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 .
The amendment filed on 21 May 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 10 February 2026 has been considered. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending. Claim(s) 10 has/have been added. consideration. Claim(s) 1-10 has/have been examined in this action.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1-10, the recitation of “element” and “elements” creates confusion and deems the claims indefinite. The recitation of “an element” having “elements” is unclear. What does “a first block having elements” actually entail? Are the elements the walls? Does the “elements” include the ducts? Further, what does it mean by “manufacturing a masonry structure having a plurality of 3D printed building elements”? Does this require just multiple blocks assembled together?
Regarding claim 1, lines 9-10, the recitation “further comprises connecting element, a connecting element for each duct” appears to contain a typo. The recitation has been examined as if reciting “further comprises a connecting element for each duct”.
Regarding claim 1, line 22, the recitation “a second block comprising said elements” renders the claim indefinite. First, the claim does not positively recite the second block, therefore a second block is not required. Second, it is unclear what “said elements” encompasses.
Regarding claim 4, line 7, the recitation “said second blocks” lacks proper antecedent basis since the second blocks are not positively recited in claim 1, and further it is unclear as to exactly what elements the second blocks are required to have.
Regarding claim 8, line 5, the recitation “said second blocks” lacks proper antecedent basis since the second blocks are not positively recited in claim 1, and further it is unclear as to exactly what elements the second blocks are required to have.
Regarding claim 8, lines 7-8, is “a plurality of connecting elements” the same elements recited in claim 1? Or is Applicant reciting different connecting elements?
Regarding claim 8, lines 9-10, is the “plurality of 3D printed building elements” the same as the elements recited in claim 1? And further what exactly does this entail, since technically, claim 1 simply requires a block having a connecting element?
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(s) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 0041792 A1 to Bach in view of JP 2021504065 A (JP herein) in view of DE 20303476 U1 to Knickenberg. (See provided translations).
Regarding claim 1, Bach discloses a building element comprising: a first block (30, Fig.5), said first block having elements, comprising an upper wall (top horizontal surface of 30, Fig.5), a front wall (front wall of block in same formation as Fig.1), a rear wall (opposite surface of block, Fig.1) and two lateral walls (left and right vertical surfaces, Fig.5), the walls together defining an inner space (32), the lower portions of the walls defining an inner edge (bottom edge of the block 30) developing seamlessly to form a bottom edge surface; an internal duct (33) disposed in the inner space, each duct defining a first feedthrough opening (38) provided on the upper wall, and an opposite second feedthrough opening (bottom of 33 near the bottom surface of 30, Fig.5) facing the bottom edge surface; wherein the building element further comprises a connecting element (20, Fig.3 and 7) for each duct, wherein each duct comprises a first internal abutment (36, 38) and a second internal abutment (41, 42), the first internal abutment provided in an upper portion of the duct (Fig.5) and the second internal abutment provided in a lower portion of the duct (Fig.5), each first abutment suitable to block insertion (Fig.7) of the connection element inside said duct allowing an upper portion of said connecting element to be exposed outside the first feedthrough opening, said exposed upper portion of said connecting element suitable for insertion into a second feedthrough opening of a second block comprising said elements when superimposed to the first block (Fig.7).
Bach does not specifically disclose wherein the blocks are 3D printed, nor does Bach disclose wherein the blocks have different sizes including multiple ducts and multiple connecting elements.
JP discloses wherein the blocks are 3D printed (Abstract; Page 3, lines 7-16). JP also discloses wherein the blocks are four pegs long on to which provides the ability to have multiple ducts and multiple connectors (Fig.1).
Knickenberg discloses providing a block having a plurality of ducts and a plurality of connecting elements (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used an additive manufacturing method as taught by JP to manufacture the blocks of Bach so to provide a method of accurately forming more complex shapes and designs without the increased costs of forming intricate molds and eliminating extensive molding processes. Using molding for complex designs results in many design flaws and wasted materials.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the blocks of Bach having multiple ducts and connecting elements as taught by Knickenberg so to enable larger blocks to be used and also to enable offset stacking of the blocks in the same stacking manner as traditional masonry work.
Regarding claim 2, Bach discloses wherein the duct the connection element is configured to house electrical wires or hydraulic pipes (show hollow connection elements capable of housing wires, etc.)
Regarding claim 3, Bach discloses wherein each connecting element comprises a central abutment (21), an external diameter of the central abutment being greater than an internal diameter of the duct (Fig.7).
Regarding claim 4, Bach in view of JP in view of Knickenberg disclose a masonry structure comprising a plurality of 3D printed building elements according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Bach discloses providing a first block on a lower level, a second block located on top of the first block, and the connecting element inserted into the lower block and connecting into the duct of the second block.
Knickenberg discloses the idea of multiple first blocks in a first row, connecting elements inserted into the ducts of the first row, and further providing multiple blocks on top of the first blocks, a first connecting element from a first block and another connecting elements from a second block inserted into the same block located on top (Fig.1). In other words, Knickenberg teaches using multiple connecting elements into multiple ducts, and offset laying of the blocks.
Regarding claim 7, Bach discloses further comprising a plurality of anchoring elements (23a) connected to the plurality of first blocks of the first layer (Fig.7).
Regarding claim 8, as recited in claim 1 above, JP discloses 3D printing of the blocks.
Although the idea of printing and transporting is not specifically taught by Bach in view of JP further in view of Knickenberg, the idea of printing the blocks, and transporting the blocks where they will be installed are obvious design steps in the formation of any structure, and therefore the steps are well known in the art, do not require undue experimentation, nor will the steps yield unexpected results. Any person skilled in the art would be able to identify which shapes, sizes, and count of blocks to be used and will know that the blocks need to be moved to the installation site.
Regarding claim 9, Knickenberg discloses placing a first layer of said first blocks on the ground (Fig.1), superimposing a second layer of said second blocks on the first layer (Fig.1), and individually inserting said plurality of said connection elements (1) into the first feedthrough opening of each first block (1, Fig.1) and each second feedthrough opening of each second block (Fig.5).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 0041792 A1 to Bach in view of JP 2021504065 A (JP herein) in view of DE 20303476 U1 to Knickenberg. (See provided translations) in view of US 4,823,532 to Westerburgen.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Bach does not disclose wherein a connection element is filled with concrete in order to reinforce the overall structure.
Westerburgen discloses wherein it is known to form toy-like blocks as larger construction blocks and providing concrete within openings of the blocks so to create greater strength for a more permanent structure (Column 1, lines 38-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have poured concrete into the openings occupied by the connecting elements of Bach as taught by Westerburgen so to provide the needed strength to ensure the blocks stay in position to form walls of a finished structure.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 0041792 A1 to Bach in view of JP 2021504065 A (JP herein) in view of DE 20303476 U1 to Knickenberg (See provided translations) in view of US 2022/0002993 A1 to Kim.
Regarding claim 10, Bach discloses wherein the connection element is capable of housing electrical wires or hydraulic pipes, but does not specifically disclose the connection element housing wires or pipes.
Kim discloses the connection element housing wires or pipes (Paragraph [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided wiring or piping through the connection elements of Bach as taught by Kim so to route utilities through the walls of a structure thereby protecting the utilities and being able to route the utilities without the need to drill holes through walls, etc.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0002993 A1 to Kim in view of in view of JP 2021504065 A (JP herein).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a building element comprising: a first block (100, Fig.1), said first block having elements comprising an upper wall (top surface of 100), a front wall (front surface of 100), a rear wall (rear surface of 100) and two lateral walls (side walls of 100), the walls together defining an inner space (interior volume of 100), the lower portions of the walls defining an inner edge developing seamlessly to form a bottom edge surface (lower surface of the side surfaces forming a bottom edge surface); two internal ducts (110) disposed in the inner space, each duct defining a first feedthrough opening (top opening 111, Fig.2) provided on the upper wall, and an opposite second feedthrough opening (113) facing the bottom edge surface; wherein the building element further comprises a connecting element (200, Fig.1) for each duct, wherein each duct comprises a first internal abutment (horizontal surfaces between d1 and d2, Fig.2) and a second internal abutment (horizontal surfaces between d3 and d2), the first internal abutment provided in an upper portion of the duct (Fig.2) and the second internal abutment provided in a lower portion of the duct (Fig.2), each first abutment suitable to block insertion of the connecting element inside said duct (Fig.3) allowing an upper portion of said connecting element to be exposed outside the first feedthrough opening (Fig.3), said exposed upper portion of said connecting element suitable for insertion into a second feedthrough opening of a second block comprising said elements when superimposed to the first block (Fig.1, 2, 4).
Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the blocks are 3D printed.
JP discloses wherein the blocks are 3D printed (Abstract; Page 3, lines 7-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used an additive manufacturing method as taught by JP to manufacture the blocks of Kim so to provide a method of accurately forming more complex shapes and designs without the increased costs of forming intricate molds and eliminating extensive molding processes. Using molding for complex designs results in many design flaws and wasted materials.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the connection element is configured to house electrical wires or hydraulic pipes (Paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 3, wherein each connecting element comprises a central abutment (260), an external diameter of the central abutment being greater than an internal diameter of the duct (greater than d2).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of JP discloses a masonry structure comprising a plurality of 3D printed building elements according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above), said masonry structure comprising: a first layer comprising a plurality of said first blocks (lower blocks, Fig. 3 and 4), a second layer comprising a plurality of said second blocks superimposed on the first layer (Fig. 3 and 4), and a plurality of said connection elements (200) individually inserted into the first feedthrough openings of each first block of the first layer and into the second feedthrough openings of each second block in the second layer (Fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, wherein each connection element is filled with a reinforcing element (400, 410) in order to reinforce the overall masonry structure.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the reinforcing element is concrete (410).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of JP disclose a method for manufacturing a masonry structure of comprising a plurality of 3D printed building elements according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above), said method comprising the steps of: 3D printing a plurality of said first blocks and said second blocks (JP; Abstract; Page 3, lines 7-16), and manufacturing a masonry structure having a plurality of 3D printed building elements (Kim, Fig. 3 and 4).
Kim does not specifically disclose transporting said blocks and connecting elements to a building site.
Transportation of building materials to a building site is a notoriously well-known and necessary step when forming a masonry structure, the known steps are essentially required and do not yield unexpected results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have transported the building elements to the building site of Kim so to enable a user to actually build the structure on site.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising: placing a first layer of said first blocks on the ground (lower blocks, Fig. 3 and 4), superimposing a second layer of said second blocks on the first layer (second layer of blocks, Fig. 3 and 4), and individually inserting said plurality of said connection elements (200) into the first feedthrough opening of each first block and each second feedthrough opening of each second block (Fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses wherein the connection element houses electrical wires or hydraulic pipes (Paragraph [0034], [0091], [0134]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0002993 A1 to Kim in view of in view of JP 2021504065 A (JP herein) in view of US 10415241 B2 to Simonson.
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not specifically disclose further comprising comprises a plurality of anchoring elements connected to the plurality of first blocks of the first layer of the masonry structure.
Simonson discloses a plurality of anchoring elements (114) connected to the plurality of first blocks of the first layer of the masonry structure (Fig.9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided anchoring elements as taught by Simonson to the masonry structure of Kim so to anchor the masonry structure to the ground, thereby strengthening the masonry structure and preventing movement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bach does not teach blocks in which two separate connecting elements can be housed within the same duct. This is not a requirement of the present claims and therefore the arguments are deemed moot and not persuasive.
Further, Applicant argues that Knichenberg teaches away from pass-through duct structure and therefore Knichenberg’s blocks cannot be used for wiring pass-through. Knichenberg is used to teach the idea of having multiple ducts and multiple connecting elements and is not used to teach through ducts. The primary reference of Bach already teaches through ducts. Therefore, the arguments are not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights