Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/917,590

DEVICES AND METHODS FOR INSTALLING PILES INTO THE GROUND OR SEABED

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 07, 2022
Examiner
FIORELLO, BENJAMIN F
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Heerema Marine Contractors Nederland SE
OA Round
4 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
823 granted / 1116 resolved
+21.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1147
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1116 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION The amendment filed 10/03/2025 has been entered. 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 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. Claim(s) 144-147, 149-150, 152-154, 156, 159 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fagerlund (3,117,423). With regard to claim 144, Fagerlund discloses a support structure for supporting a top structure above the ground or a seabed, the support structure comprising: one single support pile (fig. 1) having a length and a first outer diameter (figs. 1), the support pile comprising: an upper part (35) configured and intended to extend above the ground or the seabed (fig. 1), wherein the upper part of the support pile is configured to be directly connected to the top structure (52), and a lower part (10), wherein at least a bottom part of the lower part is configured and intended to extend into the ground or the seabed (sand; fig. 1; claim 1), and a plurality of foundation guides (14) directly connected to the lower part of the support pile (fig. 1), each foundation guide having an opening extending in a direction of the support pile (fig. 1), the opening having an opening diameter, wherein each foundation guide is configured to accommodate a foundation pile (19), wherein the foundation pile is configured to extend through the foundation guide and at least partly into the ground or the seabed (fig. 1). With regard to claim 145, Fagerlund further discloses the plurality of foundation guides are provided at a distance above a bottom end of the support pile (fig. 1). With regard to claim 146, Fagerlund further discloses a longitudinal axis of the opening of the foundation guides extends parallel to a central axis of the support pile (fig. 1). With regard to claim 147, Fagerlund further discloses in top view the plurality of foundation guides are arranged around the support pile (figs. 1,3). With regard to claim 149, Fagerlund further discloses a length of the foundation guide is at least twice the opening diameter of the opening of the foundation guide (figs. 1,3). With regard to claim 150, Fagerlund further discloses the plurality of foundation guides comprises at least three foundation guides (figs. 1-2). With regard to claim 152, Fagerlund further discloses a bottom end of each foundation guide is configured and intended to rest on the ground or the seabed (fig. 1). With regard to claim 153, Fagerlund further discloses the opening diameter of the plurality of foundation guides is smaller than the first outer diameter (fig. 1). With regard to claim 154, Fagerlund further discloses the lower part of the support pile is configured to extend into the ground or the seabed by a distance of at least one time the first outer diameter of the support pile (fig. 1). With regard to claim 156, Fagerlund further discloses a plurality of foundation piles (19), wherein each foundation pile extends through a respective foundation guide and is configured and intended to extend at least partly into the ground or the seabed over a foundation depth for providing resistance against overturning of the support pile (fig. 1). With regard to claim 159, Fagerlund further discloses a method comprising positioning the single support pile with its bottom end on the ground or the seabed and moving a part of the lower part of the support pile into the ground or the seabed (fig. 1), and positioning the plurality of foundation piles in the foundation guides and moving the plurality of foundation piles at least partly into the ground or the seabed over the foundation depth (fig. 1). 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. Claim(s) 151 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fagerlund (3,117,423) in view of Shafer et al. (8,870,497). With regard to claim 151, Fagerlund discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent the foundation guides are connected to each other via a foundation frame, the foundation frame being connected to and extending around the support pile for providing stiffness to the connection between the foundation guides and the support pile. Shafer discloses a support system wherein the foundations pile guides (68) are connected to each other via a foundation frame (67) extending around a support (fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fagerlund and connect the foundation pile guides as taught in Shafer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further strengthen the structure. Claim(s) 155 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fagerlund (3,117,423) in view of Finn et al. (8,899,881). With regard to claim 155, Fagerlund discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a suction bucket is provided inside the lower part of the support pile for moving the lower part of the support pile into the ground or the seabed via suction. Finn discloses a support structure wherein a suction bucket is provided inside the lower part of the support pile for moving the lower part of the support pile into the ground or the seabed via suction (figs. 6-7; col. 12, lines 57-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fagerlund and utilize a suction anchor as taught in Finn with a reasonable expectation of success in order to aid in the sinking of the support pile. Claim(s) 157 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fagerlund (3,117,423) in view of Fraenkel (2011/0318113). With regard to claim 157, Fagerlund disclose the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the top structure is a wind turbine. Fraenkel discloses a support assembly for supporting a top structure wherein the top structure is a wind turbine (para 0006). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fagerlund and support a wind turbine as taught in Fraenkel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide means for producing power. Claim(s) 158 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fagerlund (3,117,423) in view of Cerato (2020/0370264). With regard to claim 158, Fagerlund discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the foundation pile comprises at least one helix at a lower end thereof extending around the outer surface, wherein the foundation pile is configured to be rotated about its longitudinal axis during installation into the ground or the seabed. Cerato discloses a support structure comprising foundation piles (102) wherein the foundation pile comprises at least one helix (106) at a lower end thereof extending around the outer surface (fig. 1), wherein the foundation pile is configured to be rotated about its longitudinal axis during installation into the ground or the seabed (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fagerlund and utilize foundation piles with a helix as taught in Cerato, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to compress soft soils and known within the art. Claim(s) 163 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fagerlund (3,117,423). With regard to claim 163, Fagerlund discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state the foundation piles extend through the foundation guides during the lowering and positioning of the support assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one may have the piles extending through the guide while lower in the assembly in order to simplify the installation process. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 148 and 160-162 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see reasons for indication of allowable subject matter in the office action dated 06/05/2024. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been considered. Applicant’s arguments are based on new limitations which have been addressed above. 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 BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, 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. /BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 BF 01/09/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 07, 2022
Application Filed
May 31, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 28, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 11, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 13, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 14, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 03, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601135
EDGING INTERFACE FOR A GOLF COURSE BUNKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601134
COMPOSITION, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR STABILISING A ROCK MASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595735
SMART ROCK BOLT DRIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591100
OPTICAL CABLE LAYING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584304
Sewer System Overflow Prevention Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
74%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+7.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1116 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