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 Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “by means of an anchoring agent” in claim 8. The term “anchoring agent” is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification to have definite meaning as structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change the “out sleeve” to read –the outer sleeve--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change the “out sleeve” to read –the outer sleeve--. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11867062. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the structure defined in the instant claims is anticipated by the method of the patent claim. In other words, the device claimed in the instant application could not be sued without infringing on the patent.
In particular; the patent claimed a deformable anchor cable (clm1, line 1), wherein the anchor cable comprises an outer sleeve(clm1, line 1), a shrinkage pipe(clm1, line 11), an inner sleeve(claim 1, line 13), a steel strand(clm1, line 14), an anchor(clm1, line 14), a tray(clm1, line 14) and a nut (claim 1 line 52); wherein the outer sleeve is of steel tube (“steel pipe” claim 7), which contains the inner sleeve (“inserting” claim 1 line 42) and the shrinkage pipe (claim 1 line 34), the outer sleeve has a thread for fitting with the nut at an outer end (claim 1 line 53), wherein the shrinkage pipe is of steel tube(“steel pipe” claim 7), which is fixed to an inner end of the outer sleeve close to depths of a drilled hole (claim 1 line 34), the shrinkage pipe comprises a necked section (claim 1 line 16) and an equal-diameter section (claim 1 line 17), the outer diameter of the necked section remains unchanged, the inner diameter of the necked section gradually shrinks, and the outer diameter and inner diameter of the equal-diameter section remain unchanged (claim 1 line 21); wherein the inner sleeve is of steel tube (“steel pipe” claim 7), the outer diameter of the inner sleeve is matched with the inner diameter of the outer sleeve (claim 2) and the steel strand is able to passes through the inner sleeve (“inner sleeve to sleeve the steel strand” claim 1 line 43), the anchor is in contact with the outer end of the inner sleeve (claim 2), enabling the anchor to squeeze the inner sleeve after the anchor cable is stressed (claim 2), wherein the steel strand is fixed in depths of an anchor hole by means of an anchoring agent at one end (alim 1 line 33), and is fixed to the outer end of the anchor hole by the anchor at the other end (claim 1line 45), wherein the anchor is in the outer sleeve and is in contact with the inner sleeve “sleeved by the outer sleeve” claim 1 line 48), the anchor fixes the outer end of the steel strand and squeezes the inner sleeve under a tensile force of the steel strand (claim 1 line 58), wherein the tray sleeves an exposed part of the outer sleeve (claim 1 line 49), enabling an end of the tray to abut against the nut (claim 1 line 53); wherein the nut fits with the thread at the outer end of the out sleeve as recited in claim 8.
The limitations of claim 9 are found in patent claim 2.
The limitations of claim 10 are found in patent claim 3.
The limitations of claim 11 are found in patent claim 6.
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