Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/150,325

MEASURING TOOL AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A COMPENSATION SHEET

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 23, 2025
Priority
Jan 31, 2023 — EU 23154122.8 +1 more
Examiner
JALLOW, EYAMINDAE CHOSSAN
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Bobst Mex S.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
564 granted / 720 resolved
+8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
736
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
82.7%
+42.7% vs TC avg
§102
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§112
8.4%
-31.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 720 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority 2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 23154122.8, filed on January 31st 2023. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 23rd 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation 4. 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. 5. 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 6 recites the phrase “elastic elements” in lines 2 and 4. Claim 7 recites the phrase “elastic elements”. Claim 9 recites the phrase “means of the measuring tool”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. 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. 7. Claims 1-9 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 recites the phrase “…in particular die-cutting and/or creasing machine…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the die-cutting and/or creasing machine is required for said limitation. Claim 1 recites the phrase “…die-cutting and/or creasing machine…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what is being positively recited. Claim 5 recites “…wherein the measuring tool further comprises a plurality of longitudinal rails, wherein the distance sensor is linearly displaceable along each rail.” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the rail or the longitudinal rail is being recited. For the purpose of clarity, one term should be utilized. Claim 9 recites the phrase “…in particular die-cutting and/or creasing machine…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the die-cutting and/or creasing machine is required for said limitation. Claim 9 recites the phrase “…die-cutting and/or creasing machine…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what is being positively recited. Allowable Subject Matter 7. Claims 1-9 are allowed. Regarding claim 1, the most relevant prior art is Andree (EP 3 153 286 A). Andree discloses a measuring tool (160) for a pressing station (100) of a cardboard processing machine, in particular a die-cutting and/or creasing machine, the measuring tool (160) configured to be inserted between an upper platen (110) and a lower platen (115) of the pressing station (100), the measuring tool (160) comprising: at least one sensor including one or several distance sensors (para. [0068]). Andree fails to disclose the sensors being configured to measure a vertical distance to a support surface at a plurality of measuring points when the measuring tool is inserted in the pressing station and the pressing station is closed. Conclusion 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. 9. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 23, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678162
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND RELATED METHODS FOR FASTENING TISSUE
1y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673006
MEDICAMENT FILLING SYSTEM
4y 3m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12668389
GASSING RAIL AND GAS PORT FOR FOOD PACKAGING
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12662288
Pulp Container with Fused Junction and Method of Making Same
1y 4m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12654291
POWER TOOL AND IMPACT TOOL
1y 3m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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
98%
With Interview (+20.2%)
2y 10m (~1y 10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 720 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