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 § 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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0009023) alone.
As to Claim 1, Bower discloses a self-stabilizing integrally-molded pillar filling structure for underground mines, comprising:
An airbag (11), wherein the airbag is provided with a feed filling port (15) and a gas inflation port (18. During the bag inflation process, gas passes through port 18 to relieve pressure from within bag 11);
A telescopic bearing piece (16, 19), wherein the telescopic bearing piece is fixedly provided (via 19) on an inner surface of the airbag (11) and is capable of expanding and contracting with volume change of an inner cavity of the airbag (Compare Figures 4 and 2); and
Hoops (21), wherein the hoops are fixedly provided on an outer surface of the airbag (Paragraph 0024: “Bag 11 is provided external reinforcement retainer wire 21, of various pitches, which spirally encompasses bag 11 and is bonded to or secured to bag 11. Bonding methods include embedding the wire or cable in overlap seams of the fabric of which bag 11 is constructed, encapsulating the wire or cable under a separated strip of fabric bonded to bag 11, or attaching other types of reinforcement material to provide external reinforcement to retain bag 11 against undue bulging in the transverse direction as it is being filled, or when being compressed under actual use after completion of the installation”. Paragraph 0029: “For alternate embodiments, the reinforcement retainer 21 and 22 need not necessarily be spiraled wire and may instead consist of wire mesh, wire hoops, cable or chain link fencing which may be preferably provided in collapsible form”).
Although Bower is silent about the specific material of the hoops, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to make the hoops of steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Steel is a well-known material to use in structural applications.
Claims 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0009023) in view of Skarbovig (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0231085).
As to Claim 2, Bower as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Bower as modified also teaches wherein the telescopic bearing piece comprises a plurality of inner layer strips and a plurality of outer layer strips. (Bower - Paragraph 0025: “The internal cylindrical mesh reinforcement 16 is also provided with an external retainer 22 in the form of spiraling wire encompassing the exterior of inner reinforcement 16. Reinforcing wire 22 is bonded to or secured within the spiral overlap construction seams of the mesh of reinforcement 16. Bonding methods include embedding the wire or cable in overlap seams of the mesh of which internal mesh reinforcement 16 is constructed, encapsulating the wire or cable under a separated strip of mesh bonded to internal mesh reinforcement 16, or attaching other types of reinforcement material to provide internal reinforcement to retain internal mesh reinforcement 16 against undue bulging in the transverse direction when being compressed under actual use after completion of the installation”). However, Bower as modified is silent about the inner layer strips and the outer layer strips are hinged in pairs to form a telescopic rhombic net structure. Skarbovig disclose an inner layer strip (Figure 25: 80) and an outer later strip (Figure 25: 82) hinged in pairs (Figure 25: at 83) to form a telescopic rhombic net structure. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the inner layer strips and the outer layer strips hinged in pairs to form a telescopic rhombic net structure. The motivation would have been to secure the elements together.
As to Claim 3, Bower as modified teaches the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). Although Bower as modified does not explicitly teach wherein each of the inner layer strips and the outer layer strips is integrally molded by pressing carbon fiber and graphite fiber at a ratio of 2:1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to make each of the inner layer strips and the outer layer strips is integrally molded by pressing carbon fiber and graphite fiber at a ratio of 2:1 since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
As to Claim 4, Bower as modified teaches the invention of Claim 3 (Refer to Claim 3 discussion). Although Bower as modified does not explicitly teach wherein a width of each of the inner layer strips and the outer layer strips is 50 mm, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make a width of each of the inner layer strips and the outer layer strips of 50 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 5, Bower as modified teaches the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). Bower as modified also teaches wherein the inner layer strips and the outer layer strips are hinged pipes (Skarbovig: 83). Although Bower as modified does not explicitly teach that the hinged pipes are hot-dip galvanized steel pipes, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to make the hinged pipes of hot-dip galvanized steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0009023) in view of Skarbovig (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0231085); and further in view of Frederick (U.S. Patent No. 5,308,196).
As to Claim 6, Bower as modified teaches the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). However, Bower as modified is silent about wherein a bottom of the airbag is provided with a sliding rail, and lowermost ones of the inner layer strips and/or outer layer strips are slidably connected with the sliding rail. Frederick discloses a bottom of an airbag (1) provided with a sliding rail (4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the bottom of the airbag with a sliding rail, and lowermost ones of the inner layer strips and/or outer layer strips are slidably connected with the sliding rail. The motivation would have been to provide reinforcements at the bottom of the rail. Since the bag of Bower as modified contains inner and outer layer strips and the bag can be slid over the rails 4, then the strips as part of the bag would also be slidably connected to the rail.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678