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
The amendment filed 28 January 2026 is accepted. Claims 1–20 remain pending, wherein claims 18–20 stand withdrawn without traverse.
The specification has been amended to overcome an objection. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim 4 has been amended to overcome an objection. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim 14 has been amended to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn.
Claim 17 has been amended to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the structural element formed by the structural mix is a mobile structure”. Applicants give examples of mobile structures as pre-made concrete barriers, blocks, forms, or other similar mobile barriers that are transported to locations (see specification, paragraph 0005), as well as slabs and road dividers that may be formed off-site and transported to the worksite (see paragraph 0026). The Examiner will herein interpret this limitation as referring to any such structure.
Claim 12 recites the limitation wherein the concrete mixer is a programmable continuous mixer, wherein the composition of the structural mix is modified into a second and different composition according to a pre-defined program. Since such a program is not pre-defined in the specification, the Examiner will interpret this as broadly encompassing any pre-defined program.
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 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 has been amended to recite the limitation wherein the structural mix “develops sufficient compressive strength to support structural loads”. This leads to indefiniteness because “sufficient compressive strength” is relative, and “structural loads” is variable. The amount of compressive strength required to support a structural load will vary depending on the weight of the structural load.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–5, 9, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aou et al. (US 2021/0340375 A1, hereinafter “Aou”, previously cited) and Shoreline Aggregate (“Locally Sourced Natural Aggregates and their many advantages”, Shoreline Aggregate Solutions, Inc., 2021, hereinafter “Shoreline Aggregate”, previously cited).
Evidentiary support for typical compressive strength values is provided by Aldoa (“Compressive Strength of Concrete: Definition, Formula, Testing Methods, and ASTM Standards”, <aldoa.com>, 2026, hereinafter “Aldoa”) and is applied only to claim 17.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Aou teaches a method for constructing a polymer concrete (see generally abstract), which is taught to be useful for road and structural applications (see paragraph 0002). The method comprises the steps of:
providing a mixer (see paragraph 0073 describing the mixer);
providing a no-bake binder (see paragraph 0040 teaching a phenol-formaldehyde resin as a binder; although Aou does not explicitly refer to this as a “no-bake binder”, it is one of the no-bake binders recited by the applicant [see specification, paragraph 0010]);
sourcing aggregate material from the supply of indigenous aggregate material located at the building site (see paragraph 0069 teaching the use of aggregates such as sand and gravel, which may reasonably be found as indigenous material at a worksite; this limitation will be discussed further below);
combining the binder with the aggregate material in the mixer to form a structural mix at the building site (see paragraphs 0071 and 0072 describing the process of coating aggregate in binder in the mixer; also see paragraph 0078 indicating that the composition may be prepared on site of use); and,
depositing the structural mix at a deposit site and allowing the structural mix to self-harden to form the structural element (see paragraph 0085 describing the mixture as being poured into a mold [i.e., deposited at a deposit site] and allowed to cure for 24 hours at room temperature [i.e., self-harden]).
Aou is silent as to the limitation wherein the aggregate material is sourced from a supply of indigenous aggregate material located at the building site, although Aou does describe the use of aggregates which may reasonably be found indigenously at a worksite (see paragraph 0069 teaching the use of sand and gravel). However, Shoreline Aggregate explicitly teaches the cost-savings of using aggregates sourced locally from around the worksite. Shoreline Aggregate teaches that up to 90 percent of projects use aggregates sourced within 50 miles of their extraction site to cut down on costs of transporting aggregate from father away (see paragraph 4; it is noted that if there is suitable aggregate within 50 miles of a worksite, it is reasonable to conclude that such aggregate can be found indigenously within the boundaries of a worksite as well). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that sourcing aggregates from in and around the worksite would result in much lower costs. Shoreline Aggregate further teaches that such aggregates can be high quality: Indiana has some of the best limestone yields in the country; Southern Michigan has quality sand; Northern Michigan and Northern Wisconsin produce the finest granite; Ohio has high quality silicon sand (see paragraph 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to replicate the teachings of Aou would reasonably seek to use locally sourced aggregate because it cuts down on costs without sacrificing quality, with a variety of indigenous aggregates across the country. By modifying Aou according to the teachings of Shoreline Aggregate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention, thus rendering claim 1 obvious.
The motivation to modify Aou according to Shoreline Aggregate most closely aligns with KSR Rationale F, which states that known work in one field of endeavor (Aou’s method of constructing polymer concrete) may prompt variations of it for use in the same field (Shoreline Aggregate’s disclosed use of locally sourced aggregate, which is a necessary component in concrete) based on market forces (Shoreline Aggregate’s teachings of cost savings) if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Aou already teaches the use of aggregates that Shoreline Aggregate teaches can be sourced locally, so the results of the modification are predicted to have no impact on the final product of Aou).
While claim 1 only requires some of the aggregate to be sourced indigenously from the worksite, claim 4 requires all of the aggregate to be source indigenously. Most concrete applications require multiple types of aggregate—usually a fine aggregate like sand, and a coarse aggregate like gravel. Shoreline Aggregate teaches that Michigan sand pits also produce pea gravel and river rock (see bottom-most image, titled “Typical Michigan Sand Pit”; pea gravel can be used as an aggregate in concrete), meaning that there are areas of the country in which all aggregate can be sourced from in or around the worksite.
Regarding claim 2, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate, teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches the limitation wherein the no-bake binder is comprised of at least one of the given species, including, e.g., phenol-formaldehyde (see Aou, paragraph 0040 teaching the use of phenol-formaldehyde resin as a binder; note that the term “resin” is inherent, as all phenol-formaldehydes are considered resinous).
Regarding claim 3, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate, further teaches the limitation wherein the method further comprises the step of combining a fiber additive to the aggregate material and no-bake binder to form the structural mix (see Aou, paragraph 0068 teaching flakes and fibers as additives to the composition).
Regarding claim 5, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate, further teaches the limitation wherein the deposit site is a reusable mold configured to receive the structural mix in a semi-flowable form and to release the structural element after the structural mix has self-hardened (see Aou, paragraph 0085 teaching the use of a cubic gang mold; gang molds are reusable, and for the material to be poured into the mold, it must be in a semi-flowable form; Table 1 describes the properties of the resulting hardened structure, which indicates that it was released from the gang mold after hardening).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate, further teaches the limitation wherein the aggregate material is comprised of at least one of sand or stone (see Aou, paragraph 0092 teaching the aggregate as sand). This also meets the limitation of claim 13, wherein the aggregate is comprised of approximately 60–100 wt.% sand (paragraph 0092 teaches the aggregate as sand, which means it is 100 wt.% sand).
Regarding claim 17, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate, further teaches the limitation wherein the structural mix self-hardens to form the structural element and develops sufficient compressive strength to support structural loads (see the above 112(b) rejection; see Aou, Table 1 and paragraph 0086 teaching a trend of increasing compressive strength as higher proportions of coated aggregate are used in the composition; since paragraph 0085 teaches room-temperature curing over 24 hours, this trend presumably represents the compressive strengths of 24-hour-cured structures; Aou teaches a peak compressive strength of 2785 psi [Working Ex. 1], and Aldoa teaches a compressive strength of 2500–3000 psi as being suitable to support residential slabs, which impose a structural load [see “Typical Compressive Strength Values” section]; Aou therefore meets the limitation of the claim).
Claims 6–8, 10–12, and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aou and Shoreline Aggregate, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (Composites Part A, 2019, 125, 105533, hereinafter “Zhang”, previously cited).
Regarding claims 6–8, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate, teaches the method of claim 1 (see the above 103 rejection of claim 1), but fails to explicitly teach the limitations wherein the deposit site is a bare ground surface and the structural element is a section of road, wherein the deposit site is a damaged section of road and the structural element is a patch for the damaged section, and wherein the structural element is a mobile structure. Zhang teaches a review of 3D cement printing technologies and application, which would be compatible with the concrete composition of Aou (see Zhang, pg. 2, Figure 1, detailing the typical setup for a 3D concrete printer; Element 8 is a mixer, from which the mix is pumped to Element 4, the print head; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be obvious that the composition of Aou can be pumped to the print head instead of pouring it into a mold).
Zhang teaches 3D-printed concrete as suitable to repair damaged roads (see pg. 11, col. 1, final paragraph), wherein the patch can be prepared in advance at the factory to avoid too much impact on traffic (“can be prepared in advance” is herein interpreted as also implying “could not be prepared in advance”, as “can” implies a capability or choice). If the patch is prepared beforehand, it would be deposited on a bare ground surface (for example, as shown on pg. 9, Figure 15a), thus meeting the limitations of claim 6. It would then need to be transferred to the site of the damaged road, making it a mobile structure and meeting the limitations of claim 8 (a road patch could be considered a slab, which is one of the example mobile structures provided by applicants [see specification, paragraph 0026]). If the patch is not prepared beforehand, it must necessarily be deposited right at the area of damaged road, thus meeting the limitations of claim 7.
The motivation to further modify Aou according to Zhang most closely aligns with KSR Rationale C, which states it is prima facie obvious to use a known technique (Zhang’s 3D concrete printing) to improve similar products (Aou’s polymer concrete) in the same way (increased flexibility in pouring and shaping concrete structures).
Regarding claim 10, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate and Zhang, further teaches the mixer as a continuous mixer (see Aou, paragraph 0073), but none of the disclosed types of mixers necessarily have a deposition end for depositing the structural mix at the deposit site, wherein the deposition end is disposed on a movable arm having at least one articulating portion. Zhang teaches 3D concrete printers which can pump structural mix from the mixer taught by Aou to a robotic arm, which deposits the structural mix at the deposit site using a movable arm with an articulating portion (see Zhang, pg. 2, Figure 1, wherein Element 3 is a Robotic Arm; also see pg. 10, Figure 19b, in which it can be more easily seen that the robotic arm has rotary joints, meaning it has articulating portions).
Regarding claim 11, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate and Zhang, further teaches the limitation wherein the continuous mixer is a programmable mixer and is a 3D printer, the method further comprising the step of using the mixer in an additive manufacturing process to produce the structural element (see Aou, paragraph 0073 teaching a continuous mixer; see Zhang, pg. 2, Figure 1 teaching a 3D printer controlled by Element 1, a Robot Controller). 3D printing is considered an additive manufacturing process (see Zhang, abstract), which inherently involves a step of using a mixer (as seen in Zhang, Figure 1, Element 8).
Regarding claim 12, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate and Zhang, further teaches the limitation wherein the mixer is a programmable continuous mixer, the method further comprising the step of modifying a composition of the structural mix from a first composition to a second and different composition according to a pre-defined program and while the mixer is in continuous mixing operation (see Aou, paragraph 0073 teaching a continuous mixer; see Zhang, pg. 2, Figure 1, wherein the 3D printer is controlled by Element 1, a Robot Controller, and Element 0, the System Command, which inherently implies that the 3D printer is programmed to dispense the structural mix). While Zhang fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the composition is changed on the fly according to a pre-defined program, such a system is at least capable of being changed on the fly to alter the structural mix composition (see, e.g., pg. 2, paragraph 2, final sentence, describing certain compositional parameters; also see, e.g., pg. 2, paragraph 3, describing different compositional parameters; also see pg. 4, Figure 5, describing a system of adaptive feedback control for freshly deposited layers of concrete [which could be manually controlled or automated]).
Regarding claim 14, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate and Zhang, further teaches the limitation wherein the deposit site is located at the building site and the structural element is selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, bridge foundations and bridge decks (see Zhang, pg. 9, Figure 18 showing bridges built by 3D concrete printing).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Aou, as modified by Shoreline Aggregate and Zhang, further teaches the limitation wherein the mixer is mounted to a mobile carrier, the method further comprising the step of moving the mixer using the mobile carrier, and wherein the mixer and mobile carrier are moved while the mixer is either forming or depositing the structural mix (see Zhang, pg. 7, Figure 11, wherein two 3D printers are taught to be mobile, with robotic arms mounted on a self-driving robotic base; although it appears as though the mixer is not mounted on the same mobile base, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that a larger self-driving base could support the entire 3D printing apparatus, including the mixer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants first argue that Aou and Shoreline Aggregate do not teach or suggest indigenous aggregate material located AT the building site. This is not found to be persuasive. As discussed in the above rejection of claim 1, Aou teaches the use of aggregates which can reasonably be found at the building site, namely sand and gravel. Shoreline Aggregate is cited as teaching the cost savings of sourcing aggregate locally. Even if neither reference explicitly teaches sourcing the aggregate directly from the building site, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be obvious that naturally occurring aggregates such as sand and gravel can be sourced indigenously to save on costs. This is sufficient to render the claim obvious. Applicants go on to describe the inventive concept as eliminating the need to transport aggregate to remote building sites, but the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicants argue that Aou does not teach indigenous aggregate present at the building site. The Examiner does not refute this, and explicitly discussed this in the rejection of claim 1. Applicants argue that Shoreline Aggregate does not bridge the gap and teaches the wrong concept of “aggregate”. Applicants suggest that the Examiner has misinterpreted Shoreline Aggregate as teaching where aggregate comes from on-site, when in reality it teaches where the aggregate comes from geographically. This is not found to be compelling. In the above rejection of claim 1, Shoreline Aggregate is explicitly cited as teaching the cost-savings of using aggregates sourced locally from around the worksite. Shoreline Aggregate teaches that up to 90 percent of projects use aggregates sourced within 50 miles of their extraction site to cut down on costs of transporting aggregate from father away. A person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to replicate the teachings of Aou would be motivated to source aggregate locally to save on costs, as taught by Shoreline Aggregate. “Locally” is defined to mean within a 50-mile radius, but that does not mean 50 miles away. Aggregate sourced indigenously at the worksite would be considered “local” to the worksite. Furthermore, it would require no transportation, which is a clear benefit over sourcing aggregate from further away. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by market factors to source aggregate as locally as possible because this cuts down on costs; this is already reflected in Shoreline Aggregate teaching that 90% of aggregate is sourced locally. Clearly it is known in the art to use suitable aggregate requiring the least transportation.
Applicants argue that the Examiner’s claim that “50 miles” infers “On-Site” is not supported. This argument is not compelling. The Examiner specifically argued that “if there is suitable aggregate within 50 miles of a worksite, it is reasonable to conclude that such aggregate can be found indigenously within the boundaries of a worksite as well”. Firstly, “within 50 miles” does not mean “50 miles away”; it means that aggregate can be sourced from anywhere within 0–50 miles away, including at the worksite. Secondly, it is not considered unsupported factfinding to reason that suitable aggregate can be found indigenously. Sand and gravel are widely distributed across the world. Although Shoreline Aggregate specifically teaches commercial availability of different aggregates, that is not a requirement of the claim and the Examiner has not suggested that commercial amounts of aggregate are found indigenously; Shoreline Aggregate is cited for teaching the cost benefits of sourcing as locally as possible. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret that as teaching the use of indigenous aggregate whenever possible.
Applicants argue that Shoreline Aggregate directly refutes the notion that locally available material is inherently suitable, citing to paragraph 7 teaching the unsuitability of desert sand. This is not found to be compelling. The Examiner has not stated that all indigenous aggregate is inherently suitable. Rather, the Examiner has argued that if suitable aggregate can be sourced indigenously, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use it. Shoreline Aggregate does not teach away from the use of locally sourced material with the cited passage—rather, they merely identify a specific case wherein certain indigenous aggregate may not be suitable. Applicants argue that “Shoreline Aggregate teaches away from casual or opportunistic use of whatever material happens to be at a site”, but this is not the case. Shoreline Aggregate expressly teaches the benefit of sourcing locally whenever possible, and identifies some regions of the US in which the quality of local aggregate is superior to other regions. That does not constitute teaching away.
Applicants argue that Aou teaches away from using unprocessed on-site aggregate, instead teaching a pre-coating process which “assumes controlled, selected aggregate particles”. This is not found to be compelling. Aou teaches a number of suitable aggregates ranging from sand to gravel to ceramic particles, which can have an average particle size from 50–3000 µm, and which can have mixed particle sizes (see paragraph 0069). The variety of suitable aggregate types, the wide range of suitable aggregate sizes, and the flexibility to mix various particle sizes all mean that Aou does not assume any sort of “controlled, selected aggregate particles”. A person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to replicate the teachings of Aou would not be discouraged from sourcing suitable aggregate indigenously when possible.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to modify Aou according to Shoreline Aggregate most closely aligns with KSR Rationale F. This was explained in more detail in the above rejection of claim 1. Applicants argue that Aou addresses a material science problem, while Shoreline Aggregate addresses a logistics problem, both of which differ from the problem addressed by the instant invention. However, this is not found to be compelling. MPEP 2144(IV) states that one of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings. In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). Applicants cite to several paragraphs from their specification in support of their argument, but 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).
Applicants argue that the Examiner requires two unsupported leaps: first, that the “aggregate available within 50-mile commercial supply radius” is equivalent to “aggregate present at the specific worksite”, and second, that “engineered, pre-coated particles” is equivalent to the raw, unprocessed “indigenous” material that is available on-site. Both of these arguments have been addressed above, and are not found to be compelling.
In response to Applicant's argument that the combination of indigenous on-site aggregate combined with no-bake binders provides unexpected benefits, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicants argue that Zhang teaches cement-based 3D printing, not polymer-based systems with indigenous aggregate. This is not found to be compelling. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Although Applicants are correct in stating that 3D cement printing is fundamentally different from their claimed invention, Zhang is not cited as anticipating the claimed invention. Zhang is modifying Aou, who teaches a polymer concrete, and the motivation to modify Aou according to Zhang is stated in the above rejection of claim 6. The Office does not have the capability to independently test every proposed modified composition, so the test for obvious is not based on whether or not the proposed modification would work, but rather whether or not it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicants argue the technical distinction between batch and continuous concrete construction, again comparing Zhang to the presently claimed invention. As discussed previously, this is not found to be compelling because Zhang is modifying Aou, not anticipating the claimed invention.
Applicants argue that the references teach incompatible material systems with no motivation to combine. This is not found to be compelling. Although Aou’s polymer binder is chemically different from Zhang’s cement-based binder, the 3D printer does not dispense cement alone; it dispenses concrete, which is aggregate combined with a binder, something Aou also teaches. This is suitable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to seek to modify Aou to use a 3D printing method as disclosed by Zhang. Applicants provide a table of the differing chemical properties of Aou and Zhang, but one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants argue that Zhang does not teach real-time composition modification during continuous mixing, and that the Examiner improperly relied on “capable of” reasoning to meet this limitation. This is not found to be compelling. Aou is cited as teaching a continuous mixer, and Zhang is cited as teaching the 3D printer as controlled by Element 1, a Robot Controller, and Element 0, the System Command, which inherently implies that the 3D printer is programmed to dispense the structural mix. Zhang is also cited as teaching a system of adaptive feedback control. All of these factors mean that the proposed combination of references is capable of real-time composition modification during continuous mixing. MPEP 2182 states that if the prior art reference teaches the identical structure or acts but is silent about performing the claimed function, a reasonable presumption is that the prior art structure inherently performs the same function. The Examiner must provide a “sound basis for believing” that the prior art structure or acts would be capable of performing the claimed function. The Examiner has provided evidence to suggest that Aou, as modified by Zhang, is inherently capable of performing the claimed function (real-time composition modification). A capability is suitable to render the claim obvious, absent any evidence suggesting that the prior art structure is not actually capable of performing the claimed function.
Applicants again argue the difference between the claimed invention and Zhang, stating that Zhang teaches batch-mixed concrete as opposed to a continuous pour. Zhang is modifying Aou, who teaches a continuous mixer. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants argue that the cited passages do not support real-time composition modification. Applicants specifically state that Zhang, pg. 4, Figure 5 describes post-deposition feedback control applied to material that has already been laid down, which is fundamentally different from real-time modification of the composition during mixing and before deposition, which is what claim 12 requires. This is not found to be persuasive. As an initial note, claim 12 does not require real-time modification before deposition. Claim 12 recites modifying a composition of the structural mix from a first composition to a second and different composition according to a pre-defined program and while the mixer is in continuous mixing operation. Aou, as modified by Zhang, teaches a continuous mixer with adaptive feedback control. The cited figure expressly teaches modifications to the composition based on real-time feedback pertaining to the quality and stability of the deposited layer. The prior art teaches this limitation.
Applicants go on to recite benefits of their claimed invention and repeat arguments regarding the combination of Aou and Zhang. As discussed previously, these arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Applicants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in Zhang to mount a large-scale foundry mixer (as required by the specification) on a mobile carrier. As an initial note, limitations from the specification are not imported into the claims. Further, although Zhang does not expressly teach mounting the mixer on a mobile base, the Examiner maintains that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so. Zhang teaches a mobile base which can move to deposit concrete across a larger area, but it remains “tethered” to the mixer. By mounting the mixer on the mobile base as well, as proposed in the above rejection of claims 15 and 16, the printer would have more freedom of motion.
Applicants argue that there is no rational underpinning, as none of the applied references address the problem solved by the claimed invention. This is not found to be persuasive. All proposed combinations of references are supported (now explicitly) by KSR Rationales. MPEP 2144(IV) states that one of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings. Even if the cited art doesn’t expressly recite the same problem the instant invention claims to address, that doesn’t mean a person having ordinary skill in the art couldn’t have arrived at the claimed invention.
Applicants argue that the Office’s combination requires reading the references against their own teachings. These arguments have already been addressed, and are not found to be persuasive.
Applicants argue that the claimed combination provides unexpected results. Specifically, they recite zero transportation, immediate deployment, same-day usability, suitability for arid environments, and applicability to extreme remote locations. This is not found to be persuasive. Sourcing aggregate indigenously (which the Examiner finds to be prima facie obvious, as explained above), would predictably achieve zero transportation, immediate deployment, and applicability to extreme remote locations. Aou teaches a comparable product which is usable within 24 hours, and is inherently suitable for arid environments due to its compositional similarity to the claimed polymer binders.
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 Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, W, F after 5:30 PM and Th from 8 AM to 6 PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights