DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/19/26 has been entered.
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(s) 9, 19 is/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.
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “an infill characteristic…is selected based, at least in part, on a target physical characteristic, the target physical characteristic selected from the group consisting of…” The language, “consisting of” is exclusive. The language” selected, at least based in part, on…” is inclusive. It is unclear how the target physical characteristic can be based in part on something that is exclusively listed. These are conflicting statements. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as requiring at least one of the target physical characteristics claimed.
Re claim 19, claim 19 recites, “the building material element” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each building material element” and will be interpreted as such.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffes et al (“Steffes”) (US 2019/0301178) in view of Bradford (US 2016/0217664).
Re claim 1, Steffes discloses a building material element (100) comprising:
a three-dimensional (3D)-printed ([0069]) architectural element (110); and
an integrated functional feature (118) related to a functional element (fasteners of [0063]),
first and second interconnection features (120, 122) positioned along adjacent edges (Fig. 2-3) of the building material element (100) and not aligned with (Fig. 2) a front surface (114) of the building material element (100),
but fails to disclose an integrated sensor configured to sense a parameter selected from the group consisting of an environmental parameter, an electrical parameter, an electromagnetic parameter, a mechanical parameter, an acoustic parameter, and combinations thereof.
However, Bradford discloses an integrated sensor (108, 110; [0021] disclosing embedding within 104) configured to sense a parameter ([0020]-[0021]) selected from the group consisting of an environmental parameter ([0020]-[0021] disclosing force sensors, pressure sensors, and location sensors, each being an environmental sensor sensing the surrounding environment), an electrical parameter, an electromagnetic parameter, a mechanical parameter, an acoustic parameter, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building material element of Steffes with an integrated sensor configured to sense a parameter selected from the group consisting of an environmental parameter, an electrical parameter, an electromagnetic parameter, a mechanical parameter, an acoustic parameter, and combinations thereof as disclosed by Bradford in order to gather data and detect many types of events and/or objects, such as detection of walking, speed of walking, location of walking, detect falling, and detect patterns and deviations therefrom ([0013]).
It should further be noted that the language “three-dimensional (3D)-printed” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 2, Steffes as modified discloses the building material element of claim 1, wherein the 3D-printed architectural element (100) is selected from the group comprising at least a portion of a wall panel ([0050]), at least a portion of a ceiling panel, at least a portion of a floor panel, at least a portion of a crown molding, at least a portion of a chair railing, and at least a portion of a floor molding (as only 1 of the group is required).
Re claim 3, Steffes as modified discloses the building material element of claim 1, wherein the 3D-printed architectural element (100) comprises a decorative feature (114; [0051]).
Re claim 4, Steffes as modified discloses the building material element of claim 1, wherein the integrated functional feature (118) is configured to accommodate the functional element (fasteners of [0063]).
Re claim 5, Steffes as modified discloses the building material element of claim 1, wherein the integrated functional feature (118) corresponds to the functional element (fasteners of [0063]).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffes et al (“Steffes”) (US 2019/0301178) in view of Bradford (US 2016/0217664) and Beck et al (“Beck”) (US 2021/0222865).
Re claim 6, Steffes as modified discloses the building material element of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the functional element comprises one or more of a lighting apparatus, an electrical connectivity apparatus, an electronic device, a computing device, a communication device, and/or a sensor hub, the sensor hub configured to integrate and/or process sensor data.
However, Beck discloses wherein the functional element (160 and/or the sensor of [0071]) comprises one or more of a lighting apparatus (160; [0055]), an electrical connectivity apparatus, an electronic device, a computing device, a communication device, and/or a sensor hub, the sensor hub configured to integrate and/or process sensor data (this being and/or language).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building material element of Steffes wherein the functional element comprises one or more of a lighting apparatus, an electrical connectivity apparatus, an electronic device, a computing device, a communication device, and/or a sensor hub, the sensor hub configured to integrate and/or process sensor data as disclosed by Beck in order to provide safety to those inside and outside of the building ([0003]), increase aesthetic appeal ([0003]), and to provide lighting that isn’t costly or time consuming to install ([0005]).
Re claim 8, Steffes as modified discloses the building material element of claim 6, Beck discloses wherein the sensor data ([0071]) is selected from the group consisting of light ([0071]), temperature, relative humidity, smoke, water, carbon monoxide, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building material element of Steffes wherein the sensor data is selected from the group consisting of light, temperature, relative humidity, smoke, water, carbon monoxide, and combinations thereof as disclosed by Beck in order to provide safety to those inside and outside of the building ([0003]) and to provide lighting that isn’t costly or time consuming to install ([0005]).
Re claim 10, Steffes discloses a building material system (Fig. 12) comprising:
a plurality of (Fig. 12) interconnected building material elements (1270, 1280), each building material element (1270, 1280) comprising a three-dimensional (3D)-printed ([0069]) architectural element (110); and an integrated functional feature (118) related to a functional element (fasteners of [0063]),
wherein each of the interconnected building material elements (1270, 1280) comprise first and second interconnection features (120, 122) positioned along adjacent edges (Fig. 2-3) of the building material element (100) and not aligned with (Fig. 2) a front surface (114) of the building material element (100) such that the first and second interconnection features (120, 122) are hidden by (Fig. 12) adjacent building material elements (1270, 1280),
but fails to disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of building material elements comprises a light source, and an integrated sensor configured to sense a parameter selected from the group consisting of an environmental parameter, an electrical parameter, an electromagnetic parameter, a mechanical parameter, an acoustic parameter, and combinations thereof.
However, Beck discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of building material elements (110) comprises a light source (160; [0055], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building material system of Steffes wherein at least one of the plurality of building material elements comprises a light source as disclosed by Beck in order to provide safety to those inside and outside of the building ([0003]), increase aesthetic appeal ([0003]), and to provide lighting that isn’t costly or time consuming to install ([0005]).
In addition, Bradford discloses an integrated sensor (108, 110; [0021] disclosing embedding within 104) configured to sense a parameter ([0020]-[0021]) selected from the group consisting of an environmental parameter ([0020]-[0021] disclosing force sensors, pressure sensors, and location sensors, each being an environmental sensor sensing the surrounding environment), an electrical parameter, an electromagnetic parameter, a mechanical parameter, an acoustic parameter, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building material system of Steffes with an integrated sensor configured to sense a parameter selected from the group consisting of an environmental parameter, an electrical parameter, an electromagnetic parameter, a mechanical parameter, an acoustic parameter, and combinations thereof as disclosed by Bradford in order to gather data and detect many types of events and/or objects, such as detection of walking, speed of walking, location of walking, detect falling, and detect patterns and deviations therefrom ([0013]).
It should further be noted that the language “three-dimensional (3D)-printed” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 11, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 10, wherein each 3D-printed architectural element (100) is the same as ([0075]; except in color, as the language does not limit to what is the same) each other 3D-printed architectural element (100).
Re claim 12, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 10, wherein each 3D-printed architectural element (100) is a different type from ([0075]; differing colors) at least one other 3D-printed architectural element (100).
Re claim 13, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 10, wherein the 3D-printed architectural element (100) is selected from the group comprising at least a portion of a wall panel ([0050]), at least a portion of a ceiling panel, at least a portion of a floor panel, at least a portion of a crown molding (as only one of the grouping is required).
Re claim 14, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 10, wherein at least one 3D-printed architectural element (100) comprises a decorative feature (114; [0051]).
Re claim 15, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 10, wherein at least one integrated functional feature (118) is configured to accommodate the functional element ([0063]; the fasteners).
Re claim 16, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 10, wherein at least one integrated functional feature (118) corresponds to the functional element ([0063]; the fasteners).
Re claim 17, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 15, Beck discloses wherein the functional element (160) comprises one or more of a lighting apparatus (160; [0055]), an electrical connectivity apparatus, an electronic device, a computing device, a communication device, and/or a sensor hub.
Re claim 19, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 17, wherein the building material element (1270, 1280) further comprises an environmental sensor (Bradford: 108, 110) configured to sense an environmental parameter (Bradford: [0020]-[0021] disclosing force sensors, pressure sensors, and location sensors, each being an environmental sensor sensing the surrounding environment).
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffes et al (“Steffes”) (US 2019/0301178) in view of Bradford (US 2016/0217664) and Gavris et al (“Gavris”) (US 2014/0170365).
Re claim 7, Steffes discloses the building material element of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the functional element comprises a 3D-printed insulation material.
However, Gavris discloses wherein the functional element (34) comprises a 3D-printed (as this language is product by process) insulation material ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building material element of Steffes wherein the functional element comprises a 3D-printed insulation material as disclosed by Gavris in order to provide a thermal insulative R-value to the building material element ([0034]).
It should further be noted that the language “3D-printed” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 9, Steffes as modified discloses the building material element of claim 7, Gavris discloses wherein an infill characteristic ([0034]) of the 3D-printed insulation material (34) is selected based, at least in part, on a target physical characteristic ([0034]), the target physical characteristic selected from the group consisting of a target thermal characteristic ([0034]; and R-value), a target mechanical characteristic ([0035]; the thickness: [0036]; the material), a target weight of the building material element, and/or a target permeability, and combinations thereof, the infill characteristic ([0034]-[0035]) selected from the group consisting of an infill pattern, an infill percentage, a selected infill material ([0036]), and combinations thereof.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffes et al (“Steffes”) (US 2019/0301178) in view of Bradford (US 2016/0217664), Beck et al (“Beck”) (US 2021/0222865) and Gavris et al (“Gavris”) (US 2014/0170365).
Re claim 18, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the functional element comprises a 3D-printed insulation material.
However, Gavris discloses wherein the functional element (34) comprises a 3D-printed (as this language is product by process) insulation material ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building material system of Steffes wherein the functional element comprises a 3D-printed insulation material as disclosed by Gavris in order to provide a thermal insulative R-value to the building material element ([0034]).
It should further be noted that the language “3D-printed” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 20, Steffes as modified discloses the building material system of claim 18, Gavris discloses wherein an infill characteristic ([0034]) of the 3D-printed insulation material (34) is selected based, at least in part, on a target physical characteristic ([0034]), the target physical characteristic selected from the group comprising a target thermal characteristic ([0034]; and R-value), a target mechanical characteristic ([0035]; the thickness: [0036]; the material), a target weight of the building material element, and/or a target permeability, the infill characteristic ([0034]-[0035]) selected from the group comprising an infill pattern, an infill percentage, and a selected infill material ([0036]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended language of the independent claims, requiring an integrated sensor. Applicant argues that Becks’ sensor is effectively separate from the panel and thus is not an integrated sensor, and thus, no combiation of Steffes and Beck discloses an integrated sensor. This language is addressed in view of Bradford in the above.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the dependent claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights