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
Claim Objections
Claim 81 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 of claim 81, the phrase “fixed disposed” is awkward. Examiner suggests changing the aforementioned limitation to “fixedly disposed”, 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 80 - 82 and 86 - 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.
Claim 80 recites the limitation "the side wall" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the two side walls of the mounting base the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 86 recites the limitation "the reaction frame" and “the main tunnel” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the aforementioned limitations in the claim.
Claim 86 recites the limitation "the force transmission member" in lines 9 - 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 89, it is unclear whether “a set of cross passage modular units” as recited in line 5 refers to the set of cross passage modular units recited in claim 86, from which claim 89 depends, or if they represent additional structural limitations.
Regarding claim 90, it is unclear whether “a set of cross passage modular units” as recited in lines 4 - 5 refers to the set of cross passage modular units recited in claim 86, from which claim 90 depends, or if they represent additional structural limitations.
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, and 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 to the excavation apparatus is transmitted to the main tunnel segment (1) surrounding the starting end of the cross passage (6) through the force transmission member (5) and the force transmission member bears a pulling force between the reaction frame and the main tunnel segment (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 plurality of force transmission pull rods (5) being connected to the starting casing (6c) (Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
Regarding claim 73, Silvestre further discloses each of the force transmission pull rods (5) is configured as an unpowered pull rod (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; paragraphs 0052 and 0063).
Regarding claim 79, Silvestre further discloses each of the plurality of force transmission pull rods (5) is removably connected at the other end thereof 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 the 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 the jacking system, the excavation apparatus, and the corollary equipment; adjusting positions of the jacking system and the excavation apparatus according to a planned excavation direction; connecting the reaction frame (rear vertical wall of rotator 7; Fig. 1) to the main tunnel segment (1) through the force transmission member (5); moving the excavation apparatus to a planned starting position; excavating and assembling a set of cross passage modular units (6a - 6c) to form the cross passage; and 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 the 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 the 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 a set of 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, 83, and 84 are 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.
Claims 80 - 82 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that an “excavation apparatus” as known in the field of underground engineering generally refers to a machine capable of performing excavation on the soil layer while simultaneously completing the assembly and lining of segments or pipe sections. Examiner replies that it is well known in the art to use an excavating machine to excavate a soil layer and then, after the excavation is completed, completing the assembly and lining of segments or pipe sections. Additionally, that Silvestre teaches an apparatus and method for excavating an underground tunnel. Therefore, it is clear that an excavation machine as known in the field of underground engineering does not require performing excavation on the soil layer while simultaneously completing the assembly and lining of segments or pipe sections.
Applicant argues that the excavation apparatus as recited in claim 71 requires the excavation step and the step of assembly and lining of segments or pipe sections are performed simultaneously. Examiner replies that claim 71 does not recite that the excavating and the assembly and lining be performed simultaneously. Additionally, Examiner takes the position that Applicant is arguing the order in which method steps are performed, which lacks patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
Applicant argues that Silvestre does not disclose soil or rock is excavated and removed during the embedding process. Examiner replies that the claims do not recite the soil or rock is “excavated and removed during the embedding process”. Additionally, with respect to claim 71, Examiner takes the position that Applicant is arguing the order in which method steps are performed, which lacks patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not think of combining a shield or pipe jacking machine or similar excavation apparatus with Silvestre. Examiner replies that he has not relied upon the combination of an excavation apparatus as taught by Silvestre with a separate shield or pipe jacking machine.
Applicant argues that the metal pipes of Silvestre cannot be considered as the modular units. Examiner replies that there is no structural limitations in the claims that preclude the interpretation of the metal pipes of Silvestre as the modular units.
Applicant argues that Silvestre fails to disclose the assembly of the modular units can be completed simultaneously with the advance of the excavation equipment and the excavation of the cross passage. Examiner replies that the claims to not require the assembly of the modular units and the advance of the excavation equipment and the excavation of the cross passage to be “completed simultaneously”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights