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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that replacement specification pages are submitted to correct the typographical error in the specification is noted but is not considered persuasive because no replacement specification pages were submitted. The specification objection is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that Claim 1 now explicitly recites “a plurality of first cutting tools, each of the first cutting tools comprising a shank” and the ambiguous singular reference “the first cutting tool” is completely removed is noted but is not considered persuasive because this limitation is not included in the claims and claim 1 still recites the ambiguous singular reference. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that all dependent claims 2-8 depend from independent claim 1 is noted but is not considered persuasive because claims 2 and 3 are canceled, and claims 5-8 depend from canceled claim 2.
Regarding the obviousness rejection based upon the combination of Turner and Gao, in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Applicant’s argument that Gao does not disclose discrete peripheral cutting tool with standalone separable shank; dedicated L-shaped tool-slot oriented toward machine interior for receiving such shank; or cooperating limiting-block and locking-block inserted through slot opening to directly abut and lock the shank is noted but is not considered persuasive because Gao discloses each of the claimed elements. The cutting tool, shank, L-shaped tool slot, limiting block, locking block and opening are each mapped out in the rejection below.
Applicant’s argument that Gao does not disclose the system objective to detach those shank-type cutters to shrink cutterhead outer-diameter so that cutterhead-and-body assembly can retract inside casing-assembly back to launch shaft is noted but is not considered persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 10, last paragraph, “runnel” should be changed to “tunnel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises” should be changed to “comprising” in line 15. 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 1 and 4-10 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 1, it is unclear which first cutting tool is meant by “the first cutting tool” in line 7 because a plurality of first cutting tools are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the first cutting tool” to mean “at least one of the first cutting tools”. Further, claim 1 recites the limitation “the shank” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-10 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claims 5-8 are incomplete because they depend directly from a cancelled base claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claims 5-8 to each depend from claim 4.
Claim 9 is incomplete because it depends indirectly from a cancelled base claim. Further, claim 9 recites the limitations “the connecting pipe mechanism” in line 2 and “the sealing casing” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 4,548,443) in view of Gao et al (WO 2018/049974).
Regarding claim 1, Turner discloses a retractable tunnel boring system (e.g. 10, Fig. 1), comprising: a casing assembly, wherein the casing assembly is tubular (e.g. 12 and 14, Fig.’s 1, 4 and 7); a body assembly, detachably connected to the casing assembly (e.g. 28, 32 and 35, Fig. 1); a cutterhead assembly, detachably connected to a front end of the casing assembly, and connected to an advancing end of the body assembly (e.g. 24, Fig. 1); and first cutting tools, detachably disposed at a peripheral edge of the cutterhead assembly (e.g. 25, Fig.’s 1 and 2), wherein at least a portion of an outer surface of the first cutting tool is located radially outward of an outer surface of the casing assembly (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2, wherein Fig. 1 shows the top of cutterhead 24 positioned radially outward of casing 12, and Fig. 2 shows the cutter 25 at the outermost radial dimension of 24, therefore the cutter 25 of the rotating cutterhead 24 will be positioned radially outward of casing 12 at least at the top of cutterhead 24). Turner does not explicitly disclose that a shank of each respective first cutting tool is detachably inserted into a corresponding tool slot defined in the cutterhead assembly. Gao teaches a tunnel boring system (e.g. paragraph 0001), comprising: a cutterhead assembly (e.g. Fig. 1); and first cutting tools, detachably disposed at a peripheral edge of the cutterhead assembly (e.g. 3, shown at top of cutterhead assembly in Fig. 1), wherein the cutterhead assembly defines a respective tool slot for each of the first cutting tools (e.g. L-shaped slot defined by 1 and 2, Fig. 3), a shank of each respective first cutting tool being detachably inserted into its corresponding tool slot (e.g. shown but not labeled in Fig.’s 3, 4 and 6); wherein each tool slot is L-shaped (e.g. Fig. 3) and comprises a limiting slot unit (e.g. right side of slot, Fig. 3) and an insertion slot unit (e.g. left side of slot, Fig. 3) with an opening (e.g. top of left side of slot, Fig. 3); the cutterhead assembly further comprises a limiting block (e.g. 4, Fig. 3) and a locking block (e.g. 5, Fig. 3) for each tool slot; for each tool slot: the limiting block is disposed on a side of the limiting slot unit distal from the insertion slot unit (e.g. Fig. 3 wherein limiting block 4 is shown on the far right distal side of the limiting slot unit), the shank of the corresponding first cutting tool is inserted into the insertion slot unit and abuts against the limiting block (e.g. Fig. 3), and the locking block is inserted through the opening into the insertion slot unit and abuts against the shank of the corresponding first cutting tool (e.g. Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the first cutting tools and the cutterhead assembly of Turner with a shank and tool slot connection as taught by Gao because such is a known mounting configuration in the art that would provide the expected benefit of reliable structure, strong practicality, and adjustable excavation (e.g. Gao, paragraph 0011). Examiner notes that the shank and tool slot connection will result in the tool slot being oriented toward an interior of the body assembly of Turner.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Turner and Gao further discloses that the body assembly comprises a cutterhead protection mechanism (e.g. Turner, 32, Fig. 1), a translation driving mechanism (e.g. Turner, 28, Fig. 1), and a connecting pipe mechanism connected in sequence away from the cutterhead assembly (e.g. Turner, 35, Fig. 1); the cutterhead protection mechanism defining an axial bore (e.g. Turner, bore formed in 32 for passage of pinion gear 55, Fig. 1) and a transport opening disposed below the axial bore (e.g. Turner, opening for 43, Fig. 1); the axial bore being configured to allow a rotating shaft of a driving device to pass through (e.g. Turner, pinion gear 55, col. 3, line 64-68), the cutterhead assembly having a connection portion configured to connect to the rotating shaft of the driving device (e.g. Turner, 39, Fig. 1), and the transport opening being configured to allow muck to pass through (e.g. Turner, Fig. 1, col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 12).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Turner and Gao does not explicitly disclose a muck screen disposed adjacent to the transport opening and configured to allow muck to pass through. Since Applicant did not traverse the official notice taken in the previous office action, it is taken as admitted prior art that screens are notoriously well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a screen adjacent to the transport opening for the expected benefit of controlling the passage of muck through the screen and avoiding excessive levels of muck on the conveyor belt, thereby protecting users below the conveyor belt from muck spillage.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Turner and Gao further discloses that the cutterhead protection mechanism further comprises an entrance on an upper side thereof (e.g. Turner, shown but not labeled above 21 and below 43, Fig. 1), a receiving space being defined between the cutterhead protection mechanism and the cutterhead assembly (e.g. Turner, open space surrounding 70, Fig. 1), the entrance communicating an interior space of the translation driving mechanism with the receiving space (e.g. Turner, open space surrounding 28, Fig. 1). The combination of Turner and Gao does not explicitly disclose a cover plate detachably mounted to cover the entrance. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a detachable cover plate to the entrance for the expected benefit of closing off the area where muck is collected and dropped during use while still allowing access to the area when needed.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Turner and Gao further discloses that the translation driving mechanism comprises: a front casing connected to the cutterhead protection mechanism (e.g. Turner, 12, Fig. 1); a rear casing connected to the connecting pipe mechanism (e.g. Turner, 14, Fig. 1); and a plurality of driving cylinders having opposite ends respectively connected to the front casing and the rear casing (e.g. Turner, 28, Fig. 1), wherein extension and retraction of the driving cylinders is configured to drive the front casing to move relative to the rear casing (e.g. Turner, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 39-58). Examiner notes that in this interpretation of Turner, 12 and 14 are considered part of the body assembly such that the casing assembly is considered 26, and the translation driving mechanism is considered 12, 14 and 28.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Turner and Gao further discloses that the connecting pipe mechanism comprises a connecting casing (e.g. Turner, 14, Fig. 1) and a sealing casing (e.g. Turner, 23, Fig. 1), the sealing casing covers an opening of the connecting casing distal from the cutterhead assembly (e.g. Turner, Fig. 1 wherein 23 covers the outer portion of the opening of 14), the sealing casing defines a transfer port configured to allow muck to pass through (e.g. Turner, middle portion of 23 that allows muck on 43 to pass through, Fig.’s 1 and 4). Examiner notes that in this interpretation of Turner, 14 is considered part of the body assembly such that the casing assembly is considered 12.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Turner and Gao does not explicitly disclose a sealing door detachably mounted to cover a passage defined in the sealing casing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a detachably mounted door to cover at least a portion of the open passage formed by 23 of Turner for the expected benefit of protecting users in the control console 72 from noise and moving parts.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Turner and Gao further discloses that the plurality of the first cutting tools are mounted on the cutterhead assembly at equidistant circumferential intervals (e.g. Turner, Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
