning a first portion of the second structural support in the first wythe (Fig. 1, 3-4; left arm 24 of bottom 14 is positioned between two adjacent beads of the stack of elongated beads representing the first wall 38), while a second portion of the second structural support extends from the first portion of the second structural support across a space between the first wythe and the at least two second wythes (Fig. 1, 3-4; right arm 26 of bottom 14 extends from left arm 24 of bottom 14 across a space between left wall 38 and right wall 40). It would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Khoshnevis with the teachings of Droge to provide positioning a second structural support in the load-bearing wall structure, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI). Doing so would further stabilize the first shell and second shell of the load-bearing wall structure relative to each other (Droge [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior). Herein Droge further teaches the at least one structural support comprising a first structural support (Fig. 1, 3; middle elongated member 14, corresponding to middle 26), the method further comprising positioning a second structural support (Fig. 1, 3; bottom elongated member 14, corresponding to bottom 26) in the load-bearing wall structure and wholly positioning a first portion of the second structural support in the first wythe (Fig. 1, 3-4; left arm 24 of bottom 14 is positioned between two adjacent beads of the stack of elongated beads representing the first wall 38), while a second portion of the second structural support extends from the first portion of the second structural support across a space between the first wythe and the at least two second wythes (Fig. 1, 3-4; right arm 26 of bottom 14 extends from left arm 24 of bottom 14 across a space between left wall 38 and right wall 40). As per the rearrangement modification outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the structural supports may be rotated 90 degrees to provide the first portion of the second structural support being wholly positioned between two adjacent stacked elongated beads of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads. It would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Khoshnevis with the teachings of Droge to provide positioning a second structural support in the load-bearing wall structure, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI). Doing so would further stabilize the first shell and second shell of the load-bearing wall structure relative to each other (Droge [0029]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the load-bearing wall structure is an exterior wall structure (Khoshnevis Marked Fig. 2d; exterior wall structure).
PNG
media_image4.png
791
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevis (US 20070138678 A1), in view Droge (US 20230349148 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ford et al. (US 20200198318 A1; hereafter Ford).
Regarding claim 5, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior).
Modified Khoshnevis does not disclose positioning at least one structural rod within the at least one core.
However, Ford teaches 3D printing a load-bearing wall ([0117-0118]) comprising a first shell (Fig. 26; [0127]; wall portion described by top border 522), a second shell (Fig. 26; [0127]; wall portion described by bottom border 522) and plural cores in the load-bearing wall ([0127]; plural cores in hollow regions of the wall), comprising positioning at least one structural rod ([0127]; plurality of elongate steel members (e.g. rebar)) within at least one core.
As to claim 6, Ford further teaches the at least one structural rod comprises at least one tensioned coil rod ([0127]; plurality of elongate steel members can be rebar, a tensioned coil rod/bar).
Khoshnevis and Ford are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing composite walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Khoshnevis with the teachings of Ford to provide positioning at least one structural rod within the at least one core, wherein the at least one structural rod comprises at least one tensioned coil rod. Using structural rods, such as rebar, to reinforce structures is well known in the art of construction, and doing so here would enhance the structural integrity of the load-bearing wall structure (Ford [0127]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevis (US 20070138678 A1), in view Droge (US 20230349148 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wong et al. (EP 3263795 A1; hereafter Wong).
Regarding claim 9, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior).
While Khoshnevis teaches the at least one core can be filled with cementitious material, insulation material, polymeric material, and/or foam material (Khoshnevis [0066, 0068]), modified Khoshnevis does not explicitly disclose installing a portion of grout into the at least one core.
However, Wong teaches forming a composite structural wall ([0005]), comprising installing grout ([0005]; dispensing grout) in between two wall sections ([0005]; first pair of wall panels) to seal the space between the two wall sections ([0005, 0056]; grout seals gap between first pair of wall panels).
Khoshnevis and Wong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming composite building walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Khoshnevis with the teachings of Wong to provide installing a portion of grout into the at least one core. Grout is well known in the art of construction to seal gaps in and reinforce structures and therefore installing grout into the space of the at least one core would seal the space and further reinforce the load-bearing wall structure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevis (US 20070138678 A1), in view Droge (US 20230349148 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Beaumont et al. (US 20240076885 A1; hereafter Beaumont).
Regarding claim 17, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming at least one core (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607) between the at least two second wythes (Khoshnevis Fig. 6a; [0066]; spaces 603, 607 are between extrudates 613 and corrugated rib-like interior), the at least one structural support comprising a first structural support (Droge Fig. 3; middle elongated member 14, corresponding to middle 26), the method further comprising positioning a second structural support (Droge Fig. 3; bottom elongated member 14, corresponding to bottom 26) in the load-bearing wall structure.
Modified Khoshnevis does not disclose the second structural support comprises a T-shape.
However, Beaumont teaches 3D printing a load-bearing wall ([0007]) comprising a first shell forming a first wythe (Fig. 2; [0063]; first wall surface 2) and a second shell forming a second wythe (Fig. 2; [0063]; second wall surface 4), comprising installing a T-shaped structural support (Fig. 2; [0065]; T-shaped reinforcement elements 21, 41) in the load-bearing wall.
Khoshnevis and Beaumont are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing composite building walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Khoshnevis with the teachings of Beaumont to provide a positioning a second structural support in the load-bearing wall structure, the second structural support comprising a T-shape. Doing so would improve the mechanical strength of the load-bearing wall structure (Beaumont [0010]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevis (US 20070138678 A1), in view Droge (US 20230349148 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bravo et al. (US 20220275639 A1; hereafter Bravo).
Regarding claim 18, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Khoshnevis does not disclose securing one or more top plates to at least one of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads of extruded building material and the second plurality of stacked elongated beads of extruded building material of each of the at least two second wythes.
However, Bravo teaches forming a composite load-bearing structural wall ([0007]), comprising a first shell (Fig. 2A; left plate A12), a second shell (Fig. 2A; right plate A12) and a top plate (Fig. 1; [0050]; top plate A5) secured to the first shell and the second shell ([0050]; plates are fastened to the wall assembly).
Khoshnevis and Bravo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming composite building walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Khoshnevis with the teachings of Bravo to provide securing one or more top plates to at least one of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads of extruded building material and the second plurality of stacked elongated beads of extruded building material of each of the at least two second wythes. Doing so would improve the structural resistance of the load-bearing wall structure by improving its resistance modulus (Bravo [0041]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevis (US 20070138678 A1), in view Droge (US 20230349148 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hohmann (US 20100101166 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Khoshnevis discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Khoshnevis does not disclose the at least one structural support is disposed adjacent to a control joint.
However, Hohmann teaches that it was well-known in the art of wall construction that a structural support (Fig. 6; [0043]; reinforcing spacer device 248) may be disposed adjacent to a control joint (Fig. 6; [0043]; vertical mortar joint 240) of a building wall (Fig. 6; [0043]; wall structure 222).
Khoshnevis and Hohmann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of building walls construction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Khoshnevis with the teachings of Hohmann to provide the at least one structural support is disposed adjacent to a control joint. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would provide an economical way (Hohmann [0033]) of improving the strength of the wall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754