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 Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wt. - %” should be “wt. %” or “wt.%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 16 is 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 claim 16, the claim recites “the deposition head” at line 4. The recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Memari et al. (US 2021/0396012).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 14, and 17, Memari et al. teach a method of placing a flowable construction material comprising a hydraulic cement and aggregates for building structural and architectural components layer-by- layer, said method comprising: conveying the flowable construction material to a deposition head, placing the construction material through an outlet of the deposition head while moving the deposition head, in order to form a layer of construction material, wherein successive layers of construction material are placed on top of each other (paragraphs [0007], [0009] – cement, aggregate, water; [0018], [0020], [0027], [0035]-[0038], [0057], [0060] – water reducer; [0069] – pumped; [0120]-[0123]; Figure 11), wherein the aggregates comprise recycled concrete aggregates (paragraph [0074]).
As to claim 10, Memari et al. teach adding layers and these layers do not collapse (paragraphs [0067] and [0068]). As such, the required adjustment is understood to have taken place to the extent required by the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Memari et al. teach a method comprising providing a construction material comprising a hydraulic cement and aggregates for building structural and architectural components layer-by-layer and placing the construction material through an outlet of the deposition head while moving the deposition head, in order to form a layer of construction material, wherein successive layers of construction materials are placed on top of each other (paragraphs [0007], [0009] – cement, aggregate, water; [0018], [0020], [0027], [0035]-[0038], [0057], [0060] – water reducer; [0069] – pumped; [0120]-[0123]; Figure 11), wherein the aggregates comprise recycled concrete aggregates (paragraph [0074]).
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.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 2021/0261461) in view of any one of Mo et al. (US 2021/0129377), Le Roux (US 2020/0284025), White et al. (US 2017/0365365) or Austin et al. (US 2014/0252668).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Xiao et al. teach a method of placing a flowable construction material comprising a hydraulic cement and aggregates for building structural and architectural components layer-by- layer (Abstract; paragraphs [0002]-[0009] and [0073]-[0075]) said method comprising: conveying the flowable construction material to a deposition head/printer and placing the construction material through an outlet of the deposition head in order to form a layer of construction material, wherein successive layers of construction material are placed on top of each other (paragraphs [0046]-[0048], [0055]-[0062], [0076], [0078], [0080] and [0082]), wherein the aggregates comprise recycled concrete aggregates (Abstract; paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0012], [0023]-[0028], [0063]-[0068], and [0087] Table 1). Xiao et al. do not explicitly teach the corresponding deposition head/printer is moving during the forming of the layers.
However, each of Mo et al. (Figure 1; paragraphs [0020]-[0023]), Le Roux (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0041], [0044] and [0081]), White et al. (Figures 1, 2 and 5; paragraphs [0058] and [0061]) or Austin et al. (Abstract; Figures 1 and 4; paragraphs [0050] and [0089]) teach analogous methods wherein the deposition head is moved to form the layers.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Xiao et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have moved the corresponding deposition head of Xiao et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively depositing sufficient quantities of the cement in a rapid and cost effective manner.
As to claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 18, Xiao et al. teach and suggest amounts of aggregates and recycled concrete aggregates that include amounts within and that overlap the claimed ranges and further suggest optimizing these levels, as required to achieve a desired product (paragraphs [0005]-[0009], [0015]-[0017], [0074], [0075], [0077], [0079], [0081] and [0087]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
As to claims 4, 5, and 19, Xiao et al. teach and suggest particle sizes within and which overlap the claimed ranges (paragraphs [0012], [0021]-[0035]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
As to claims 6-8 and 20, Xiao et al. teach and suggest utilizing the same claimed and disclosed ingredients. The same claimed effects and physical properties would be realized or rendered prima facie obvious based on the teaching of Xiao et al.
As to claims 10 and 11, the combination suggests effectively building a layered structure and this structure does not collapse. It follows that the same claimed adjustment is performed or suggested to the extent required. Further, Xiao et al. teach and suggest utilizing the same claimed and disclosed ingredients. The same claimed effects and physical properties would be realized or rendered prima facie obvious based on the teaching of Xiao et al.
As to claim 14, Xiao et al teach and suggest a water reducer as claimed (paragraphs [0046]-[0048], [0055]-[0062], [0076]-[0078], [0080] and [0082]).
Regarding claim 16 Xiao et al. teach a method comprising providing a construction material comprising a hydraulic cement and aggregates for building structural and architectural components layer-by-layer (Abstract; paragraphs [0002]-[0009] and [0073]-[0075]) and placing the construction material through an outlet of the deposition head in order to form a layer of construction material, wherein successive layers of construction materials are placed on top of each other (paragraphs [0046]-[0048], [0055]-[0062], [0076], [0078], [0080] and [0082]), wherein the aggregates comprise recycled concrete aggregates (Abstract; paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0012], [0023]-[0028], [0063]-[0068], and [0087] Table 1). Xiao et al. do not explicitly teach the corresponding deposition head/printer is moving during the forming of the layers.
However, each of Mo et al. (Figure 1; paragraphs [0020]-[0023]), Le Roux (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0041], [0044] and [0081]), White et al. (Figures 1, 2 and 5; paragraphs [0058] and [0061]) or Austin et al. (Abstract; Figures 1 and 4; paragraphs [0050] and [0089]) teach analogous methods wherein the deposition head is moved to form the layers.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Xiao et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have moved the corresponding deposition head of Xiao et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively depositing sufficient quantities of the cement in a rapid and cost effective manner.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 2021/0261461) in view of any one of Mo et al. (US 2021/0129377), Le Roux (US 2020/0284025), White et al. (US 2017/0365365) or Austin et al. (US 2014/0252668), as applied to claims 1-14 and 16-20 above, and further in view of or Austin et al. (US 2014/0252668).
As to claim 15, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Xiao et al. do not teach an admixture is added as claimed. However, Austin et al. teach an analogous method wherein an admixture is added as claimed (Figure 4; paragraph [0068]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Xiao et al. Austin et al. and to included an admixture as claimed to the head of Xiao et al., as suggested by any Austin e al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively facilitating the pumping/extrusion of the material through the system and to the build surface. Each of the alternative secondary references remain applicable for the teaching they are relied upon. In this rejection, Austin et al. is additionally and specifically relied upon for the additional limitation set forth in claim 15.
Claims 2-8, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memari et al. (US 2021/0396012), as applied to claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 17 above.
As to claims 2-8, 11-13, 15 and 18-20, Memari et al. teach the method set forth above. Further, Memari et al. teach amounts of materials (e.g. aggregates, Portland cement) and sizes of material that overlap the claimed ranges (paragraphs [0029]-[0032], [0059]-[0065], [0072]-[0080]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. Further, the selection of amounts and sizes of the disclosed materials is understood to be a routine expedient as set forth and suggested by the reference. Further, Memari et al. teach and disclose the same claimed and disclosed materials. It follows that the same claimed properties and effects would be realized or rendered prima facie obvious by practicing the method of Memari et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memari et al. (US 2021/0396012), as applied to claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 17 above, and further in view of or Austin et al. (US 2014/0252668).
As to claim 15, Memari et al. teach method set forth above. Memari et al. do not teach an admixture is added as claimed. However, Austin et al. teach an analogous method wherein an admixture is added as claimed (Figure 4; paragraph [0068]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Memari et al. and et al. Austin et al. and to have included an admixture as claimed to the head of Memari et al. et al., as suggested by any Austin e al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively facilitating the pumping/extrusion of the material through the system and to the build surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
