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
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 19 February 2025 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 “38” has been used to designate both “hole” and “mechanical anchor”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “30” and “66”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 2 - 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 2, “A cable anchor support system” should be changed to “The cable anchor support system” because claim 2 is a dependent claim. Similar changes should be made in claims 3 - 11.
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 2 - 8 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 2, the limitation “a ratio of the base of the female thread to the male thread” is confusing because it is unclear as to which dimension of the male thread the base of the female thread is being compared. For purposes of examination, the aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “a ratio of the base of the female thread to the base of the male thread” as best understood by Examiner. Claims 3 and 6 contain similar errors.
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 1 - 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3145923 in view of Eaton et al. (GB 2309060).
Regarding claim 1, DE 3145923 discloses A cable anchor support system which includes an anchor bolt of a first steel material (steel bar 1), a section of which is formed with a male thread (ribs 2), a nut (anchoring nut 5) of a second steel material which has a hole which is formed with a female thread (thread formed with recesses 7), wherein the first steel material is harder than the second steel material (The steel material of which the nut is composed has a degree of elasticity that allows the nut 5 to deform elastically when its threads climb onto the inclined flanks of the thread ribs 2; The first steel material has greater tensile strength than the second material.), and wherein a base of the female thread is at least 1.5 times that of a base of the male thread (Figs. 2a - 2c illustrate a base of the female thread is at least 1.5 times that of a base of the male thread) (Figs. 1 and 2a - 2c; abstract; paragraphs 0006 - 0008 and 0011). DE 3145923 fails to disclose the anchor is a cable anchor. Eaton teaches a cable mine roof bolt (10) includes either a screw threaded rod (16) or a cable with external threads 18 formed on an attached sleeve (Fig. 1; page 4, lines 30 - 36). 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 substituted the cable with external threads as taught by Eaton for the threaded rod as disclosed above as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claims 2 - 3 and 6, DE 3145923 in view of Eaton discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the specific ratio of the base of the female thread to the base of the male thread. Examiner takes the position that the specific ratio lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art to prevent thread stripping and maximize load distribution.
Claims 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3145923 in view of Eaton et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Gray (US 2004/0025557). DE 3145923 in view of Eaton discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first steel material has an ultimate tensile strength of at least 1500MPa. DE 3145923 in view of Eaton is silent regarding the ultimate tensile strength of the first steel material. Gray teaches a first steel material (steel material of which the cable bolt is composed) has an ultimate tensile strength of 1500 MPa (paragraph 0024) to provide a cable anchor having both high tensile strength and reasonable weight. 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 first steel material as disclosed above with the ultimate tensile strength as taught by Gray to provide a cable anchor having both high tensile strength and reasonable weight.
Claims 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3145923 in view of Eaton et al. and Gray as applied to claims 4, 7, and 9 above, and further in view of Corbett et al. (US 2010/0172717). DE 3145923 in view of Eaton and Gray discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the second steel material has an ultimate tensile strength of 550MPa. DE 3145923 in view of Eaton is silent regarding the ultimate tensile strength of the second steel material. Corbett teaches a bolt and a nut both made of steel (paragraphs 0023 and 0027) a ratio of bolt to nut hardness of 4:3 or higher (paragraphs 0023, 0026, and 0027). Examiner notes that a bolt to nut hardness ratio of 1500MPa:550MPa is higher than a bolt to nut hardness of 4:3 and since Corbett teaches a bolt to nut ratio is 4:3 or higher, Corbett teaches the claimed ratio of 1500:550. 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 ratio of ultimate tensile strength of the first steel material to the ultimate tensile strength of the second steel material such that the aforementioned ration has a value of 1500:550 to ensure that the male threads will not deform significantly when under load. Additionally, 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 second steel material as disclosed above with the second steel material having an ultimate tensile strength of 550MPa as taught by Corbett since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3145923 in view of Eaton et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corbett et al. DE 3145923 in view of Eaton discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the second steel material has an ultimate tensile strength of 550MPa. DE 3145923 in view of Eaton is silent regarding the ultimate tensile strength of the second steel material. Corbett teaches a bolt and a nut both made of steel (paragraphs 0023 and 0027) a ratio of bolt to nut hardness of 4:3 or higher (paragraphs 0023, 0026, and 0027). Examiner notes that a bolt to nut hardness ratio of 1500MPa:550MPa is higher than a bolt to nut hardness of 4:3 and since Corbett teaches a bolt to nut ratio is 4:3 or higher, Corbett teaches the claimed ratio of 1500:550. 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 ratio of ultimate tensile strength of the first steel material to the ultimate tensile strength of the second steel material such that the aforementioned ration has a value of 1500:550 to ensure that the male threads will not deform significantly when under load. Additionally, 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 second steel material as disclosed above with the second steel material having an ultimate tensile strength of 550MPa as taught by Corbett since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
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
9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights