DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 10/20/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/20/2025. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPH11131999 A) in view of Maltby (2005/0042037).
With regard to claim 1 and 15, Tanaka discloses a carbon fiber rock bolt (R) including: an outer carbon fiber rope (2; para 0010) comprising a series of tow fibers (20); an inner core material (1).
Tanaka discloses the inner core material is flexible (para 0013) however fails to explicitly state as the tension on the rock bolt increases beyond a predetermined limit, the inner core material undergoes a spatial compression as the carbon fiber rope undergoes axial extension (para 0006 .
Maltby discloses a rock bolt with a flexible inner core wherein as the tension on the rock bolt increases beyond a predetermined limit, the inner core material undergoes a spatial compression (para 0022 wherein the center wire deforms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka and utilize an inner core member that undergoes spatial compression as taught in Maltby, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the outer fiber rope to extend as desired.
With regard to claim 8, Tanaka, as modified, further disclose said inner core is formed of a solid material (Maltby, fig. 2).
With regard to claim 9, Tanaka, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as the core being a polymer. The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one may form the device by any known means, to include 3D printing and extrusion.
With regard to claim 10, Tanaka further discloses the fiber is anchored to a surface using one of a resin capsule, pumpable resin or a mechanical anchor (para 0028).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPH11131999 A) in view of Maltby (2005/0042037), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sicomin (“Flexible epoxy systems”).
With regard to claim 2-4, Tanaka, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as the carbon fiber rope is impregnated with a resin (para 0006-0007), however fails to explicitly state the resin is a high extension resin wherein the degree of extension is about 130%.
Sicomin discloses high extension resins wherein the degree of extension of the resin is about 130% (pg. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Tanaka and utilize a high extension resin as taught in Sicomin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the resin to extend with the rock bolt.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPH11131999 A) in view of Maltby (2005/0042037), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lambert (8,746,074).
With regard to claim 5, Tanaka discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding said carbon fiber rope includes at least one strain sensitive optical fiber axially formed in the rope.
Lambert discloses placing at least one strain sensitive optical fiber (14) axially in the rope (10; col. 1, line 45 – col. 2, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Tanaka and utilize a strain fiber as taught in Lambert, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to measure stress within the bolt.
With regard to claim 14, Tanaka, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the direction of twist of adjacent carbon fiber filaments is alternated.
Lambert further discloses alternating filaments (col. 2, lines 13-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Tanaka and utilize alternating filaments as taught in Lambert, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain torque balance as known within the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPH11131999 A) in view of Maltby (2005/0042037), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hutchins (6,779,950).
With regard to claim 6, Tanaka, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding said inner core includes a series of axial cavities formed therein.
Hutchins discloses a rock bolt comprising an inner core includes a series of axial cavities formed therein (fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Tanaka and utilize an inner core includes a series of axial cavities as taught in Hutchins, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to align the outer rope.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPH11131999 A) in view of Maltby (2005/0042037), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rataj et al. (7,381,013).
With regard to claims 11-12, Tanaka, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a tensioning member at one end that includes one of a torque tensioning member, a hydraulic ramp, a rig mast or cable drum arrangement, or an expandable foam or core.
Rataj discloses a rock bolt with a torque tensioning member (104) at one end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Tanaka and utilize a tensioning member as taught in Rataj, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to apply torque to the bolt.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPH11131999 A) in view of Maltby (2005/0042037), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fox (8,550,751).
With regard to claim 13, Tanaka, as modified, disclose the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding said cable is terminated using either an encapsulation sleeve or socket arrangement, a wedge locking arrangement, a swaged sleeve or thimble arrangement, or a wire grip type member.
Fox discloses a rock bolt that is terminated in a swaged sleeve (12b; col. 4, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Tanaka and utilize a swaged sleeve as taught in Fox, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to hold the strands together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see reasons for indication of allowable subject matter in the office action dated 05/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Tanka in view of Maltby, the examiner disagrees. The examiner contends that the rockbolt has a tensile strength before deformation occurs, which meets the limitations of a predetermined limit. As the rockbolt of Tanka inv view of Maltby is subjected to a tensile load and deforms, spatial compression of the inner core occurs.
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 BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
01/09/2026