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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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.
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 1-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadknowski et al. (US 2021/0394441), further in view of Hamper et al. (EP4134216, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a 3D printing system for printing of cementitious material (ABSTRACT), comprising:
a mixer configured to mix the cementitious material (e.g., [0042], lines 1-12 (a concrete mixer));
a plurality of bins configured to hold and supply material to the mixer (e.g., [0068] (i.e., container/means/tanks for the supplying of dye from outside the device));
a pump configured to provide the cementitious material to the deposition nozzle (e.g., [0033], lines 12-17 (i.e., to force the plasticized material into the extruder sleeve (2) by means of a pump));
a deposition nozzle (e.g., item 106, Fig. 2 (i.e., [0049]); or item 7, Fig. 1 (i.e., [0042] (i.e., such a nozzle (7) can be supplied with concrete mortar through a hose/channel feeding the mortar, e.g., from a concrete mixer (lines 4-6)))) configured to extrude cementitious material (as shown in Fig. 1 or 2);
a heating element (e.g., item 105, Fig. 2 (i.e., [0048])) in communication with the deposition nozzle, the heating element configured to transfer heat to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the mixing and deposition nozzle; and
at least one sensor configured to generate temperature readings for the cementitious material (e.g., [0060], lines 1-13 (i.e., thermocouples)); and
a controller coupled with the at least one sensor, the pump and the bins, and configured to receive the temperature readings, and control the pump, the amount of material being supplied by the bins, and the heating element so as to ensure that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimum (e.g., the device is placed on a controlled manipulator, e.g., on a system of guides or on a robotic arm ([0042], lines 1-3); [0060], lines 1-7 from bottom (i.e., using a PID regulators/controllers)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller in the system of Rzadknowski thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized (e.g., as discussed in [0060]). At least, the controller in the teachings of Rzadknowski is capable of providing the temperature readings, and control the pump, the amount of material being supplied by the bins, and the heating element so as to ensure that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimum.
It is noticed that, the claimed features in the claim of the Applicant such as a mixture, a plurality of bins, a pump, a deposition nozzle, and a heating/cooling element are all common techniques in the 3D printing technology. As illustrated in Figs. 1, 2 in the teachings of Rzadknowski, these techniques are disclosed for printing plastic supports for printing the concrete building.
Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235
Rzadknowski discloses feeding the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle ([0042]). However, Rzadknowski does not explicitly disclose that a water connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the water connection configured to transfer water to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor, manufacturing concrete structures, Hamper discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a separate flushing water injection ring 54 with an injection nozzle for flushing water as an optional component is arranged between the connection piece 24 and the paint injection ring 52 (page 5, [0031], lines 240-242). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2 or 6, the connection piece 24 is directly facing the inlet 10 of the extruder (nozzle) (page 3, [0022]). Hamper discloses that, the flushing water injection serves for cleaning the downstream line sections during a cleaning phase (page 5, [0031], lines 244-245). In other words, Hamper discloses that, the transfer of the water from the flushing water injection ring is capable of providing a dynamically controlling of the volume at the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski to feed the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle as Hamper teaches that it is known to have a water connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the water connection configured to transfer water to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 2, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the extruder nozzle 106 receives material from the storage container 101, and wherein the extruder screw 104 may have a mixing section for mixing the material ([0044] - [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the return channel (107) is a modification that ensures more flexible operation of the device. … In such a situation, the flow through the extruder nozzle can be closed, and the flow through the return channel may be opened ([0061], lines 1-11). Further, Rzadknowski discloses that, in order to adjust the physical properties of the supports/formworks/structures being created, it is possible to adjust the size of the bubbles of the plastic being foamed ([0082], lines 1-3). It is noticed that, the changes of the bubbles of the plastic also means to change/control the volume of the plastic material.
Thus, by using of this type of the control of the volume of the material received at the nozzle, at least the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller in the system of Rzadknowski thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized (e.g., as discussed in [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Rzadknowski discloses that, preferably, the device additionally has a dye storage container or means for supplying of dye ([0007]). Rzadknowski does not discloses, an admixture connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the admixture connection configured to transfer one or more admixtures to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle; and the controller configured to dynamically control the transfer of the one or more admixtures to the nozzle via the admixture connection to provide dynamic volume control at the nozzle.
Hamper discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, at a separate injection device 82 for colorant (i.e., admixtures) with a colorant injection ring 52 (page 4, [0030], lines 235-237). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2 or 6, the colorant injection ring 52 is directly facing the inlet 10 of the extruder (nozzle) (page 3, [0022]). Hamper discloses that, the transfer of the admixtures from the colorant injection ring 52 is capable of providing a dynamically controlling of the volume at the nozzle (page 5, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski to feed the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle as Hamper teaches that it is known to have an admixture connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the admixture connection configured to transfer one or more admixtures to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle; and the controller configured to dynamically control the transfer of the one or more admixtures to the nozzle via the admixture connection to provide dynamic volume control at the nozzle. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claims 6, 7, Rzadknowski discloses that, the heater (105) or other additional heating means may be combined with the means for measuring the temperature so that the heater (105) or the additional heating means can operate in a feedback loop, e.g., using PID regulators ([0060], lines 1-4 from bottom). Rzadknowski discloses that, it is preferable to achieve a high pressure in the foaming part of the extruder, which pressure would allow to use a supercritical liquid as the blowing agent ([0074], lines 1-3). Rzadknowski discloses that, preferably, the motor/servomotor (102) can have adjustable rotational speed, making it possible to adjust the operating speed of the device (the output of the processed plastic) ([0057]). Rzadknowski discloses that, preferably, the device additionally has a dye (i.e., related to color) storage container or means for supplying of dye ([0007]). Rzadknowski discloses, heater (105) in the form of a spiral, which runs almost along the entire length of the extruder sleeve (103) ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller in the system of Rzadknowski thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized (e.g., as discussed in [0060]).
Regarding claims 8, 9, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the extruder nozzle 106 receives material from the storage container 101, and wherein the extruder screw 104 may have a mixing section for mixing the material ([0044] - [0049]). Rzadknowski discloses, heater (105) in the form of a spiral, which runs almost along the entire length of the extruder sleeve (103) ([0048]).
Further, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the return channel (107) is a modification that ensures more flexible operation of the device. … In such a situation, the flow through the extruder nozzle can be closed, and the flow through the return channel may be opened ([0061], lines 1-11). Further, Rzadknowski discloses that, in order to adjust the physical properties of the supports/formworks/structures being created, it is possible to adjust the size of the bubbles of the plastic being foamed ([0082], lines 1-3). It is noticed that, the changes of the bubbles of the plastic also means to change/control the volume of the plastic material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller in the system of Rzadknowski thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized (e.g., as discussed in [0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Rzadknowski discloses that, the controller is configured to:
(i) cause a gradual increase in temperature of the cementitious material prior to the deposition nozzle to advance hydration of the cementitious material toward an intermediate rheological state (it would be advisable to, e.g., heat the plastic incrementally for plasticizing the plastic ([0059], lines 8-9) ; it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, during the formation of the concrete structure 8 ([0097]), the cementitious material will experience hydration toward an intermediate rheological state prior to solidification based on its inherence behavior); and
(ii) control the heating element to further increase the temperature of the cementitious material within the deposition nozzle to achieve target fresh-state properties, intermediate-state properties, and hardened-state properties for three-dimensional printing (i.e., based on the inherence of the flowing of the cementitious material prior to exiting the deposition nozzle, the cementitious material will have/experience fresh-state properties, intermediate-state properties, and hardened-state properties for three-dimensional printing).
Regarding claim 20, Rzadknowski discloses that, the controller is configured to:
(i) cause cooling of the cementitious material upstream of the deposition nozzle to delay reactions and maintain a polymer admixture below a glass transition temperature prior to extrusion (it is noticed that, the blowing agent absorbs significant amounts of heat, which, in turn, may cause excessive cooling of the plastic being foamed and its premature hardening (i.e., the temperature is over below a glass transition temperature prior to extrusion) ([0060], lines 11-13); Thus, in the teachings of Rzadknowski, the cooling effect needs to controllable to maintain the plastics just below the glass transition temperature without its premature hardening); and
(ii) control the heating element to increase the temperature of the cementitious material within the deposition nozzle to achieve target fresh-state properties, intermediate-state properties, and hardened-state properties for three-dimensional printing (i.e., based on the inherence of the flowing of the cementitious material prior to exiting the deposition nozzle, the cementitious material will experience fresh-state properties, intermediate-state properties, and hardened-state properties for three-dimensional printing).
However, Rzadknowski does not explicitly disclose an accelerator in the mixture. Hamper discloses that, the extruder has an injection device for injecting a solidification (or hardening) accelerator into the liquid concrete stream.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski to feed the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle as Hamper teaches that it is known to have the extruder has an injection device for injecting a solidification (or hardening) accelerator into the liquid concrete stream. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rzadknowski et al. (US 2021/0394441) and Hamper et al. (EP4134216, English translation provided) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Ballard et al. (US 2022/0009162).
Regarding claim 5, Rzadknowski discloses that, preferably, the device additionally has a dye storage container or means for supplying of dye ([0007]). Rzadknowski does not discloses the material held by the binders include some of fibers, sand, cement binders, ice, water, and various admixtures.
In the same field of endeavor, 3d printing, Ballard discloses that, the harvesting and use of materials (e.g., regolith, soil, dust, minerals, ores, ice, dirt and possibly water extracted from the extraterrestrial body, etc.) is useful ([0009], lines 1-3). The regolith can be mixed with a binder solution composed of imported chemicals and minerals ([0056], lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski in the combination to have the 3D printing head as Ballard teaches that it is known to have the material held by the binders include some of fibers, sand, cement binders, ice, water, and various admixtures. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadknowski et al. (US 2021/0394441), further in view of Hamper et al. (EP4134216, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 10, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a 3D printing system for printing of cementitious material (ABSTRACT), comprising:
a mixer configured to mix the cementitious material (e.g., [0042], lines 1-12 (a concrete mixer));
a plurality of bins configured to hold and supply material to the mixer (e.g., [0068] (i.e., container/means/tanks for the supplying of dye from outside the device));
a pump configured to provide the cementitious material to the deposition nozzle (e.g., [0033], lines 12-17 (i.e., to force the plasticized material into the extruder sleeve (2) by means of a pump));
a deposition nozzle (e.g., item 106, Fig. 2 (i.e., [0049]); or item 7, Fig. 1 (i.e., [0042] (i.e., such a nozzle (7) can be supplied with concrete mortar through a hose/channel feeding the mortar, e.g., from a concrete mixer (lines 4-6))) configured to extrude cementitious material (as shown in Fig. 1 or 2);
a heating element (e.g., item 105, Fig. 2 (i.e., [0048])) in communication with the deposition nozzle, the heating element configured to transfer heat to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the mixing and deposition nozzle; and
at least one sensor configured to generate temperature readings for the cementitious material (e.g., [0060], lines 1-13 (i.e., thermocouples)); and
a controller coupled with the at least one sensor, the pump and the bins, and configured to receive the temperature readings, and control the pump, the amount of material being supplied by the bins, and the heating element so as to ensure that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimum (e.g., the device is placed on a controlled manipulator, e.g., on a system of guides or on a robotic arm ([0042], lines 1-3); [0060], lines 1-7 from bottom (i.e., using a PID regulators/controllers)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller in the system of Rzadknowski thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized (e.g., as discussed in [0060]). At least, the controller in the teachings of Rzadknowski is capable of providing the temperature readings, and control the pump, the amount of material being supplied by the bins, and the heating element so as to ensure that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimum.
Rzadknowski discloses that, preferably, the device additionally has a dye storage container or means for supplying of dye ([0007]). Rzadknowski does not discloses, an admixture connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the admixture connection configured to transfer one or more admixtures to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle; and the controller configured to dynamically control the transfer of the one or more admixtures to the nozzle via the admixture connection to provide dynamic volume control at the nozzle.
Hamper discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, at a separate injection device 82 for colorant (i.e., admixtures) with a colorant injection ring 52 (page 4, [0030], lines 235-237). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2 or 6, the colorant injection ring 52 is directly facing the inlet 10 of the extruder (nozzle) (page 3, [0022]). Hamper discloses that, the transfer of the admixtures from the colorant injection ring 52 is capable of providing a dynamically controlling of the volume at the nozzle (page 5, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski to feed the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle as Hamper teaches that it is known to have an admixture connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the admixture connection configured to transfer one or more admixtures to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle; and the controller configured to dynamically control the transfer of the one or more admixtures to the nozzle via the admixture connection to provide dynamic volume control at the nozzle. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 11, Rzadknowski discloses feeding the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle ([0042]). However, Rzadknowski does not explicitly disclose that a water connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the water connection configured to transfer water to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor, manufacturing concrete structures, Hamper discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a separate flushing water injection ring 54 with an injection nozzle for flushing water as an optional component is arranged between the connection piece 24 and the paint injection ring 52 (page 5, [0031], lines 240-242). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2 or 6, the connection piece 24 is directly facing the inlet 10 of the extruder (nozzle) (page 3, [0022]). Hamper discloses that, the flushing water injection serves for cleaning the downstream line sections during a cleaning phase (page 5, [0031], lines 244-245). In other words, Hamper discloses that, the transfer of the water from the flushing water injection ring is capable of providing a dynamically controlling of the volume at the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski to feed the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle as Hamper teaches that it is known to have a water connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the water connection configured to transfer water to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claims 13, 14, Rzadknowski discloses that, the heater (105) or other additional heating means may be combined with the means for measuring the temperature so that the heater (105) or the additional heating means can operate in a feedback loop, e.g., using PID regulators ([0060], lines 1-4 from bottom). Rzadknowski discloses that, it is preferable to achieve a high pressure in the foaming part of the extruder, which pressure would allow to use a supercritical liquid as the blowing agent ([0074], lines 1-3). Rzadknowski discloses that, preferably, the motor/servomotor (102) can have adjustable rotational speed, making it possible to adjust the operating speed of the device (the output of the processed plastic) ([0057]). Rzadknowski discloses that, preferably, the device additionally has a dye (i.e., related to color) storage container or means for supplying of dye ([0007]). Rzadknowski discloses, heater (105) in the form of a spiral, which runs almost along the entire length of the extruder sleeve (103) ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller in the system of Rzadknowski thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized (e.g., as discussed in [0060]).
Regarding claims 15, 16, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the extruder nozzle 106 receives material from the storage container 101, and wherein the extruder screw 104 may have a mixing section for mixing the material ([0044] - [0049]). Rzadknowski discloses, heater (105) in the form of a spiral, which runs almost along the entire length of the extruder sleeve (103) ([0048]).
Further, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the return channel (107) is a modification that ensures more flexible operation of the device. … In such a situation, the flow through the extruder nozzle can be closed, and the flow through the return channel may be opened ([0061], lines 1-11). Further, Rzadknowski discloses that, in order to adjust the physical properties of the supports/formworks/structures being created, it is possible to adjust the size of the bubbles of the plastic being foamed ([0082], lines 1-3). It is noticed that, the changes of the bubbles of the plastic also means to change/control the volume of the plastic material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller in the system of Rzadknowski thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized (e.g., as discussed in [0060]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rzadknowski et al. (US 2021/0394441) and Hamper et al. (EP4134216, English translation provided) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Ballard et al. (US 2022/0009162).
Regarding claim 12, Rzadknowski discloses that, preferably, the device additionally has a dye storage container or means for supplying of dye ([0007]). However, Rzadknowski does not discloses the material held by the binders include some of fibers, sand, cement binders, ice, water, and various admixtures.
In the same field of endeavor, 3d printing, Ballard discloses that, the harvesting and use of materials (e.g., regolith, soil, dust, minerals, ores, ice, dirt and possibly water extracted from the extraterrestrial body, etc.) is useful ([0009], lines 1-3). The regolith can be mixed with a binder solution composed of imported chemicals and minerals ([0056], lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski in the combination to have the 3D printing head as Ballard teaches that it is known to have the material held by the binders include some of fibers, sand, cement binders, ice, water, and various admixtures. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadknowski et al. (US 2021/0394441), further in view of Hamper et al. (EP4134216, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 17, Rzadknowski discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a 3D printing system for printing of cementitious material (ABSTRACT), comprising:
a mixer configured to mix the cementitious material (e.g., [0042], lines 1-12 (a concrete mixer));
a plurality of bins configured to hold and supply material to the mixer (e.g., [0068] (i.e., container/means/tanks for the supplying of dye from outside the device));
a pump configured to provide the cementitious material to the deposition nozzle (e.g., [0033], lines 12-17 (i.e., to force the plasticized material into the extruder sleeve (2) by means of a pump));
a deposition nozzle (e.g., item 106, Fig. 2 (i.e., [0049]); or item 7, Fig. 1 (i.e., [0042] (i.e., such a nozzle (7) can be supplied with concrete mortar through a hose/channel feeding the mortar, e.g., from a concrete mixer (lines 4-6)))) configured to extrude cementitious material (as shown in Fig. 1 or 2);
a heating element (e.g., item 105, Fig. 2 (i.e., [0048])) in communication with the deposition nozzle, the heating element configured to transfer heat to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the mixing and deposition nozzle; and
at least one sensor configured to generate temperature readings for the cementitious material (e.g., [0060], lines 1-13 (i.e., thermocouples)); and
a controller coupled with the at least one sensor, the pump and the bins, and configured to receive the temperature readings, and control the pump, the amount of material being supplied by the bins, and the heating element so as to ensure that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimum (e.g., the device is placed on a controlled manipulator, e.g., on a system of guides or on a robotic arm ([0042], lines 1-3); [0060], lines 1-7 from bottom (i.e., using a PID regulators/controllers)).
(i) cause a gradual increase in temperature of the cementitious material prior to the deposition nozzle to advance hydration of the cementitious material toward an intermediate rheological state (it would be advisable to, e.g., heat the plastic incrementally for plasticizing the plastic ([0059], lines 8-9) ; it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, during the formation of the concrete structure 8 ([0097]), the cementitious material will experience hydration toward an intermediate rheological state prior to solidification based on its inherence behavior); and
(ii) control the heating element to further increase the temperature of the cementitious material within the deposition nozzle to achieve target fresh-state properties, intermediate-state properties, and hardened-state properties for three-dimensional printing (i.e., based on the inherence of the flowing of the cementitious material prior to exiting the deposition nozzle, the cementitious material will experience fresh-state properties, intermediate-state properties, and hardened-state properties for three-dimensional printing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a controller in the system of Rzadknowski thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimized (e.g., as discussed in [0060]). At least, the controller in the teachings of Rzadknowski is capable of providing the temperature readings, and control the pump, the amount of material being supplied by the bins, and the heating element so as to ensure that the hardening process of the cementitious material is optimum.
Rzadknowski discloses feeding the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle ([0042]). However, Rzadknowski does not explicitly disclose that a water connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the water connection configured to transfer water to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor, manufacturing concrete structures, Hamper discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a separate flushing water injection ring 54 with an injection nozzle for flushing water as an optional component is arranged between the connection piece 24 and the paint injection ring 52 (page 5, [0031], lines 240-242). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2 or 6, the connection piece 24 is directly facing the inlet 10 of the extruder (nozzle) (page 3, [0022]). Hamper discloses that, the flushing water injection serves for cleaning the downstream line sections during a cleaning phase (page 5, [0031], lines 244-245). In other words, Hamper discloses that, the transfer of the water from the flushing water injection ring is capable of providing a dynamically controlling of the volume at the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski to feed the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle as Hamper teaches that it is known to have a water connection in communication with the deposition nozzle, the water connection configured to transfer water to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the deposition nozzle. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 18, Rzadknowski discloses that, the controller is configured to:
(i) cause cooling of the cementitious material upstream of the deposition nozzle to delay reactions and maintain a polymer admixture below a glass transition temperature prior to extrusion (it is noticed that, the blowing agent absorbs significant amounts of heat, which, in turn, may cause excessive cooling of the plastic being foamed and its premature hardening (i.e., the temperature is over below a glass transition temperature prior to extrusion) ([0060], lines 11-13); Thus, in the teachings of Rzadknowski, the cooling effect needs to controllable to maintain the plastics just below the glass transition temperature for its proper hardening); and
(ii) control the heating element to increase the temperature of the cementitious material within the deposition nozzle to achieve target fresh-state properties, intermediate-state properties, and hardened-state properties for three-dimensional printing (i.e., based on the inherence of the flowing of the cementitious material prior to exiting the deposition nozzle, the cementitious material will experience fresh-state properties, intermediate-state properties, and hardened-state properties for three-dimensional printing).
However, Rzadknowski does not explicitly disclose an accelerator in the mixture. Hamper discloses that, the extruder has an injection device for injecting a solidification (or hardening) accelerator into the liquid concrete stream.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Rzadknowski to feed the concrete mortar to the deposition nozzle as Hamper teaches that it is known to have the extruder has an injection device for injecting a solidification (or hardening) accelerator into the liquid concrete stream. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that Rzadknowski is not a proper primary for the claimed invention because the cited disclosures are directed to the printing of plastic material rather than the printing of cementitious material recited in the claims, it is not persuasive.
In [0003], [0075], and [0076] of the teachings of the base reference Rzadknowski, for example, subsequent layers of the concrete building are deposited in the incremental technique ([0076], lines 1-3).
Rzadknowski is teaching how to print the concrete structures by using of proper support structures.
Specifically, the claimed features in claim 1 of the Applicant such as a mixture, a plurality of bins, a pump, a deposition nozzle, and a heating/cooling element are all common techniques in the 3D printing technology. As illustrated in Figs. 1, 2 in the teachings of Rzadknowski, these techniques are disclosed for printing plastic supports for printing the concrete building.
Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Note: In re Pearson 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush 177 USPQ 705, 706 In re Otto et al 136 USPQ 458.
Applicant’s arguments (as amended) with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and newly added claims 17, 18, 19, 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noticed that, in the newly added claims 18, 20, the cementitious material with a polymer admixture is printed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights