DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 01/30/2026, claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 5 are currently amended. Claims 1-5 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous claim objections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendments.
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendments.
35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are maintained in view of the Applicant’s argument. See Response to Argument below.
Previous Double Patenting Rejections are maintained. The Terminal Disclaimers filed on 01/30/2026 are disapproved. Please see Terminal Disclaimer review Decision mailed on 02/28/2026 and 03/01/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2017/182928 (“Dasappa et al” hereinafter Dasappa).
Regarding Claim 1, Dasappa teaches a device (Figure 4B) for 3D or 4D printing of reinforced foundations in geotechnical engineering ([0002], system using multiple nozzles for simultaneous deposition of material in additive manufacturing, thus, the device disclosed by Dasappa is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed), comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
479
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first horizontal rail (see annotated Figure 4B), a second horizontal rail (see annotated Figure 4B), a first vertical rail (see annotated Figure 4B), a second vertical rail (see annotated Figure 4B), a third horizontal rail (see annotated Figure 4B), a production unit (see annotated Figure 4B, printing subsystem 410) and a control system ([0005], a print controller configured to control at least the positioning structure during production of the printed component), wherein the first horizontal rail (see annotated Figure 4B), the second horizontal rail (see annotated Figure 4B), the first vertical rail (see annotated Figure 4B), the second vertical rail (see annotated Figure 4B), and the third horizontal rail (see annotated Figure 4B) create a driving system (the combination of these elements formed a driving system) for positioning of the production unit in a three dimensional space ([0040]) on a construction site (Figure 4B, printer bed 430), characterized in that the production unit (Figure 4A, printing subsystem 410) comprises a first production assembly (Figure 4A, printhead 416) and a second production assembly (Figure 4A, printhead 414), wherein the first production assembly and the second production assembly are designed to operate with different construction materials ([0054], different nozzles can use different materials can carryout the printing process), wherein one of said construction materials is a reinforcement construction material for reinforcing the foundations to be created during operation of the device ([0054], the nozzle can print polycarbonate which is an example of polymer and also an example of reinforcement construction material. Furthermore, limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114 and MPEP 2115).
Regarding Claim 3, Dasappa teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first production assembly (Figure 4A, printhead 416) comprises a first printing nozzle (Figure 4A, nozzle 422) designed for 3D printing with a first material ([0037] and [0054]), and wherein the second production assembly (Figure 4A, printhead 414) comprises a second printing nozzle (Figure 4A, nozzle 420) designed for 3D printing with a second material ([0054]), and a feeder (Figure 4A, feed line 464) for delivering the second material, during operation of the device, at front of the second printing nozzle ([0039]).
Regarding Claim 4, Dasappa teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein the first material is a construction material selected from a group consisting of: concrete and polymer ([0054], the nozzle can print polycarbonate which is an example of polymer and also an example of reinforcement construction material).
Furthermore, the Claims contain limitations (first material is concrete and polymer) which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, the first material does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 5, Dasappa teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein the second material is reinforcing material selected from a group consisting of polymer, composite ([0054], the second nozzle can print a composite material), plastic, metal, wood, fiber, bio-materials, nano-materials, nano-bio materials, wherein the second printing nozzle, during operation of the device, follows the map details in a printer software to print rebars ([0032] and [0048]).
Furthermore, the Claims contain limitations (second material) which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, the second material does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017/182928 (“Dasappa et al” hereinafter Dasappa) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2022/0227127 (“Bromberg et al” hereinafter Bromberg).
Regarding Claim 2, Dasappa teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the driving system (Figure 4B, the entire gantry system is a driving system) comprises a first drive unit (see annotated Figure 4B and [0027]), a second drive unit (see annotated Figure 4B and [0027]), a third drive unit (see annotated Figure 4B and [0027]), a fourth drive unit (see annotated Figure 4B and [0027]) and a fifth drive unit (see annotated Figure 4B and [0037]), wherein said drive units are connected by electrical wires or wirelessly to the control system ([0005], which implied the drive units are connected and moved based on the print controller). Dasappa fails to explicitly teach the control system comprising an input unit, a processor, a memory and an output unit, wherein the processor when executing a computer program according to input data or a design program stored in the memory is operable to send signals to the executive unit to actuate the production unit (7), to follow a map details stored in the memory, and to turn on and off said drives respectively to move the production unit (7) within the space (x, y, z) and time (t) in order to create the foundations according to the design stored in the memory.
However, Bromberg teaches the control system ([0023]-[0024]) comprising an input unit ([0153], control system includes a input device), a processor ([0023], control system comprises a processor), a memory ([0023], control system comprises a non-transitory memory) and an output unit ([0153], control system includes a computing device which is an output unit), wherein the processor when executing a computer program according to input data or a design program stored in the memory is operable to send signals to the executive unit to actuate the production unit ([0153], a slicing engine may be logic configured to receive a model or drawing of a component for building and process the model or drawing into build instructions defining a plurality of motion control operations), to follow a map details stored in the memory ([0023]-[0024] and [0216], the control system 10 may map one or more jet nozzles to a trajectory and the corresponding design deposition pattern for the current layer of the build), and to turn on and off said drives respectively to move the production unit within the space and time in order to create the foundations according to the design stored in the memory ([0023]-[0024]).
Dasappa ([0054]) and Bromberg ([0027]) are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of controlling a plurality of nozzle that dispenses different materials to generates a 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Dasappa such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Bromberg to control the movement of the plurality of nozzles based on the instructions ([0023]-[0024]) and to map one or more jet nozzles to a trajectory and the corresponding design deposition pattern for the current layer of the build ([0216]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to control the movement of the printhead. See MPEP 2143.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/593,972 (reference application, hereinafter ‘972).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 1, current application claims a device for 3D or 4D printing of reinforced foundations in geotechnical engineering, comprising a first horizontal rail, a second horizontal rail, a first vertical rail, a second vertical rail, a third horizontal rail, a production unit and a control system (see claim 1, lines 1-4 of ‘972), wherein the first horizontal rail, the second horizontal rail, the first vertical rail, the second vertical rail, and the third vertical rail create a driving system for positioning of the production unit in a three dimensional space (x, y, z) on a construction site (claim 1, lines 5-8), characterized in that the production unit comprises a first production assembly and a second production assembly, wherein the first production assembly and the second production assembly are designed to operate with different construction materials (claim 1, lines 8-11), wherein one of said construction materials is a reinforcement construction material for reinforcing the foundations to be created during operation of the device (claim 1, lines 11-14).
Regarding claims 2-5 of the instant application, they are identical to claims 2-5 of the ‘972 application respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Dasappa discloses additive manufacturing of generic structural components (i.e. aerospace or automotive composite parts). It is not designed or configured for geotechnical applications such as soil-embedded foundations or on-site ground reinforcement. The Dasappa's device is a laboratory-scale printer for composite parts. It lacks soil integration or foundation-reinforcement functionality. The applicant claim covers an outdoor, field-deployable rail system adapted for uneven terrain and foundation-scale prints. These are structurally distinct systems (different tolerances, rigidity, mobility, and alignment requirements) from the Dasappa's system.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. In this case, the recited functional limitations are not part of the claimed subject matter and thus, does not change the structure of the device. Furthermore, The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
The Applicant argues Dasappa discloses two printheads for possibly different polymers or composites, but not for different construction classes of materials (e.g., concrete vs. rebar composite). Further, the Dasappa's disclosure is limited to multi-material polymer 3D printing and is not directed to foundation-scale, on-site, multi-material (e.g., concrete + reinforcement) construction systems. Moreover, Dasappa prints composite parts (layers of polymer). Reinforcement is intrinsic (fibers in the filament), not structural reinforcement of another medium.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. The Claims contain limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details. Furthermore, claim 1 only recites “construction material” and under BRI interpretation, “construction material” can include different polymers and composites and does not limit to only concrete or reinforcement material.
The Applicant argues Dasappa does not teach the 4D behavior (stimulus-responsive materials). In contrast, the applicant's solution the 4D printing is done with time- dependent structural change. The structural, environmental, and functional differences between a laboratory gantry printer and a field geotechnical 3D/4D foundation printer are significant and patentably distinct.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. In this case, the recited functional limitations are not part of the claimed subject matter and thus, does not change the structure of the device. Again, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into claim language. Current claim 1 limitation does not mention any 4D behavior or any time-dependent structural change.
The Applicant argues regarding claim 3 that Dasappa discloses that the first nozzle prints thermoplastic filament (polymer melt). In contrast, the Applicant teaches that the first assembly prints with concrete/paste-like bulk material. The Dasappa reference does not disclose the concrete or any heavy paste-handling mechanism (pumping, extrusion screw, etc.). The mechanical structure of Dasappa device such an assembly is entirely different from the Applicant's device.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. The Claims contain limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details. Again, claim 3 only recites “a first material” and “a second material” but does not recite any specific material or composition that will change the structure of the apparatus and it is import limitations from the specification into claim language.
The Applicant argues regarding claim 4 that the Office asserts that Dasappa reference discloses Dasappa prints polycarbonate, a polymer, so it meets "polymer or concrete" material limitation. Applicant submits that the material itself is not given patentable weight (MPEP §2115) in assessing patentability of invention. Applicant's claim includes concrete, which requires specific pumping, nozzle diameter, and extrusion structure (vibration-resistant, high-pressure). In contrast, the Dasappa's nozzles cannot extrude such material, this affects apparatus structure. The material difference changes mechanical configuration (mixing chamber, heating vs. pumping, hose design, drive torque). Hence, material choice here directly affects the structure, making it patentably distinct.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Claim 4 recites “wherein the first material is a construction material selected from a group consisting of concrete and polymer”. Thus, under BRI, the limitation is interpreted as the first material can be either concrete or polymer. Dasappa discloses the nozzle can print polycarbonate ([0054]), which is a known polymer, and will read upon the claim limitation. Again, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into claim language and none of the mechanical configuration recited are part of the claim limitation.
The Applicant argues the Office alleges, regarding claim 5, that the Dasappa's second nozzle can print composite material, which covers "reinforcing material." Such material has no structural weight. Applicant submits that the Dasappa reference discloses multiple materials which are co-deposited polymers; no structural reinforcement patterns or rebar geometry. In contrast, in the Applicant's device the second material forms discrete reinforcing structures (rebars) according to mapped pattern. The Applicant's system prints reinforcement geometry following rebar mapping, not mere material co-deposition. That implies different motion control, deposition path planning, and hardware. In the Applicant's invention material set includes metal, fiber, nano, wood, etc. Metal deposition requires completely different feeding (wire, powder) and energy input, thus, a different structure.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Claim 5 recites “wherein the second material is reinforcing material selected from a group consisting of polymer, composite, plastic…”. Thus, under BRI, the limitation is interpreted as the second material can be any of the material listed in the group. Furthermore, under BRI, the term “reinforcing material” is interpreted as any substances added to a matrix to enhance its mechanical properties. In this case, Dasappa discloses the second nozzle can print a composite material ([0054]) which will change the mechanical properties of the printed structure, does read upon the claim. Again, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into claim language and none of the limitations in the argument are part of the claimed limitation.
The Applicant argues, regarding claim 2, the applicant's control system integrates geotechnical feedback, spatial mapping, terrain correction, and dynamic time coordination (4D). No such environmental or real-time ground condition adaptation is present in Bromberg or Dasappa. Neither reference handles construction-scale loads or multiple heterogeneous material drives (cement pump, reinforcement feeder, etc.). Further, Bromberg only mentions part designs sliced for manufacturing. In contrast, Design stored in memory for foundation geometry on a construction site. A foundation design implies deeper geometric integration with soil strata and reinforcement placement, nonanalogous to object slicing. Moreover, Bromberg's controller operates in static 3D coordinates. In contrast, the applicant's solution uses the 4D coordinate control (including time parameter). In contrast, the addition of "time" coordination (curing, sequential reinforcement, adaptive deposition) is not suggested or inherent in either prior art. Even if combined, Dasappa and Bromberg only produce a generic multi- nozzle additive manufacturing controller.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Firstly, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into claim language and none of the limitations in the argument are part of the claimed limitation. Claim 1 simply recites “…the control system comprising an input unit, a processor, a memory and an output unit, wherein the processor when executing a computer program according to input data or a design program stored in the memory is operable to send signals an executive unit to actuate the production unit…”. Nothing present in the argument are part of the claimed limitation. Furthermore, the control system discloses by Bromberg comprise all of the recited structure and performed the recited limitations without needing additional modification, see rejection to claim 5 above. In conclusion, Examiner wants to emphasize that the claims are directed to an apparatus and the structure of the apparatus and it is improper to import limitations from specification into the claim language.
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754