DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Restriction filed on 12/01/2025, claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 5-10 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 1-4 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a head for printing filaments of construction material” should read as “a print head for printing filaments of construction material” for the purpose of consistency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a reservoir” should read as “a storage reservoir for storing loaded material” for the purpose of consistency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a circuit” should read as “a supply circuit” for the purpose of consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 recites the limitation “means for mixing” is a known terms of art and thus are interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of mixing.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “agitating means” is a known terms of art and thus are interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of agitating.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “pushing means” is a known terms of art and thus are interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of pushing materials.
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 1-4 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 the limitation "the flow rate" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0200920 (Zhang) and US2023/0256649 (“McGee et al” hereinafter McGee).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a system (Figure 1) for extrusion of filaments of construction material (Figure 1 and abstract) enriched with rock fragments ([0004 and [0030], where the slurry material used for extrusion is concrete which is a composite material compose of aggregate bound together with a fluid cement), for a robot for additive manufacture of architectural structures (abstract) comprising:
a head (Figure 1, flow control dispenser 30) for printing filaments of construction material ([0031]) comprising a material inlet opening (Figure 1, inlet 22) and an outlet nozzle (Figure 1, outlet 23) configured to form filaments of material ([0031]), said print head being intended to be moved along a predetermined path in order to form an architectural structure by stacking layers of said extruded filaments (Figure 4 and [0043]),
a circuit (the Examiner is interpreting the term “circuit” as a loop supply system that function to supply materials to printhead which is consistent with page 4, lines 25-27 and Figure 1 of instant application. Zhang discloses in Figure 1, slurry supple component 10) for supplying said print head with loaded material ([0029]), comprising a reservoir (Figure 1, slurry tank 13) for storing loaded material ([0029]) and a material supply conduit (Figure 1, pipe 12) connecting said storage reservoir and said print head (Figure 1 and [0029]), characterized in that:
said supply circuit comprises at least one piston pump (Figure 1, supply pump 11) mounted on said supply conduit (Figure 1, supply pump 11 mounted onto the pipe 12) and configured to enable the loaded material to be conveyed from the storage reservoir to said print head ([0029]) without controlled adjustment of the flow rate ([0036], the supply pump 11 and the flow control dispenser 30 are synchronized and have the same flow rate in average to maintain the concrete volume; thus, no controlled adjustment of the flow rate is needed as the two devices are synchronized at the same rate),
said print head (Figure 1, flow control dispense 30) comprises an endless screw arranged between said inlet opening and said outlet nozzle (Figure 3, helical blade 26 located between the inlet 22 and the outlet 23) and configured to be able to extrude the loaded material in a continuous manner via said outlet nozzle ([0037]).
Zhang fails to explicitly teach the construction material enriched with rock fragments, of a size greater than 3 mm and less than 50 mm, referred to as aggregates.
However, Zhang teaches the material used for construction is concrete ([0030]) which is a mixture of solids and water [0008] where solid comprises of sand and cement which includes rock fragments. Thus, the apparatus discloses by Wang is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Furthermore, the claim contain limitations (size of aggregates) 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 size of aggregate material does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight),
Zhang fails to teach said print head being intended to be moved by the additive manufacturing robot.
However, in the same field of additive manufacturing of engineered cementitious composites and articles, McGee discloses print head being intended to be moved by the additive manufacturing robot (Figure 1, robotic printing device 40, [0126], [0128]).
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 system as taught by Zhang such that said print head being intended to be moved by the additive manufacturing robot as taught by McGee so that each respective layer can be produced with nearly identical interface contact area, thickness, and relatively low surface roughness ([0128]).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Zhang teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said storage reservoir comprises means for mixing a plurality of components in order to be able to form said loaded material (Zhang, Figure 1, tank 13 and [0030], the concrete can be mixed in the tank 13 which implied the presence of a mixing element within the tank).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Zhang teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said print head further comprises a retention tank (Zhang, Figure 3, cylinder 20) arranged between the inlet opening and the endless screw (Figure 3) and equipped with agitating (Figure 3, mixer 25, the mixer creates agitation through helical blade 26) and/or vibrating and/or pushing means of said tank in order to facilitate the extrusion of the loaded material by said endless screw ([0037]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0200920 (Zhang) and US2023/0256649 (“McGee et al” hereinafter McGee) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2021/0146573 (“Roux et al” hereinafter Roux).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Zhang teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach storage reservoir further comprises agitating means of said reservoir in order to enable the loaded material to be formed into a state compatible with the conveying thereof via said supply conduit.
However, in the same field of additive manufacturing of engineered cementitious composites and articles, Roux teaches storage reservoir further comprises agitating means (Figure 1, storage tank 19 comprises an agitator 13) of said reservoir in order to enable the loaded material to be formed into a state compatible with the conveying thereof via said supply conduit ([0043] and [0059]).
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 system as taught by the modified Zhang such that it teaches all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Roux to maintain the cementitious material in an almost constant rheological state before pumping by the filling pump ([0043]).
Conclusion
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