Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/106,732

MOVABLE FORMWORK SYSTEM FOR CLADDING PART OF A TUNNEL

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 26, 2025
Priority
Aug 30, 2022 — ES U202231425 +1 more
Examiner
KRECK, JANINE MUIR
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Grupo Empresarial Tecozam S L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
1051 granted / 1346 resolved
+18.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1367
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
63.2%
+23.2% vs TC avg
§102
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1346 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim 1—and claims 2-15 by dependency—include “fastening means” which is described as “a plurality of individual elements which can be fastened, in a removable manner, to the guide rail (5) and to a surface of the tunnel to be lined, for example, by means of bolts and nuts.” Examiner interprets this as the braces or struts illustrated in figure 1 and 2 in combination with bolts and nuts as described in [0045]. Examiner finds that the term “elements” found in dependent claim 13 and in the written description is not a structural term. Claim 1—and claims 2-15 by dependency—include “rolling means” which is described in [0046] and figure 2 and includes sheave and connecting rod. Examiner notes that the term “sheave” ordinarily refers to a wheel with a groove on its circumference. See, e.g. Webster’s1: “Sheave noun: a grooved wheel or pulley (as of a pulley block) “. This is not the structure illustrated and Examiner questions whether this is a mistranslation, and whether Applicant intends such a narrow scope. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: anchoring structure2 in claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15. Claim 8 explicitly recites sufficient structure and thus does not invoke 112f. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the formwork on an upper level (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 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. Claim 9 is 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 9, which depends from claim 1, lacks clear antecedent basis for the projecting part which was recited in claim 8. Although the means-plus-function language “anchoring structure” is understood to cover the corresponding structure, the language “projecting part” is not previously recited in the text of the claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 9 to depend from claim 8. Claim Objections Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in the penultimate line, after “structure”, a word such as “ are” or “is” is needed.. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are allowed. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 5712725405. 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. /Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 1https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sheave 2 Non-structural term “structure” coupled with function of anchoring and fastened to surface of the tunnel
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680450
Hybrid Tunnel Boring Using Combination of Thermal and Mechanical Processes
1y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12662939
GUIDE SHOE FOR MINING MACHINE
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12650076
ACTIVE CONTROL METHOD AND DEVICE FOR LARGE DEFORMATION OF DEEP THIN-BEDDED SURROUNDING ROCK
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12644383
Device for Milling in Particular Rock and Other Materials
2y 0m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12644384
WEAR PROTECTION CAP AND A BIT HOLDER ARRANGEMENT
1y 11m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+13.6%)
2y 3m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1346 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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