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 jacking system comprising a force transmission pull rod configured as an unpowered pull rod; claims 73 and 89
Species II: directed to the embodiment of Fig. 3; a jacking system comprising a force transmission pull rod configured as a powered pull rod capable of providing a driving force; claims 74 - 76
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 71, 72, 77 - 88, and 90
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:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
During a telephone conversation with Andrew Ulmer on 12 March 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 71 - 73 and 77 - 90. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 74 - 76 are hereby 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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10 October 2024 and 12 June 2025 were 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 “16” has been used to designate both “mounting base” and “mount”.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 14 contains two views; a perspective view and a cross-sectional view. Each figure should only contain a single view and should be assigned a unique figure ID (such as Fig. 14A and 14B). The specification should be amended accordingly.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the final three sentences of the abstract refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 18 of page 18, “the barrel-shaped 1 structure 12’” should be changed to “the barrel-shaped structure 12’”.
Since the jacking system shown in Fig. 22 has been assigned a reference character of “300”, it appears that “the jacking system 10” as described in line 24 of page 27 should be changed to “the jacking system 300”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 86 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11 of claim 86, “modular units;” should be changed to “modular units; and”.
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 71 - 73 and 77 - 90 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 71, the recitation “in a way” as recited in line 8 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because “in a way” does not explicitly describe the means or process by which supporting force is transmitted to the main tunnel segment via the force transmission member.
Regarding claim 77, it is unclear whether “a starting casing” as recited in lines 3 - 4 refers to the starting casing recited in claim 72, from which claim 77 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 79, it is unclear whether “a starting casing” as recited in line 4 refers to the starting casing recited in claim 72, from which claim 79 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 81, it is unclear whether “a starting casing” as recited in line 3 refers to the starting casing recited in claim 72, from which claim 81 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 86, the use of the term “them” as recited in line 5 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural elements or limitations the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name.
Regarding claim 88, it is unclear whether “a force transmission member” as recited in line 4 refers to the force transmission member recited in claim 71, from which claim 88 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 72, line 4: “the transfer transmission pull rods”
Claim 73, lines 1 - 2: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of “the transmission pull rods” the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 77, lines 1 - 2: “the force transmission pull rod”
Claim 78, lines 1 - 2: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of “the transmission pull rods” as recited in claim 72, from which claim 78 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 78, line 2: “the axial direction”
Claim 79, lines 1 - 2: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of “the transmission pull rods” as recited in claim 72, from which claim 79 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 80, lines 1 - 2: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of “the transmission pull rods” as recited in claim 72, from which claim 80 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 80, line 4: “said force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of “the transmission pull rods” as recited in claim 72, from which claim 80 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 80, line 5: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of “the transmission pull rods” as recited in claim 72, from which claim 80 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 80, line 7: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of “the transmission pull rods” as recited in claim 72, from which claim 80 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 82, lines 1 - 2: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of “the transmission pull rods” as recited in claim 72, from which claim 80 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 82, line 2: “the mounting hole”. It is unclear as to which of the mounting holes recited in claim 80, from which claim 82 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 82, line 4: “the mounting hole”. It is unclear as to which of the mounting holes recited in claim 80, from which claim 82 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 84, line 4: “the segment” of the cross passage
Claim 89, line 3: “the cross passage modular unit”. It is unclear as to which of “cross passage modular units” as recited in claim 86, from which claim 89 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 89, line 9: “the force transmission pull rods”
Claim 89, line 15: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of the transmission pull rods as recited in line 9 of claim 89 the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 90, line 3: “the cross passage modular unit”. It is unclear as to which of “cross passage modular units” as recited in claim 86, from which claim 90 depends, the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 90, line 5: “the force transmission pull rods”
Claim 90, line 8: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of the transmission pull rods as recited in line 5 of claim 90 the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 90, line 9: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of the transmission pull rods as recited in line 5 of claim 90 the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim 90, line 11: “the force transmission pull rod”. It is unclear as to which of the transmission pull rods as recited in line 5 of claim 90 the aforementioned limitation refers.
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 71 - 73, 79, 85, 86, 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silvestre et al. (WO 2016041858).
Regarding claim 71, Silvestre discloses a jacking system for excavation construction of a T-shaped cross passage (pipe sections 6) of a tunnel system, the cross passage communicating with at least one main channel (tunnels 1 and 2), wherein the jacking system comprises a reaction frame (rear vertical wall of rotator 7; Fig. 1) and force transmission member (rods 5), the force transmission member (5) connects the reaction frame (vertical wall of rotator 7; Fig. 1) to a main tunnel segment (1) located at a side of the reaction frame facing the cross passage and surrounding a starting end of the cross passage, the reaction frame is used to provide support for an excavation apparatus (cutting kit, not shown; paragraph 0082) in an excavation direction, wherein supporting force is transmitted to the main tunnel segment (1) surrounding the starting end of the cross passage (6) via the force transmission member (5) in a way that the force transmission member bears a pulling force (Figs. 1 - 4; abstract; paragraphs 0045 - 0052, 0063 - 0067, and 0082 of the attached translation of the description).
Regarding claim 72, Silvestre further discloses the force transmission member comprises a plurality of force transmission pull rods (5) arranged spaced-apart around a circumferential direction of the cross passage (6); wherein the starting end of the cross passage is provided with a starting casing (6c; Fig. 4) connected to the main tunnel segment (1), at least a part of the force transmission pull rods (5) being connected to the starting casing (6c) (Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
Regarding claim 73, Silvestre further discloses the force transmission pull rod (5) is configured as an unpowered pull rod (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; paragraphs 0052 and 0063).
Regarding claim 79, Silvestre further discloses one end of the force transmission pull rod (5) is removably connected to the main tunnel segment (1) or a starting casing (6c) connected to the main tunnel segment (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0045 - 0068).
Regarding claim 85, Silvestre further discloses a material delivery hole (unlabeled hole in rotator 7 as shown in Fig. 4) running through the reaction frame (7) is disposed at a position of the reaction frame corresponding to the cross passage (6) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 86, Silvestre discloses a method of using the jacking system according to claim 71 (see rejection of claim 71 above) for excavation construction of a T-shaped cross passage (6) of a tunnel system, wherein the method comprises: delivering a jacking system (7), an excavation apparatus (cutting kit, not shown; paragraph 82) and a corollary equipment (guide means 50) to a position where a cross passage (6) is to be excavated, and fixing them; adjusting positions of the jacking system and the excavation apparatus according to a planned excavation direction; connecting a reaction frame (rear vertical wall of rotator 7; Fig. 1) to a main tunnel segment (1) through a force transmission member (5); moving the excavation apparatus to a planned starting position; excavating and assembling cross passage modular units (6a - 6c); completing the construction of the cross passage (Figs. 1 - 4; abstract; paragraphs 0045 - 0052, 0063 - 0068, and 0082).
Regarding claim 88, Silvestre further discloses the corollary equipment comprises a starting casing (6c), and the method further comprises: connecting the starting casing with the main tunnel segment (1), and connecting the reaction frame (rear vertical wall of rotator 7; Fig. 1) to the starting casing via a force transmission member (5) (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0045 - 0068).
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 87, 89, and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvestre et al.
Regarding claim 87, Silvestre further discloses combining the corollary equipment (guide means 50), the jacking system (see rejection of claim 71 above), and the excavation apparatus (7) into a unitary structure (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0045 - 0052 and 0063 - 0067). Although Silvestre fails to explicitly disclose the combining step occurs before the step of delivering a jacking system, an excavation apparatus, and a corollary equipment to a position where a cross passage is to be excavated, given the apparatus as disclosed above, the step of delivering a jacking system, an excavation apparatus, and a corollary equipment to a position where a cross passage is to be excavated would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 89 and 90, Silvestre further discloses mounting a jacking drive unit (7) which acts directly on the reaction frame (rear vertical wall of rotator 7; Fig. 1); and assembling cross passage modular units (6a - 6c) (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0045 - 0052, 0063 - 0068, and 0082). Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claims 89 and 90 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 77, 78, and 80 - 84 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
3/18/2026
Prosecution Insights