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 .
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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 1 recites “mid-range water reducing admixture” It is unclear how “mid- range” further limits the water reducer (is the applicant attempting to claim that additional water reducer is added or does this limitation attempt to limit a property of the water reducer)
Claims 2 and 3 recite a range of size where the bottom of the range is zero. It is unclear how a particle size can be zero making the metes and bounds of the claimed particle size range is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Roux et al (US 2024/0058986) published 2/22/2024 with an effective filing date of 2/14/2022 (The effective filing date of the instant application: 10/26/2023)
Regarding Clams 1-5:
Le Roux et al (US 2024/0058986) published 2/22/2024 with an effective filing date of 2/14/2022 discloses an additive construction 3D printing assemble for construction materials [0002] including cementitious materials which comprise aggregate additives regolith and the like [0004] The process is 3D printing of concrete [0021]
Le Roux teaches a mixing system 110 received materials from a variety of sources from one or more containers silos tanks [0031]
The amount of each material sand, cement water etc. in the mixture can depend on one or more parameter such as sand sourced from a desert region (i.e. dune sand of claim 5) with lower absorption than sand from a river region [0033]
The composition includes fly ash [0030]
The composition can include materials such as fine and coarse aggregate including sand and stone Portland cement and water materials [0034]
The cement mixture can include additional materials such as binder, accelerant other admixtures to concrete to produce certain characteristics not obtainable with plain concrete mixes including only aggregate cement and water. Common admixtures are retarders and accelerators and other examples are superplasticizers,(meeting claim 4) hydration stabilizers and viscosity modifying admixtures [0035-0036]
The system has a control system programmed with instructions to input mix materials for material parameters such as physical and environmental parameters of the construction printing system [0038]
The mixing system received materials through one or more receiving ports such as accelerators, air entraining agents, defoamer, bonding agent, plasticizers, superplasticizers, hydration stabilizers, water reducing admixtures, retarders, etc. [0052] (meeting claim 1 for water reducing admixtures and claim 4 for hyper plasticizer)
Le Roux teaches a mixing system 110 received materials from a variety of sources from one or more containers silos tanks [0031]
Dry materials and wet materials may be dispensed into the mixing vessel 112 and blended together 110 or they may be blended separately before dispensing. Flow charts 3036A 306B for example show variations [0063]
PNG
media_image1.png
778
1078
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
948
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The system has a control system programmed with instructions to input mix materials for material parameters such as physical and environmental parameters of the construction printing system [0038] The mixing system received materials through one or more receiving ports such as accelerators, air entraining agents, defoamer, bonding agent, plasticizers, superplasticizers, hydration stabilizers, water reducing admixtures, retarders, etc. [0052] (meeting claim 1 for water reducing admixtures and claim 4 for hyper plasticizer)
The material must be a flowable mix under controlled parameters (Abstract) as such one of ordinary skill in the art esp. with the use of the controllers/sensors [0039] of the prior art [0005] could add water and/or water reducer throughout the process to maintain flowability to ensure continued flow through the nozzle of the 3D printer [0004] and control flow speed etc. as well as dosage [0006] by mixing a plurality of liquid and solid materials to deliver a flowable mix at controllable positions to form the structure [0007] [0022-0028]
As above set forth the materials may be mixed separately, dry, wet, etc. from various silos and bins (See Fig 1-4) and dosages adjusted by the controller to add additional water or other materials throughout the process. The process may be continuous [0021] (i.e. additional water, water reducer, added throughout the process meeting the limitation for mid-range water reducing admixture and water and additional mid-range water reducing mixture)
Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding Claims 2-3:
The composition can include materials such as fine and coarse aggregate including sand [0034] (given the aggregate of sand can be coarse or fine, it will overlap and encompass the instantly claimed particle size). See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
The sand geometry and particle size will impact water ratios as it relates to surface area and compaction of the mix, more powder may require more water content in the cementitious mixture.[0033] sand can be fine and coarse aggregate [0034]
[0032] The materials used in the construction printing system 100 have material properties (referred to as material parameters) which affect the outcome of the mixing and printing processes. The specific material parameters may depend on the category of the material. For example, material parameters for sands could include material composition (e.g., percentages of various silicates), grain size (fineness), density, and moisture absorption. Aggregates can be grounds to make a higher powder content [0052]
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would be able to ascertain the appropriate aggregate/sand grain size to a range which will optimize the parameters of the product including adjusting water ratios surface area and compaction which will overlap and encompass the instantly claimed ranges. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(emphasis added by examiner)
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Roux et al (US 2024/0058986) published 2/22/2024 with an effective filing date of 2/14/2022 (The effective filing date of the instant application: 10/26/2023) as applied to claims 1-5 above further in view of Large Scale 3D Printing for Construction Application my Means of Robotic Arm and Gantry 3D printer a Review Anastasia Puzatova Pshtiwan Shakor Vittoria Laghi Maria Dmitrieva (Published November 2022)
Regarding Claims 2-3:
Le Roux discloses the limitations above set forth
Le Roux discloses: The composition can include materials such as fine and coarse aggregate including sand [0034] (given the aggregate of sand can be coarse or fine, it will overlap and encompass the instantly claimed particle size). See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
The sand geometry and particle size will impact water ratios as it relates to surface area and compaction of the mix, more powder may require more water content in the cementitious mixture.[0033] sand can be fine and coarse aggregate [0034]
[0032] The materials used in the construction printing system 100 have material properties (referred to as material parameters) which affect the outcome of the mixing and printing processes. The specific material parameters may depend on the category of the material. For example, material parameters for sands could include material composition (e.g., percentages of various silicates), grain size (fineness), density, and moisture absorption. Aggregates can be grounds to make a higher powder content [0052]
Assuming arguendo it is not obvious that the sand particle size will meet and/or overlap the instantly claimed particle size of 0-2mm or 0 to 3 mm sand:
Large Scale 3D Printing for Construction Application my Means of Robotic Arm and Gantry 3D printer a Review Anastasia Puzatova Pshtiwan Shakor Vittoria Laghi Maria Dmitrieva (Published November 2022) discloses 3D printing of concrete and cementitious materials where the material must have extrudability, buildability and open time (time between beginning of cement hydration and moment when becomes too hard for extrusion) (P11 4.1) The composition comprises cement and coarse and fine aggregates including fly ash and fine aggregate of 0-2mm and coarse aggregate at 2-8 mm as well as water and additives (See Table 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to size the fine aggregate of Le Roux including the fine aggregate of sand to the sized taught by Large Scale of 0-2 mm as this is a suitable fine aggregate size for 3D printing of cement and concrete materials with a reasonable expectation of success for the required flowability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action.
Additive Manufacturing of Sustainable Construction Materials and Form finding Structures: a review of rectne progresses Junil Liu Vuong Nguyen Van Biranchi Panda Kate Fox Anton Du Plessis Phuong Tran 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing Vol 9 Number 1 2022:
Additive teaches sustainability of 3D concrete printing using digital modeling and design tools to optimizing volumetric mass and physical performance using different Cementous materials (Abstract) OPC (Portland cement) based concrete is used in additive manufacturing and includes supplementary cement materials and fly ash silica fume, to lower CO.sub.2 emissions ((P14 last Par – P14 firs column) Additives are used for extrusion rheology and buildability (P16 last par)
Li (CN 116396036A) published 7/7/2023 (The effective filing date of the instant application: 10/26/2023)
Li discloses 3D printing process for concrete preparation (Abstract)
Regarding Grain Size of Sand/Aggregate: wherein the printer head size determines the upper limit of the grain diameter of the concrete coarse aggregate, and the larger the coarse aggregate grain diameter, the larger the influence of the concrete can be 3 D printing performance, therefore, most of the 3 D printing concrete adopts mortar or slurry, although some research for the coarse aggregate concrete of the 3 D printing construction, but also has a certain problem.
The composition comprises cement; coarse aggregate water reducing agent desert sand and fly ash.
The invention can wide-bore nozzle construction of the 3 D printing concrete, specifically, composed of the raw material parts by weight:
low-clinker slag cement 200-300 parts,
mixed material 50-100 parts;
regenerated concrete coarse aggregate 300-400 parts;
regenerated brick coarse aggregate 100-200 parts;
desert sand 350-400 parts;
water reducing agent 8-12 parts;
triethanolamine 2-5 parts;
tartaric acid 3-6 parts,
60-100 parts.
Preferably, the low clinker slag cement is composed of 15 -25 % of silicate cement clinker, 65-75 % of slag, 9-11 % of gypsum powder grinding.
Preferably, the low clinker cement strength grade is 42.5 level.
Preferably, the admixture is at least one of fly ash, mineral powder, silicon ash.
Preferably, the desert sand fineness modulus is 0.3-1.1
Desert sand grain diameter and gradation are adjusted, the concrete prepared by optimizing raw material and matching ratio for printing construction requirement of the satisfy 3 D, greatly saves natural resources, and has good environmental benefit.
The composition comprises a water reducing agent of poly carboxylic acid etc. (i.e. hyper plasticizer)
The composition comprises water.
Preferably, the water reducing agent is poly carboxylic acid water reducing agent, naphthalene water reducing agent, aliphatic water reducing agent is at least one.
Preferably, the water is tap water
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732