DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 2/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
a first dome structure with walls and a roof (claims 1, 16 and 20);
a plurality of brackets fastened to the roof (note that it appears that one bracket is depicted in Figure 1, but not a plurality, and that the bracket is not shown to be fastened to anything);
inner surface of the walls sprayed with foam (claims 1, 16 and 20);
a plurality of wires inserted into the foam (claims 1, 17 and 20);
rebar fastened to the wires (claims 1, 19 and 20);
shotcrete sprayed on the inner surface of the walls and roof, covering the foam, wires and rebar (claims 1, 16 and 20);
wood trusses fastened to the plurality of brackets (claims 1, 16 and 20); and
a second structure constructed around the first structure (claims 1, 16 and 20);
a robotic sprayer (claim 6);
a robotic sprayer and manipulator device (claims 7 and 8);
shafts comprising first and second halves (claim 12);
first and second panels (claim 13);
plates inserted into the roof of the first structure (claims 14 and 20);
knife plates (claim 15); and
a robotic sprayer (claim 16).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-20, independent claims 1, 16 and 20 each recite, “A structure construction method” (line 1), and dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 each recite, “The method” (line 1), which does not properly refer to the previously recited “structure construction method”. This objection can be overcome by amending each of claims 1, 16 and 20 to recite, “A of constructing a structure” or equivalent. In doing so, the dependent claims that recite “The method” will then be in proper form by referring to the previously recited method of constructing a structure in the independent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “manipulator device” (claim 7).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections and Claim Rejections Under 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 1-20 are objected to or 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 and several dependent claims reproduced below with the examiner’s comments regarding claim objections and 112 rejections in bold italics. Any claim that does not appear in this section is rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1. A structure construction method comprising:
constructing a first, dome structure (“a first, dome structure” is objected to because the comma after “first” appears to muddy the claim language with unnecessary punctuation; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “a first dome structure”; this limitation is recited in claims 16 and 20, and the same rejection applies, but is not repeated for brevity) with walls and a roof;
fastening a plurality of brackets into the roof of the first structure (“the first structure” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as it is unclear whether applicant intends for the limitation to refer to the previously recited “first, dome structure” or a different/additional first structure; applicant is requested to clarify; this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the first dome structure”; this limitation appears throughout the claims in claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 14-16 and 20, and the same rejection applies, but is not repeated for brevity), the plurality of brackets comprising a platform, one or more shafts, and one or more panels;
spraying an inner surface of the walls and the roof of the first structure with foam;
inserting a predetermined length of a plurality of wires into the foam, leaving a portion of the plurality of wires extending from the foam;
fastening rebar to the to the portion of the plurality of wires extending from the foam;
spraying shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof, covering the foam, wires, and rebar (“the foam, wires and rebar” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited wires and rebar; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the foam, the plurality of wires and the rebar”; this limitation appears again in the claims, and the same objection applies, but is not repeated for brevity);
fastening wood trusses to the plurality of brackets extending upward from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure (“the plurality of brackets extending upward from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that although the claims previously define a plurality of brackets, the claim does not define the plurality of brackets extending upward from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure; this rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the plurality of brackets as extending upward from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure; this limitation is recited in claims 16 and 20, and the same rejection applies, but is not repeated for brevity); and constructing a second structure around the first structure.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein a robotic sprayer automatically applies the shotcrete (“automatically applies the shotcrete” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as it is unclear what the claim requires; note that the metes and bounds of the claim are not defined with respect to “automatically”, as it is unclear what applicant considers the term to require; the term generally implies following fixed, pre-set rules, but as claimed, the term lacks context regarding programming, human oversight and it is unclear what the robot as claimed can and cannot do; applicant is requested to clarify the claim language).
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising programing a robotic sprayer to the dimensions of the first structure (“programming” is objected to for containing a typo and can be overcome by reciting, “programming”; further note that “programming a robotic sprayer to the dimensions of the first structure” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as it is unclear what the limitation requires; does applicant intend for the limitation to require programming a robotic sprayer to spray a specified amount of shotcrete that somehow corresponds to dimensions of the first structure? Further note that “the dimensions” lacks antecedent basis; applicant is requested to clarify).
Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the plate (“the plate is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis; note that the claims previously require plural plates and it is unclear which of the plates the limitation is referring to in the claim) inserted into the roof comprise knife plates that allow a second story to be constructed in the first structure.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFever et al. (US 20050210767) (‘DeFever’) in view of Schmitt (US 3651612).
Claim 1, DeFever teaches a structure construction method comprising:
constructing a first, dome structure with walls and a roof (“twin shell and/or multiple shell type structures” 8 comprising an outer shell 9 and an inner shell 10; [0050]; note that additionally or alternatively, membrane 11 is used initially as the first structure [0053] prior to shotcrete being sprayed; it is understood that DeFever’s dome structure method comprises a dome structure [0001], with a lower portion of the dome structure forming walls and an upper portion of the dome structure forming a roof, or alternatively DeFever’s dome structure method can comprise a conventional roof over structures and/or curve-linear space over structures, the structures defining the walls and the dome defining the roof; [0042]; Figs. 1-2, 10, 14 and 20);
fastening a plurality of brackets (41, 42, 44, collectively; Fig. 8) into the roof of the first structure (Fig. 8), the plurality of brackets comprising a platform 44, one or more shafts (bolts extending through 44; Fig. 8), and one or more panels (panels extending from 44; see annotated Fig. 8 of DeFever shown below in Examiner’s Notes);
spraying an inner surface of the walls and the roof of the first structure with foam (30A, 31A; inner shell foam; Fig. 6);
inserting a predetermined length of a plurality of wires (36; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 36, “USIS ‘universal snap in standard’ braces define slender rods that constitute wires, as exceedingly broadly claimed) into the foam (Figs. 2, 4 and 6), leaving a portion of the plurality of wires extending from the foam (“directing only enough urethane foam initially to adequately center and hold a given cell tube within its defined cavity” [0061]; Figs. 2, 4 and 6);
fastening rebar (33, 34, 35; Figs. 2, 4, 6) to the to the portion of the plurality of wires extending from the foam (Figs. 2, 4, 6);
spraying shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof, covering the foam, wires, and rebar (inner shotcrete shell [0061]-[0062]; [0071]; Figs. 2, 4 and 6-8);
fastening trusses 47 to the plurality of brackets extending upward from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the trusses 47 are fastened to the brackets, which extend upwardly from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure, as the brackets are shown to be angled in an upward direction as shown in Fig. 8, as exceedingly broadly claimed); and
constructing a second structure around the first structure (it is understood that the structure comprises two or more shells, thereby defining at least a second structure around the first structure 8; outer and inner shells 9 and 10, respectively; [0024] [0050]; Figs. 2 and 4).
DeFever does not teach the trusses being made of a wood material.
However, it is known in the art for such trusses to be made of a wood material. Schmitt teaches a truss comprising a wood truss made from readily available and inexpensive wood that may be used in building construction where appropriate (col. 1, lines 11-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the trusses to be made of a wood material, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known, readily available and inexpensive material to form the trusses, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 2, DeFever further provides wherein the walls and the roof of the first structure are defined by a membrane material (a light weight and structurally reinforced air-impervious inflatable air-form 11 [0053]).
Claim 3, DeFever further provides wherein the membrane material comprises a polyvinyl chloride material [0074].
Claim 4, DeFever further provides erecting and defining the first structure by a material selected from the group consisting of tarps, cloth fabrics, and insulated concrete forms (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, element 11 constitutes a tarp, as exceedingly broadly claimed; [0074]).
Claim 5, DeFever further provides wherein the foam comprises spray polyurethane foam (page 50, table following paragraph [0050]).
Claim 12, DeFever further provides wherein the one or more shafts comprise a first shaft and a second shaft that extend from an upper surface of the platform (bolts that extend through 44; Fig. 8).
Claim 13, DeFever further provides wherein the one or more panels comprise a first panel and a second panel that extend from a lower surface of the platform (see annotated Fig. 8 as shown below in Examiner’s Notes).
Claim 14, DeFever further provides inserting plates 43 into the roof of the first structure (Fig. 8).
Claim 15, DeFever further provides wherein the plate inserted into the roof comprise knife plates that allow a second story to be constructed in the first structure (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of knife plates, the plates 43 comprise thin, flat pieces of connecting hardware and thus meet the plain meaning, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 6-7, 9-11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFever et al. (US 20050210767) (‘DeFever’) in view of Schmitt (US 3651612) and further in view of Arras et al. (DE 10 2016 001 760 A1) (‘Arras’).
Claim 6, DeFever and Schmitt teach all the limitations of claim1 as above. DeFever does not teach a robotic sprayer automatically applying the shotcrete. However, Arras teaches a robotic sprayer that automatically applies shotcrete (“method and apparatus for the layered finishing of load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, slabs or ceilings of building construction”; robot device that manually or completely automatically sprays shotcrete; abstract; English translation of specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method to comprise a robotic sprayer that automatically applies the shotcrete, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known technique to apply the shotcrete in a controlled manner.
Claim 7, DeFever and Schmitt teach all the limitations of claim1 as above. DeFever teaches spraying shotcrete, but is unclear as to the device used to spray. However, Arras teaches applying shotcrete with a robotic sprayer via a manipulator device that can be manual or automatic (English translation of specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method by applying the shotcrete to the inner surface of the first structure with a robotic sprayer via a manipulator device, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known technique to apply the shotcrete in a controlled manner.
Claim 9, DeFever and Schmitt teach all the limitations of claim1 as above. DeFever teaches spraying shotcrete, presumably by hand, but is unclear as to the device used to spray. However, Arras teaches applying shotcrete with a robotic sprayer via a manipulator device that can be manual or automatic (English translation of specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method by using the device for hand spraying shotcrete on the inner surface of the roof and walls, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known technique to apply the shotcrete in a controlled manner.
Claim 10, DeFever and Schmitt teach all the limitations of claim1 as above. DeFever does not teach programing a robotic sprayer to the dimensions of the first structure. However, Arras teaches a robotic sprayer that automatically applies shotcrete (“method and apparatus for the layered finishing of load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, slabs or ceilings of building construction”; robot device that manually or completely automatically sprays shotcrete; abstract; English translation of specification). Arras further teaches programming the robotic sprayer (abstract). Arras further teaches calibrating the robotic sprayer to determine the position of the robot in space (specification), and using a computer-controlled design spraying device that is fully automatic.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of constructing the structure by programing a robotic sprayer to the dimensions of the first structure, with the reasonable expectation of success of using the computer-controlled sprayer to optimize the amount of material sprayed based on the dimensions of the surface on which the material is to be applied to obtain an aesthetically pleasing surface while minimizing material loss (Arras specification).
Claim 11, DeFever and Schmitt teach all the limitations of claim1 as above. DeFever does not teach initiating a robotic sprayer to spray shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof, covering the foam, wires, and rebar. However, Arras teaches a robotic sprayer that automatically applies shotcrete (“method and apparatus for the layered finishing of load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, slabs or ceilings of building construction”; robot device that manually or completely automatically sprays shotcrete; abstract; English translation of specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method to comprise initiating a robotic sprayer to spray shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof, covering the foam, wires, and rebar, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known technique to apply the shotcrete in a controlled manner.
Claim 16, DeFever teaches a structure construction method comprising:
constructing a first, dome structure with walls and a roof (“twin shell and/or multiple shell type structures” 8 comprising an outer shell 9 and an inner shell 10; [0050]; note that additionally or alternatively, membrane 11 is used initially as the first structure [0053] prior to shotcrete being sprayed; it is understood that DeFever’s dome structure method comprises a dome structure [0001], with a lower portion of the dome structure forming walls and an upper portion of the dome structure forming a roof, or alternatively DeFever’s dome structure method can comprise a conventional roof over structures and/or curve-linear space over structures, the structures defining the walls and the dome defining the roof; [0042]; Figs. 1-2, 10, 14 and 20);
fastening a plurality of brackets (41, 42, 44, collectively; Fig. 8) into the roof of the first structure (Fig. 8), the plurality of brackets comprising:
a platform 44,
a first shaft and a second shaft extending from an upper surface of the platform (bolts extending through 44; Fig. 8), and
a first panel and a second panel that extend from a lower surface of the platform (see annotated Fig. 8 of DeFever shown below in Examiner’s Notes);
spraying an inner surface of the walls and the roof of the first structure with foam (30A, 31A; inner shell foam; Fig. 6);
spraying shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof (inner shotcrete shell [0061]-[0062]; [0071]; Figs. 2, 4 and 6-8);
fastening trusses 47 to the plurality of brackets extending upward from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the trusses 47 are fastened to the brackets, which extend upwardly from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure, as the brackets are shown to be angled in an upward direction as shown in Fig. 8, as exceedingly broadly claimed); and
constructing a second structure around the first structure (it is understood that the structure comprises two or more shells, thereby defining at least a second structure around the first structure 8; outer and inner shells 9 and 10, respectively; [0024] [0050]; Figs. 2 and 4).
DeFever does not teach the trusses being made of a wood material, and initiating a robotic sprayer to spray shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof.
However, it is known in the art for such trusses to be made of a wood material. Schmitt teaches a truss comprising a wood truss made from readily available and inexpensive wood that may be used in building construction where appropriate (col. 1, lines 11-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the trusses to be made of a wood material, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known, readily available and inexpensive material to form the trusses, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Further, Arras teaches a robotic sprayer that automatically applies shotcrete (“method and apparatus for the layered finishing of load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, slabs or ceilings of building construction”; robot device that manually or completely automatically sprays shotcrete; abstract; English translation of specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method to comprise initiating a robotic sprayer to spray shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof, covering the foam, wires, and rebar, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known device of a robotic sprayer to apply the shotcrete in a controlled manner.
Claim 17, DeFever further teaches inserting a plurality of wires into the foam (36; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 36, “USIS ‘universal snap in standard’ braces define slender rods that constitute wires, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 18, DeFever further teaches fastening the plurality of wires to the first and second panels of the plurality of brackets (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of wires are fastened to the first and second panels of the plurality of brackets via elements 41, 42, 43 and the inner shell 10, as the components are fastened together as a final assembly to form the structure; Figs. 2 and 8).
Claim 19, DeFever further teaches fastening a plurality of rebar shafts (33, 34, 35; Figs. 2, 4, 6) to the plurality of wires (Figs. 2, 4 and 6).
Claim 20, DeFever teaches a structure construction method comprising:
constructing a first, dome structure with walls and a roof (“twin shell and/or multiple shell type structures” 8 comprising an outer shell 9 and an inner shell 10; [0050]; note that additionally or alternatively, membrane 11 is used initially as the first structure [0053] prior to shotcrete being sprayed; it is understood that DeFever’s dome structure method comprises a dome structure [0001], with a lower portion of the dome structure forming walls and an upper portion of the dome structure forming a roof, or alternatively DeFever’s dome structure method can comprise a conventional roof over structures and/or curve-linear space over structures, the structures defining the walls and the dome defining the roof; [0042]; Figs. 1-2, 10, 14 and 20);
fastening a plurality of brackets (41, 42, 44, collectively; Fig. 8) into the roof of the first structure (Fig. 8), the plurality of brackets comprising:
a platform 44,
a first shaft and a second shaft extending from an upper surface of the platform (bolts extending through 44; Fig. 8), and
a first panel and a second panel that extend from a lower surface of the platform (see annotated Fig. 8 of DeFever shown below in Examiner’s Notes);
inserting plates 43 into the roof of the first structure (Fig. 8);
spraying an inner surface of the walls and the roof of the first structure with foam (30A, 31A; inner shell foam; Fig. 6);
inserting a predetermined length of a plurality of wires (36; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 36, “USIS ‘universal snap in standard’ braces define slender rods that constitute wires, as exceedingly broadly claimed) into the foam (Figs. 2, 4 and 6), leaving a portion of the plurality of wires extending from the foam (“directing only enough urethane foam initially to adequately center and hold a given cell tube within its defined cavity” [0061]; Figs. 2, 4 and 6);
fastening rebar (33, 34, 35; Figs. 2, 4, 6) to the portion of the plurality of wires extending from the foam (Figs. 2, 4 and 6);
fastening trusses 47 to the plurality of brackets extending upward from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the trusses 47 are fastened to the brackets, which extend upwardly from an outer surface of the roof of the first structure, as the brackets are shown to be angled in an upward direction as shown in Fig. 8, as exceedingly broadly claimed); and
constructing a second structure around the first structure (it is understood that the structure comprises two or more shells, thereby defining at least a second structure around the first structure 8; outer and inner shells 9 and 10, respectively; [0024] [0050]; Figs. 2 and 4).
DeFever does not teach the trusses being made of a wood material, and initiating a robotic sprayer to spray shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof, covering the foam, wires and rebar.
However, it is known in the art for such trusses to be made of a wood material. Schmitt teaches a truss comprising a wood truss made from readily available and inexpensive wood that may be used in building construction where appropriate (col. 1, lines 11-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the trusses to be made of a wood material, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known, readily available and inexpensive material to form the trusses, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Further, Arras teaches a robotic sprayer that automatically applies shotcrete (“method and apparatus for the layered finishing of load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, slabs or ceilings of building construction”; robot device that manually or completely automatically sprays shotcrete; abstract; English translation of specification). Arras further teaches programming the robotic sprayer (abstract). Arras further teaches calibrating the robotic sprayer to determine the position of the robot in space (specification), and using a computer-controlled design spraying device that is fully automatic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method to comprise programing a robotic sprayer to the dimensions of the first structure, and initiating the robotic sprayer to spray shotcrete over the inner surface of the walls and roof, covering the foam, wires, and rebar, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known device of a computer-controlled sprayer to optimize the amount of material sprayed based on the dimensions of the surface on which the material is to be applied to obtain an aesthetically pleasing surface while minimizing material loss (Arras specification).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFever et al. (US 20050210767) (‘DeFever’) in view of Schmitt (US 3651612) and further in view of Pearson, Jr. (US 20210189747) (‘Pearson’).
Claim 8, DeFever and Schmitt teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. DeFever does not teach coupling the robotic sprayer to an elevating member selected from the group consisting of a man lift, a fork lift, and a crane. However, Pearson teaches a portable robotic construction system, wherein a robotic sprayer [0002] that can spray shotcrete ([0259], [0263]) and can be coupled to an elevating member selected from the group consisting of a man lift, a fork lift, and a crane (crane [0002], [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method by coupling the robotic sprayer to an elevating member selected from the group consisting of a man lift, a fork lift, and a crane, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known construction equipment to apply the shotcrete in a controlled manner.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
396
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of DeFever et al. (US 20050210767) (‘DeFever’)
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 JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635