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 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 1-10 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim states a third preformed hole “convenient” for the steel strands. It is unclear what applicant is intending to claim by the phrase convenient. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
The term “anchored deep” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deep” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “tightly” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With regard to claim 2, it is unclear what applicant is intending to claim by the phrase “of the s”. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
The term “firmly” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “firmly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With regard to claim 4, it is unclear what applicant is intending to claim by “adopts I14 or I16”. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claim 5, the claim states the first preformed holes have a hole diameter larger than the diameter of the steel strands contradicting parent claim 1 which states the first preformed hole has a diameter matching the diameter of the steel strand. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claim 6, the claim states the second preformed holes have a hole diameter larger than the diameter of the steel strands contradicting parent claim 1 which states the second preformed hole has a diameter matching the diameter of the steel strand. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claims 3 and 7-10 depend upon claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the independent claim(s). Tunnel constraints using steel strands and anchorage device are known such as those taught by Wang et al. (11,753,936) and Mirabile et al. (10,704,389). However, the cited prior art lacks the multiple anchorage plate and anchors in combinations with the longitudinal connection members and steel ribs as required by the independent claim(s) and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant’s invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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
01/30/2026