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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Species I: directed to the embodiment of Fig. 1; a rock bolt comprising a cable bolt positioned between the outer surface of a friction bolt and the inner wall of a borehole; claims 7 - 13 and 15
Species II: directed to the embodiment of Fig. 5; a rock bolt comprising a cable bolt positioned within a friction tube; claim 14
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: claims 1 - 6
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Species I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. As described above, Species I is directed to a rock bolt comprising a cable bolt positioned between the outer surface of a friction bolt and the inner wall of a borehole while Species II is directed to a rock bolt comprising a cable bolt positioned within a friction tube.
During a telephone conversation with Corinne Gorski on 21 January 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 1 - 13 and 15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 14 has been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 October 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “50” has been used to designate both “cable” and “cable bolt”; and reference character “64” has been used to designate both “inside wall” and “hole”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “381”, “82”, and “84”.
The drawings are objected to because:
The markings used in Figs. 6 and 7 are blurry and it is not possible for Examiner to identify and distinguish between the various structural elements shown in the figures.
The cross-sectional view shown in Fig. 2 requires cross hatching to illustrate the materials of which the various structural elements shown in the figure are composed. For example, it appears that the wedges 36 and the elements 38 are hollow.
Sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section. 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
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 Objections
Claims 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 8, “a cable” should be changed to “the cable”.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “includes an expander mechanism is arranged to clamp against the internal wall” is awkward. Examiner suggests changing the aforementioned limitation to “includes an expander mechanism arranged to clamp against the internal wall”, or something similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 7 - 9, and 15 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.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a length of 4m to 20” as recited in line 2 is confusing because it is unclear what unit of measure is associated with “20”. For purposes of examination, the aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “a length of 4m to 20m”, as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the grout" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cable" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear whether “grout” as recited in line 3 refers to the grout recited in claim 7, from which claim 9 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 9, the use of the term “about” as recited in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because “about” can be interpreted as “near; close to” or “on every side of” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/about). Therefore, it is unclear as to where the grout is located relative to the expander mechanism.
Regarding claim 15, “a leading and trailing end” as recited in line 2 is confusing because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to a single end or to opposite ends of a tendon. For purposes of examination, the aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “a leading end and a trailing end”, as best understood by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 - 3, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stankus et al. (US 6,270,290).
Regarding claim 1, Stankus discloses a rock bolt installation comprising: a cable bolt (cable 14); and a friction bolt (sleeve 56; mechanical anchor 62; expansion shell 64; plug 66), the cable bolt and the friction bolt being arranged to be disposed within a hole (12) formed in a rock strata, the cable bolt (12) extending further into the hole (12) than the friction bolt (18), wherein the cable bolt (12) and the friction bolt (18) are disposed in an overlapping relationship within the hole (12) and are connected structurally in an overlap to each other (via crimping or swagging) and to an internal wall of the hole (12) (via resin grout 72) (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 4, lines 55 - 61; col. 5, lines 5 - 7; col. 6, line 56 - col. 7, line 60).
Regarding claim 2, Stankus further discloses the cable bolt (14) is embedded in grout or resin (72) (Figs. 2 and 3; col. 5, lines 5 - 7; col. 7, lines 15 - 60).
Regarding claim 3, Stankus further discloses the friction bolt (56, 62, 64, 66) is a rigid bolt (col. 6, line 56 - col. 7, line 55).
Regarding claim 10, Stankus further discloses the friction bolt (56, 62, 64, 66) includes an expander mechanism (expansion shell 64, plug 66) arranged to clamp against the internal wall of the hole (12), and wherein expander elements (unlabeled serrated fingers of expansion shell 64; Figs. 1 - 3) of the expander mechanism (64, 66) are shaped to accommodate a cable (14) of the cable bolt so that the cable can extend past or through the expander mechanism (64, 66) in either axial direction within the hole (12) (Figs. 1 - 4).
Regarding claim 12, Stankus further discloses the expander elements (unlabeled serrated fingers of expansion shell 64; Figs. 1 - 3) of the expander mechanism (64, 66) being are arranged to accept or accommodate the cable (14) of the cable bolt, the expander elements including a groove, slot or scallop (unlabeled central opening of expansion shell 64) for the cable to enter (Figs. 1 - 4).
Regarding claim 13, Stankus further discloses the friction bolt (56, 62, 64, 66) includes an expander mechanism (64, 66) is arranged to clamp against the internal wall of the hole (12), the expander elements (unlabeled serrated fingers of expansion shell 64) of the expander mechanism (64, 66) including a serrated surface (serrated outer surface of unlabeled fingers of expansion shell 64) for engaging the internal wall of the hole (12) (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 7, lines 1 - 55).
Regarding claim 15, Stankus discloses a rock bolt (18) comprising: a tendon (56) having a leading (end of shaft or sleeve 56 located adjacent the mechanical anchor 62) and trailing end (end of shaft or sleeve 56 adjacent bearing plate 52); an expander mechanism (64, 66) disposed at the leading end; and an anchor mechanism (bearing plate 52, washer 50, barrel and wedge assembly 44) disposed at the trailing end, the expander mechanism (64, 66) including expander elements (unlabeled serrated fingers of expansion shell 64) that are expandible into engagement with an internal wall of a hole (12), the expander elements (unlabeled serrated fingers of expansion shell 64) being arranged to accept or accommodate a cable (14) of a cable bolt, wherein the expander elements include a groove, slot or scallop (central opening of expansion shell 64) for the cable to enter (Figs. 1 - 4; col. 4, lines 55 - 61; col. 6, line 18 - col. 7, line 60).
Claims 1 - 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 4432128.
Regarding claim 1, DE 4432128 discloses a rock bolt installation comprising: a cable bolt (strand 7 comprising steel wires 8); and a friction bolt (steel rod 26), the cable bolt and the friction bolt being arranged to be disposed within a hole (borehole 2) formed in a rock strata (rock 6), the cable bolt (7, 8) extending further into the hole (2) than the friction bolt (26), wherein the cable bolt (7, 8) and the friction bolt (26) are disposed in an overlapping relationship within the hole (2) and are connected structurally in an overlap to each other (via hardening material 3 comprising resin or cement mortar and via bulges 9 in strand 7 butting steel rod 26) and to an internal wall of the hole (2) (via hardening material 3) (Fig. 11; see first paragraph following the brief description of the drawings (paragraph beginning “Fig. 1 shows a schematic longitudinal section through a rock bolt” and final paragraph of the description, which describes the embodiment of Fig. 11; see attached translation).
Regarding claim 2, DE 4432128 further discloses the cable bolt (7, 8) is embedded in grout or resin (3) (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3, DE 4432128 further discloses the friction bolt (26) is a rigid bolt (steel rod) (Fig. 11; final paragraph of the description; see attached translation).
Regarding claim 7, DE 4432128 further discloses a structural connection being is provided by the grout (3) interposed between the cable bolt (7, 8) and the friction bolt (26) and the internal wall of the hole (2) (Fig. 11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stankus et al.
Regarding claim 4, Stankus further discloses a ratio of an extension of the friction bolt (56, 62, 64, 66) into the hole (12) compared to an extension of the cable bolt (14) into the hole, including the overlapping region overlap between respective bolts (56, 62, 64, 66; 14) being approximately 1/3 of a total length of the hole (12) (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 7, lines 24 - 25 teaches the cable bolt (10) is about 8 to twenty feet long and the friction bolt (shaft 56) is about 3 feet long). Stankus fails to explicitly teach the ratio is between 1/20 to 1/3 of a total length of the hole or cable. Examiner takes the position that the ratio lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon properties of the strata in which the rock bolt installation is to be used.
Regarding claim 5, Stankus fails to explicitly teach a length of the cable of the cable bolt has a length of 4m to 20m and a length of the friction bolt has a length of 1m to 4m. Stankus teaches a length of the cable (14) is significantly greater than a length of the friction bolt (56, 62, 64, 66) (Figs. 1 - 3). Examiner takes the position that the specific lengths of the cable and the friction bolt lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art based upon properties of the strata in which the rock bolt installation is to be used.
Claims 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 4432128.
Regarding claim 4, DE 4432128 further discloses a ratio of an extension of the friction bolt (26) into the hole (2) compared to an extension of the cable bolt (7, 8) into the hole (2), including the overlapping region overlap between respective bolts (26; 7, 8) being less than 1/1 (Fig. 11). DE 4432128 fails to explicitly teach the ratio is between 1/20 to 1/3 of a total length of the hole or cable. Examiner takes the position that the ratio lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon properties of the strata in which the rock bolt installation is to be used.
Regarding claim 5, DE 4432128 fails to explicitly teach a length of the cable of the cable bolt has a length of 4m to 20m and a length of the friction bolt has a length of 1m to 4m. DE 4432128 teaches a length of the cable (7, 8) is greater than a length of the friction bolt (26) (Fig. 11). Examiner takes the position that the specific lengths of the cable and the friction bolt lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art based upon properties of the strata in which the rock bolt installation is to be used.
Regarding claim 8, DE 4432128 further discloses the friction bolt (26) clamps (butting between the cable bolt 7, 8 and the friction bolt 26 is functionally equivalent to clamping) a cable (7, 8) of the cable bolt in a section (bulges 9) of the overlap between the cable (7, 8) and friction bolts (26), at a leading end of the friction bolt (26) (Fig. 11; final paragraph of the description; see attached translation).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stankus et al. Stankus further discloses the overlap between the friction bolt (56, 62, 64, 66) and the cable bolt (14) is at least equal to or greater than a critical embedment depth (Figs. 1 - 3). Examiner has interpreted “a critical embedment depth” to be the depth to which the friction bolt extends into the hole. Assuming arguendo that a critical embedment depth cannot equal the length of the friction bolt, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the overlap such that the overlap is at least equal to or greater than a critical embedment depth to provide the rock bolt with the required anchoring strength based upon properties of the strata in which the rock bolt installation is to be used.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DE 4432128. DE 4432128 further discloses the overlap between the friction bolt (26) and the cable bolt (7, 8) is at least equal to or greater than a critical embedment depth (Fig. 11). Examiner has interpreted “a critical embedment depth” to be the depth to which the friction bolt extends into the hole. Assuming arguendo that a critical embedment depth cannot equal the length of the friction bolt, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the overlap such that the overlap is at least equal to or greater than a critical embedment depth to provide the rock bolt with the required anchoring strength based upon properties of the strata in which the rock bolt installation is to be used.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 4432128 in view of Calandra, Jr. (US 4,861,197). DE 4432128 discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except an expander mechanism at a leading end of a bar, rod, or cable of the friction bolt, and wherein grout is disposed about the expander mechanism and in spaces between the hole and the bar, rod or cable of the friction bolt and in spaces between the friction bolt and the cable of the cable bolt. Calandra teaches an expander mechanism (expansion shell assembly 10 comprising an expansion shell 18 fingers 22) at a leading end of a bar or rod (12) of the friction bolt, and wherein grout (resin 77) is disposed about the expander mechanism and in spaces between the hole (14) and the bar or rod (12) of the friction bolt (Fig. 5; col. 7, line 48 - col. 8, line 17; col. 12, lines 45 - 53). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the expander mechanism and grout as taught by Calandra to prevent slippage of the expansion shell assembly and the bar or rod of the rock bolt installation. Calandra fails to teach grout is disposed in spaces between the friction bolt and the cable of the cable bolt. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above by disposing the grout as taught by Calandra in spaces between the friction bolt and the cable of the cable bolt to prevent slippage of the friction bolt and the cable bolt in the hole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stankus (US 6,527,482) teaches a rock bolt comprising an friction bolt (mechanical anchor 44), and wherein grout (resin 30) is disposed about the friction bolt and in spaces between the hole and the bar or rod (sleeve 46) of the friction bolt (Figs. 3 and 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
1/22/2026