DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothfuss, et al. (US 2016/0200011) in view of Panda (Panda, et al., Additive manufacturing of geopolymer for sustainable built environment, November 20, 2017, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 167, Pages 281-288).
In reference to Claim 1, Rothfuss discloses making a three-dimensional object ([0003]) (a component made of a cured material), 3D printing layers of matrix material ([0020]) (which component has a plurality of layers produced in a 3D printing process) and reinforcement materials added ([0019]), with the reinforcement material suspending within the feedstock ([0051]).
Rothfuss does not disclose reinforcing elements connecting said layers, wherein the reinforcing elements form a strand extending through all of the layers of the component and are interconnected.
Panda discloses reinforcements needed in concrete printed parts for structural safety and reliability and optimizing reinforcement placement for structural elements (Section 5.1) (reinforcing elements connecting said layers) to improve directional strength, addition of reinforcements can be used to improve the bonding between the layers (Section 4.3) (wherein the reinforcing elements form a strand extending through all of the layers of the component and are interconnected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the component of Rothfuss using the reinforcement addition like Panda because the strength it adds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the reinforcement from Panda in the component of Rothfuss because it adds to the safety component of the final component. The reasonable expectation of combining the reinforcement placement of Panda for the object of Rothfuss would be a stronger, safer component.
In reference to Claim 2, modified Rothfuss discloses the component of Claim 1, as described above.
Rothfuss discloses concrete being the printed and cured material ([0091]-[0093]) (the cured material is concrete).
In reference to Claim 3, modified Rothfuss discloses the component of Claim 1, as described above.
Rothfuss discloses a strong reinforcement material ([0019]) (the reinforcing elements consist of a rigid material).
In reference to Claim 4, modified Rothfuss discloses the component of Claim 3, as described above.
Rothfuss discloses the reinforcement material can be metal, ceramic, polymers, or any combination thereof ([0019]) (the rigid material is a steel or plastics material).
In reference to Claim 5, modified Rothfuss discloses the component of Claim 1, as described above.
Rothfuss discloses the reinforcement material is suspended in the feedstock ([0051]).
Panda discloses adding reinforcement to improve the directional strength across a perpendicular layer (Section 4.3) (the strands extend perpendicularly and/or horizontally to the layers).
In reference to Claim 6, modified Rothfuss discloses the component of Claim 1, as described above.
Rothfuss discloses the reinforcement material is suspended in the feedstock ([0051]).
Panda discloses adding reinforcement to improve the directional strength across a perpendicular layer (Section 4.3) (the strands extend at an angle between 90° and 45° to the layers).
In reference to Claim 7, modified Rothfuss discloses the component of Claim 1, as described above.
Rothfuss discloses the reinforcement material can be fibers, whiskers, wires, or mesh ([0051]) (the reinforcing elements are rod-shaped or designed as a wire, rod, cable, chain or roving).
In reference to Claim 8, modified Rothfuss discloses the component of Claim 1, as described above.
Rothfuss discloses the material can include fibers ([0013]) (the curable material is mixed with fibers).
In reference to Claim 9, modified Rothfuss discloses the component of Claim 8, as described above.
Rothfuss discloses the material can include carbon fibers, metal fibers, carbon nanotubes, graphene flakes ([0013]) or glass fibers, steel fibers, etc. ([0051]) (the fibers are one of: steel fibers, polymer fibers, glass fibers, or carbon fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights