Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/886,120

SUPPORT PROP

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 16, 2024
Examiner
LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Msp Mine Support Products (Pty) Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1334 granted / 1610 resolved
+30.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1648
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1610 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 1-5 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 1, hence claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. In claim 1, the omitted element is: a tubular/elongate plunger. Claim 1 is directed to a prop and as described in the specification and figure 1, the prop 10 comprises the cylindrical body 12 and the elongate plunger to provide a complete and functionally working prop. 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. Insofar as understood, claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGrath et al (US 6,395,359). As to claim 1, McGrath et al discloses a support prop, comprising: an elongate cylindrical body 10 with a first end which is sealed; an opposing second end which is open; a bore and a wall which bounds the bore; and wherein the wall includes an inner metallic liner 14 which faces the bore and an outer shell 12 which is made from a composite material and which surrounds and reinforces the liner. As to claim 2, McGrath et al discloses wherein the liner 14 is made from aluminium (see col. 2, lines 50-52) or an aluminium alloy, and the composite material comprises a reinforced plastics material (see col.2 lines 37-38, i.e. polymer coating). 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. Insofar as understood, claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath et al (US 6,395,359) in view of Roach et al (US 2014/0072374). As to claim 3, McGrath et al discloses all that is claimed except for wherein the first end is sealed by a force transferring component and wherein the prop includes a one-way filler valve which is fixed to the body close to the first end and which is operable to allow a fluid under pressure to be introduced into the bore. Roach discloses a first end sealed by a force transmitting component 22 and a one-way filler valve 60. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a force transferring component and a one-way filler valve as disclosed by Roach et al, since doing so provides the expected benefit of supporting and actuating a prop. As to claim 4, McGrath discloses all that is claimed except the tubular plunger which extends through the open second end into the bore, the plunger including a leading end with a piston and a seal, on the piston which is configured to engage in a sealing and sliding manner with an inner surface of the liner, the prop including a pressure relief valve which is configured to allow fluid under pressure in excess of a predetermined threshold pressure value to flow from an interior of the bore between the leading end of the plunger and the first end of the cylindrical body. Roach discloses the tubular plunger 38 which extends through the open second end into the bore, the plunger including a leading end with a piston 42 and a seal 40, on the piston which is configured to engage in a sealing and sliding manner with an inner surface of the liner, the prop including a pressure relief valve 50 which is configured to allow fluid under pressure in excess of a predetermined threshold pressure value to flow from an interior of the bore between the leading end of the plunger and the first end of the cylindrical body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tubular plunger which extends through the open second end into the bore, the plunger including a leading end with a piston and a seal, on the piston which is configured to engage in a sealing and sliding manner with an inner surface of the liner, the prop including a pressure relief valve which is configured to allow fluid under pressure in excess of a predetermined threshold pressure value to flow from an interior of the bore between the leading end of the plunger and the first end of the cylindrical body as disclosed by Roach et al, since doing so provides the expected benefit of actuating a prop. As to claim 5, Roach et al further discloses wherein the pressure relief valve 50 is mounted to the piston so that said fluid under pressure flows into an interior of the plunger (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide pressure relief valve as disclosed by Roach et al, since doing so provides the expected benefit of allowing fluid at a pressure in excess of a predetermined level to flow into an interior of the plunger. As to claim 6, McGrath et al discloses a support prop, comprising: a cylindrical aluminium liner 14 which is externally reinforced with a shell made from a composite material 12. McGrath et al does not discloses the plunger with a seal which engages with an inner surface of the liner; a filler valve through which a volume inside the liner, adjacent the seal, in use, is pressurized with a fluid; and a pressure relief valve which in use allows fluid under pressure to escape from the volume as the plunger is forced into the liner. Roach et al discloses the plunger 38 with a seal 40 which engages with an inner surface of the liner; a filler valve 60 through which a volume inside the liner, adjacent the seal, in use, is pressurized with a fluid; and a pressure relief valve 50 which in use allows fluid under pressure to escape from the volume as the plunger is forced into the liner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tubular plunger which extends through the open second end into the bore, the plunger including a leading end with a piston and a seal, on the piston which is configured to engage in a sealing and sliding manner with an inner surface of the liner, the prop including a pressure relief valve which is configured to allow fluid under pressure in excess of a predetermined threshold pressure value to flow from an interior of the bore between the leading end of the plunger and the first end of the cylindrical body as disclosed by Roach et al, since doing so provides the expected benefit of actuating a prop. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm. 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. /FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 16, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601126
HYBRID POWERTRAIN FOR PLANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600436
MOORING SYSTEMS FOR FIXED MARINE STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595719
EFFICIENT SURFACE AND DOWNHOLE HEATING OF INJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577855
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MICROBUBBLE AND NANOBUBBLE CO2 AND OTHER GAS DISSOLUTION AND SEQUESTRATION IN GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565824
INTEGRATED CARBON SEQUESTRATION INJECTION CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+11.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1610 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month