Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/792,093

CONTAINMENT BOOM, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR CONFINING AN OIL SPILL

Final Rejection §102§Other
Filed
Jul 11, 2022
Examiner
MENON, KRISHNAN S
Art Unit
1777
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Gb Ocean AS
OA Round
4 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
879 granted / 1475 resolved
-5.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
1547
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1475 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §Other
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 12-16, in the reply filed on 10/25/24 is acknowledged. Request to reconsider for examination the non-elected group II, claims 10-11, is denied, but will be considered for rejoinder if and when the elected claims become allowable. New claims 17-20, directed specifically at the elected species, fig. 10, the openable link being two permanent magnets, are being included in the elected claims. 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 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. 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. 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: Remotely openable link and connection means in claims 1, 3, 9 and 23 Storage means in claims 3, 6, 9 Delivering means for delivering to separate towing vessels in claims 7, 14-16, 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by RU 112217. This Russian reference teaches a boom 10 floating in water and anchored at 1, has magnetic shutters (5-7) that open and close by a small force such as wind. The opening and closing can be remote as claimed by movement of guides 4 connected by rope 2 and connecting eye 3. First and second portions and the left and right halves of the boom in the figures, similar to that of applicant’s boom 1 in applicant’s fig. 1. PNG media_image1.png 543 666 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. A shows open position and B shows closed position. Claims are considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation. While the reference does not teach boats, the device in the reference is cable of opening and closing using tub boats using rope 2, eyes 3 and guides 4. Regarding “weak link configured to break open,” applicant elected magnetic link as the species and fig. 10 in the response to election requirement of 11/22/24. Therefore, the weak link is a magnetic link by the election. In addition, specification at page 3, lines 17-18 defines magnetic link as breakable weak link. The containment boom in this reference is deployable to extend around an entire perimeter as claimed. Regarding the remotely openable weak (magnetic) link, applicant’s disclosed remote operation is like pulling on a rope, which the RU device is capable of. Pulling the ropes downward (on paper) in fig. B above would open the link and the gate. RU teaches a removable bottom 8, which when removed anticipates the claims. Arguments are not persuasive and are addressed in the rejection. Claim(s) 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by NO317953. As seen in fig. 4 of this NO reference, oil slick boom 1 can be towed by two tug boats, and can be opened or closed by a small amount of force at joint 15, a locking means, which appears like a peg and a socket, “two complementary parts which engage each-other” as defined by applicant in spec. at page 3, lines 15-17. The remote operation (under the broadest reasonable interpretation,) is anticipated by the ropes used by tug boats for closure or opening of the joint at 15. See the description in the reference as well as its claim 1. It encircles structure 2. First and second portions of the boom are clearly visible in Fig. 4. PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Arguments are not persuasive. The teaching of the cited portion of the reference is “[s]uch means preferably comprise a cone or pyramid shaped cone 14 in one half, which protrudes into a correspondingly formed cavity in the other half, to facilitate the coupling of the two half 11,12 in high sea.” This teaching of typical ‘peg and socket’ is easily openable. The reference teaches further, “[a]t this end of the half 11,12 there may also be locking means 15 for locking the vessel 1 in the closed position.” That is, locking means is presented as not being essential by the text of the teaching, “there may also be locking means 15.” Also, there is no teaching that the locking means 15 is permanent. The arguments, “the device is deployable permanently,” “locking devices 15 are strong link that prevents from being opened remotely,” etc., are only attorney’s conjectures. To this examiner (one of ordinary skill), locking devices appear to be simple clamps, which can be easily pulled apart by sufficient pull force. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-9, 12-15 and 17-20 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. They are addressed in the rejection. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM. 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, Prem C Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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. /KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §Other
May 19, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §Other
Oct 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §Other
Mar 02, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §Other (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594366
TECHNIQUES FOR DIALYSIS BASED ON RELATIVE BLOOD VOLUME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582944
METHODS FOR TREATING POROUS MEMBRANES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577705
ASSEMBLY COMPRISING A CENTER-FLUID DISTRIBUTOR AND A MULTI-FIBER SPINNERET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577130
DRINKING WATER DISPENSER WITH ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566160
PILLAR STRUCTURES
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+11.7%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1475 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