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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “clearance” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a clearance is present between the sleeve and the peg”. This limitation is indefinite because this “clearance” can be located at any number of positions between different portions of the sleeve/peg features and it is unclear as to where exactly it is intended to be – particularly without the lack of support from the drawings and specification.
Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected for being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Evans (WO 2017/100818 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7 and 18, Evans discloses A hybrid bolt designed to be inserted in a borehole having a borehole wall, the hybrid bolt comprising: a sleeve [110] having a first sleeve-end and an expandable second sleeve-end featuring a longitudinal slit extending the length between the first sleeve end and the second sleeve end, and narrowing at said second sleeve end [Figures 1, 2, 4, 5, & 7], the sleeve having a default external diameter that decreases towards the second sleeve end [Figures 2-4]; and a threaded peg [130] having a first peg-end and a second peg-end wherein the peg has a diameter increasing toward the second peg-end thereby providing a frustoconical surface about the second peg-end [Figures 1-24, wherein the peg is inserted in the sleeve with the first peg-end opposed to the second sleeve-end, wherein throughout a substantial longitudinal portion of the sleeve, a clearance is present between the sleeve and the peg allowing to radially compress the sleeve to temporarily adopt a smaller external diameter when the sleeve is inserted in the borehole [clearance between the outer diameter of the peg and outer diameter of the sleeve; Figures 2-4], and wherein the hybrid bolt, when the peg is pulled towards the first sleeve end, has the frustoconical surface pushing outwards the second sleeve-end which becomes thereby wedged between the frustoconical surface and the borehole wall [see installed configurations; Figures 12-14 & 18-20].
Regarding claims 2-4, Evans further discloses a wedge ring [180] with a longitudinal groove parallel to the slit of the sleeve [Figures 2-4] with an outwardly extending lip adapted to but against the second sleeve end [shoulder at 111; Figure 4].
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (WO 2017/100818 A1) in view of Gauthier et al. (US 4971494).
Regarding claim 5, Evans fails to disclose the wedge ring extends within the sleeve.
Gauthier teaches an anchor bolt [11-13] having a wedge ring [20] that extends within the sleeve [3].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Evans by substituting the internal wedge ring as described by Gauthier to reduce the undesired movement and potential dislodging of the sleeve/wedge ring while the bolt is being inserted into the ground, thereby decreasing failure rates.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (WO 2017/100818 A1) in view of Kuhlmann (US 4112813).
Evans fails to disclose the sleeve having a key groove and the peg having a key protruding from the body for interconnection therewith.
Kuhlmann teaches an anchor bolt having a sleeve with a key groove [10; Figures 1 & 2].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Evans by adding the key groove as described by Kuhlmann to provide a mechanical indicator to alert when abutting ring [11] is adequately pulled into an installation position such that the installer knows to stop and not pull too far potentially compromising the bolt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 and 20 are 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: The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest – either alone or in combination – the key groove of the rock bolt extends from the first sleeve-end, and the peg comprises a body and a key protruding from the body, wherein the key is adapted to take place in the key groove; as explicitly recited in the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Busler (US 4074609) discloses a rock bolt having a wedge ring similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619