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 statements (IDS) submitted on 11 June 2025 and 17 July 2026 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 because:
Regarding Fig. 6, it is unclear how the attachment mechanism (40) is connected to travel device (50).
Figs. 11, 12, 13, and 20 each include multiple views. Each figure should only include a single view and should be assigned a unique figure ID. For example, Examiner suggests renaming the views of Fig. 11 as Figs. 11A - 11D. The specification should be amended accordingly.
Regarding Fig. 20, it is unclear what the unlabeled arrows represent.
Regarding Fig. 20, it is unclear what the lightning bolt-shaped objects represent.
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
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests changing “the mechanism” as recited in lines 2 - 3 to “the variable mechanism” for clarity and consistency with terminology used elsewhere in the claims.
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, 5, 9, 10, and 13 - 16 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 phrase “an up-down axis” as recited in lines 3 - 4 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it does not clearly describe the orientation of the axis. It is unclear whether “an up-down axis” is a vertical axis or if the axis is offset from a vertical orientation.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a front-rear axis” as recited in line 5 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it does not clearly describe the orientation of the axis. For example, it is unclear whether “a front-rear axis” is a horizontal axis or if the axis is offset from a horizontal orientation and if the “front-rear axis” extends along a longitudinal axis of the travel device or is offset from the longitudinal axis of the travel device.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a right-left axis” as recited in line 7 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it does not clearly describe the orientation of the axis. For example, it is unclear whether “a right-left axis” is a horizontal axis or if the axis is offset from a horizontal orientation and if the “right-left axis” extends along an axis perpendicular to the length of the travel device or is offset from an axis perpendicular to the length of the travel device.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear whether “the rod” as recited in line 3 refers to “a rod” as recited in claim 3 or to one of the “rods” as recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear whether “rods” as recited in line 7 refers to the rods recited in claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, or if they represent additional structural limitations.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the travel device is provided at each of the front body and the rear body” as recited in line 5 is confusing because it is unclear whether the claim requires a single travel device or separate travel devices for each of the front body and the rear body.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether “a travel device” as recited in line 2 refers to the travel device recited in claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the tunnel boring machine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the travel device according to claim 1 is provided at each of the tunnel boring machine and the trailing car” as recited in lines 4 - 5 is confusing because it is unclear whether the claim requires a single travel device or separate travel devices for each of the tunnel boring machine and the trailing car.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tunnel boring machine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the travel device according to claim 1 is provided at each of the tunnel boring machine, the trailing car, and the transport vehicle” as recited in lines 5 - 6 is confusing because it is unclear whether the claim requires a single travel device or separate travel devices for each of the tunnel boring machine, the trailing car, and the transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear whether “a travel device” recited in line 12 refers to the “rear-body travel device” recited in line 11 or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear whether “the travel device” recited in line 14 refers to the rear-body travel device recited in line 11 or to the travel device recited in line 12.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “an allowable distance” as recited in line 5 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “an allowable distance” does not clearly define a specific distance or range of distances. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
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, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by French (US 1,210,925).
Regarding claim 1, French discloses a travel device used in a tunnel boring machine, the travel device comprising: wheels (F, F’); and a variable mechanism (swinging arms 2, pivot points 3, link 6) configured to change an angle formed by a line orthogonal to a rotation axis of the wheels and a vertical line between a first state in which the travel device (frame A) travels on a flat road surface and a second state in which the travel device travels on an arcuate road surface in frontal view (Figs. 1 - 4; page 1, line 70 - page 2, line 51).
Regarding claim 2, French further discloses a rolling mechanism (axles f) configured to swing the wheels (F, F’) in a roll direction on a front-rear axis of the travel device (A) (Figs. 3 and 4; page 1, line 99 - page 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 3, French further discloses the variable mechanism includes a rod (arm 2) in a part of a mechanism for changing the angle (Figs. 3 and 4; page 1, line 99 - page 2, line 51).
Regarding claim 11, French discloses a trailing car following the tunnel boring machine (rotary head C; see Fig. 1), the trailing car comprising the travel device according to claim 1 (Figs. 1 - 4; page 1, line 70 - page 2, line 51; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, French discloses a transport vehicle that transports borings, the transport vehicle comprising the travel device according to claim 1 (Figs. 1 - 4; page 1, line 70 - page 2, line 51; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekiyama et al. (JP 2021156034).
Regarding claim 15, Sekiyama discloses a movement method for moving a tunnel boring machine (tunnel excavation device 1) including a front body (11) to which a cutter head (21) for boring borings is attached, a rear body (12) connected to the front body via an extension-retraction mechanism (thrust cylinders 13a), a front body self-weight support mechanism (vertical support 23) provided at the front body, a rear body gripper (gripper part 71) provided at the rear body, and a travel device (wheel part 80), the movement method comprising: a rear body fixing step of fixing the rear body (12) to a tunnel by the rear body gripper (71); a front body self-weight supporting step of grounding the front body self-weight support mechanism (23) and supporting self-weight of the front body (11) after the rear body fixing step; a forward-moving boring step of moving the front body forward (using thrust cylinders 13a) and performing boring by the cutter head (21) after the front body self-weight supporting step; a rear-body travel device grounding step of releasing the rear body gripper (71) and grounding a travel device (80) provided at the rear body after the forward-moving boring step; and a rear body forward-moving step of retracting the extension-retraction mechanism (13a) and moving the rear body forward together with the travel device (80) after the rear-body travel device grounding step (Figs. 1, 2, and 7 - 10; paragraphs 0013 - 0063).
Regarding claim 16, Sekiyama discloses a movement method for moving a tunnel boring machine (1) including a front body (11) to which a cutter head (21) for boring borings is attached, a rear body (12) connected to the front body via an extension-retraction mechanism (13a), and a travel device (80), wherein after boring of a tunnel by the cutter head is completed, the tunnel boring machine is moved rearward (using retreating hydraulic cylinders, not shown; paragraph 0063) by an allowable distance for the travel device (80) at least between the cutter head and a tunnel wall in front of the cutter head, and after the travel device is attached to the cutter head, the tunnel boring machine is retreated (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0059 - 0063).
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 French.
Regarding claim 4, French further discloses a removable rod (arm 2 can be removed by disconnecting it from the pivot points at either end of the arm 2) (Figs. 2 and 3). French fails to disclose the variable mechanism changes the angle by switching between rods having different lengths from each other as the rod. 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 by French with rods having different lengths to provide the travel device with a predetermined amount of structural support based on the size of the travel device and/or the size of the tunnel in which the travel device is used.
Regarding claim 5, French further discloses the travel device comprises a first link mechanism including the rod (2) as the mechanism for changing the angle, and a second link mechanism (bracket 4) to which one end portion of the first link mechanism is connected, wherein a length of the second link mechanism (4) is fixed (Figs. 3 and 4; page 2, lines 3 - 6).
Claims 6 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French in view of Tyslauk et al. (US 3,922,016).
Regarding claim 6, French discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the variable mechanism includes a cylinder in a part of the mechanism for changing the angle. Tyslauk teaches a variable mechanism includes a cylinder (hydraulic piston and cylinder units, not shown) for changing the angle (Figs. 3 and 4; col. 3, line 53 - col. 4, line 11; col. 4, lines 36 - 39). The substitution of one known element (variable mechanism comprising hydraulic piston and cylinder units as taught by Tyslauk) for another (variable mechanism comprising arms, pivot points, and links as disclosed by French) 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 claim 7, French discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the variable mechanism changes the angle by changing a length of the cylinder. Tyslauk teaches the variable mechanism changes the angle by changing a length of the cylinder (the operation of hydraulic piston and cylinder units obviously includes changing the length of the cylinder) (Figs. 3 and 4; col. 3, line 53 - col. 4, line 11; col. 4, lines 36 - 39). The substitution of one known element (variable mechanism comprising hydraulic piston and cylinder units as taught by Tyslauk) for another (variable mechanism comprising arms, pivot points, and links as disclosed by French) 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 claim 8, French fails to disclose the travel device comprises a first link mechanism and a second link mechanism as the mechanism for changing the angle, and the cylinder is provided in the first link mechanism. Tyslauk teaches the travel device comprises a first link mechanism (hydraulic piston or cylinder) and a second link mechanism (arm 31) as the mechanism for changing the angle, and the cylinder is provided in the first link mechanism (Figs. 3 and 4; col. 3, line 53 - col. 4, line 11; col. 4, lines 36 - 39). The substitution of one known element (variable mechanism comprising hydraulic piston and cylinder units as taught by Tyslauk) for another (variable mechanism comprising arms, pivot points, and links as disclosed by French) 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).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (CN 114909147) in view of French.
Regarding claim 13, Meng discloses a tunnel boring system comprising: the tunnel boring machine (transport vehicle 7 nearest the cutterhead 1); and a trailing car (transport vehicle 7 located adjacent the transport vehicle 7 located nearest the cutterhead 1; see Figs. 1 and 2) following the tunnel boring machine, and travel devices (wheels 71) wherein the travel device is provided at each of the tunnel boring machine and the trailing car (Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6; paragraphs 0030, 0032, 0036, and 0043). Meng fails to teach the travel device according to claim 1. French teaches a travel device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). 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 travel device as taught by French for the travel device as taught by Meng to hold the machine in an upright position both within and outside of the tunnel.
Regarding claim 14, Meng discloses a tunnel boring system comprising: the tunnel boring machine (transport vehicle 7 nearest the cutterhead 1); a trailing car (transport vehicle 7 located adjacent the transport vehicle 7 located nearest the cutterhead 1; see Figs. 1 and 2) following the tunnel boring machine; and a transport vehicle (a transport vehicle 7 located adjacent the trailing car; Examiner notes that Meng teaches a plurality of transport vehicles and it would have been obvious to have included a third transport vehicle 7 that Examiner has interpreted as the claimed transport vehicle as a design consideration within the skill of the art to increase resistance and provide support during tunneling under large inclination angle conditions.) configured to transport borings, and travel devices (wheels 71) wherein the travel device is provided at each of the tunnel boring machine, the trailing car, and the transport vehicle (Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 6; paragraphs 0030, 0032, 0036, and 0043). Meng fails to teach the travel device according to claim 1. French teaches a travel device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). 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 travel device as taught by French for the travel device as taught by Meng to hold the machine in an upright position both within and outside of the tunnel.
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
8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights