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 2-3 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 2, parent claim 1 states providing injectors on an apparatus. Claim 2 then states the injectors are provided on an apparatus. It is unclear if “an apparatus” introduced in claim 2 is the same apparatus introduced in parent claim 1 or a different apparatus. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim 3 is dependent upon claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cerutti (4,769,192).
With regard to claim 1, Cerutti discloses a method of lining a tunnel (abstract; col. 1, lines 5-7), comprising providing a plurality of injectors (outlets of 22/24; fig. 1) on an apparatus, the injectors being positioned adjacent an internal tunnel surface facing away from the direction of travel parallel to, or at an angle to, a centerline of the tunnel (fig. 1), using the injectors to place, and compress tunnel lining material (abstract; “concrete”) to form a structural tunnel lining (18), and moving the apparatus forwards by the pressure exerted by the injectors as the tunnel lining material is discharged (abstract; wherein the concrete is applied under pressure which will inherently move the apparatus in a similar fashion to applicant), articulated shuttering (20) for the tunnel lining being provided on a trailing side of the apparatus (figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 2, Cerutti further discloses the injectors are provided on an apparatus (26/28) having a cross-section corresponding proportionally to a cross- section of a tunnel to be lined (figs. 1-4).
With regard to claim 3, Cerutti further discloses arranging the injectors around a periphery of the apparatus (fig. 1), and feeding the injectors with tunnel lining material from feed lines (22/24) located within the apparatus (fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Ishikawa et al. (2003/0116210).
With regard to claims 4-5, Cerutti discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding removing water from the lining material through the injectors and using the injectors to crush particles within the lining material. Applicant’s specification states this is achieved by utilizing high-pressure injectors (para 0030). Ishikawa discloses a method of lining a tunnel (para 0001) utilizing high-pressure injectors (paras 0012, 0179). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cerutti and utilize high-pressure injectors as taught in Ishikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the workability of the material.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Babendererde et al. (4,687,374).
With regard to claim 6, Cerutti discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state the lining is performed simultaneously with the excavation of the tunnel.
Babendererde discloses a method of lining a tunnel wherein the lining is performed simultaneously with the excavation of the tunnel (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cerutti and line the tunnel simultaneously while excavating as taught in Babendererde with a reasonable expectation of success in order to speed up the construction process of a new tunnel.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Butcher (2,520,199).
With regard to claim 7, Cerutti discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the tunnel pre-exists, and the method comprises rehabilitating or strengthening the tunnel.
Butcher discloses a method if lining a tunnel wherein the tunnel pre-exists, and the method comprises rehabilitating or strengthening the tunnel (col. 1, lines 11-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cerutti and utilize the device in a pre-existing tunnel as taught in Butcher, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide means to reinforce an existing structure as known within the art.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Butcher (2,520,199) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cowley (3,603,100).
With regard to claim 8, Cerutti, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding steering and braking the apparatus using wheels thereon.
Cowley discloses a tunneling apparatus that includes steering and braking the apparatus using wheels thereon (col. 8, lines 7-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Cerutti and utilize steering and braking means as taught in Cowley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further control the apparatus.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Butcher (2,520,199) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Groetschel (4,358,159).
With regard to claim 9, Cerutti, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding steering and braking the apparatus using skids thereon.
Groetschel discloses a tunneling apparatus that includes steering and braking the apparatus using skids thereon (col. 4, line 64 – col. 5, line 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Cerutti and utilize steering and braking means as taught in Groetschel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further control the apparatus.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Kamiyama et al. (9,291,295).
With regard to claim 10, Cerutti discloses an apparatus for lining a tunnel (fig. 1), comprising a plurality of injectors (outlets of 22/24; fig. 1) for placing and compressing lining material on an internal tunnel surface, to form a structural tunnel lining (abstract), and for moving the apparatus forwards by the pressure exerted by the injectors as the lining material is discharged (abstract; wherein the concrete is applied under pressure which will inherently move the apparatus in a similar fashion to applicant), the injectors being oriented with respect to the apparatus to face away from the direction of travel parallel to, or at an angle to, a centreline of the tunnel (fig. 1), and articulated shuttering (20) for the tunnel lining, provided on a trailing side of the apparatus (fig. 1), the shuttering comprising mutually articulated rings of plates (40).
Cerutti fails to explicitly state rods extending through apertures in the rings to constrain the degree of relative displacement of the rings.
Kamiyama discloses rods (11) extending through apertures in the rings to constrain the degree of relative displacement of the rings (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cerutti and utilize rods as taught in Kamiyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to hold the segments together.
With regard to claim 11, Cerutti further discloses the injectors are arranged around a periphery of the apparatus, feed lines (22/24) being located within the apparatus for feeding lining material to the injectors (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 18, Cerutti further discloses a control system (38/39) for controlling injection of the lining material, cleaning of the injectors and/or steering of the apparatus (col. 3, lines 6-22).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Kamiyama et al. (9,291,295) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Patin (3,788,087).
With regard to claim 12, Cerutti, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding an angle between an axis of the injectors along which lining material is ejected and a longitudinal axis of the apparatus is variable.
Patin discloses a tunnel lining apparatus (abstract) wherein an angle between an axis of the injectors (9) along which lining material is ejected and a longitudinal axis of the apparatus is variable (via 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Cerutti and have the injector angle be variable as taught in Groetschel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further control the direction of the fluid flow.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Kamiyama et al. (9,291,295) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cowley (3,603,100).
With regard to claim 15, Cerutti, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding wheels for steering and braking the apparatus.
Cowley discloses a tunneling apparatus that includes steering and braking the apparatus using wheels thereon (col. 8, lines 7-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Cerutti and utilize steering and braking means as taught in Cowley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further control the apparatus.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerutti (4,769,192) in view of Kamiyama et al. (9,291,295) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Groetschel (4,358,159).
With regard to claim 16, Cerutti, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding skids for steering and braking the apparatus.
Groetschel discloses a tunneling apparatus that includes steering and braking the apparatus using skids thereon (col. 4, line 64 – col. 5, line 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Cerutti and utilize steering and braking means as taught in Groetschel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further control the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 17 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.
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 dependent claim(s). Tunnel lining device are known such as those taught by above. However, the cited prior art lacks each injector includes a piston slidable within a cylinder to expel lining material and at least one peripheral seal, comprising a minimum of two rows of wire brushes and grease, for retaining the ejected lining material against the internal surface as required by the dependent 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
4/22/2026
Prosecution Insights