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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 21 May and 29 May 2026 have been entered.
Reference #3 in the IDS dated 21 May has not been considered because no copy has been provided.
The claim amendment dated 29 May does not comply with 37CFR1.126 because the new claims are numbered 127 and 128, but the highest number previous claim was 137. In order to expedite prosecution Examiner has renumbered claim 127 as 138 and claim 128 as 139 in compliance with rule 126.
Claims 95 and 98-125 are allowed.
Following renumbering of claims, claims 95, 98-125 and 138-139 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant proposes (page 6 of reply dated 29 May) that “claims 127 and 128 include all features of independent Claim 95, which has been allowed.” [claims 138 and 139 as renumbered]
This proposed claim interpretation is unduly narrow because the plain language of claims 138 and 139 indicate that they are not method claims but are apparatus claims (“A…infrastructure”). Furthermore, these new claims do not recite any method steps. Examiner finds that the reference to method claim 95 is an intended use of the apparatus set forth in the new claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 138-139 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US473734 FORRESTER which described an infrastructure including at least two slots ( H) in a rock mass; pillar of rock mass (pillars K located between each slot H); production raise (leftmost H ) and production stope (“undermine or blast…from below upward” lines 63-65 would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to describe a production stope) as required by claim 138 . FORRESTER is silent as to the "in order to create a favorable stress environment", but as FORRESTER discloses "without any danger whatever to the miners" and does not illustrate or describe any extensive or expensive support measures it is apparent that the stress environment is favorable.
Regarding claim 139: FORRESTER does not explicitly describe the associated with a stress shadow, but the stress shadow is an inherent1 result of creating the slot(s).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 5712725405. 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.
/Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1 See Geomechanical effects of stress shadow created by large-scale destress blasting, Vennes, et al. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1085-1093
Prosecution Insights