Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/007,520

PRESSURE HULL FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY FOR MANNED SUBMERSIBLES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 01, 2022
Examiner
OLSON, LARS A
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Dark Ocean Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1555 granted / 1896 resolved
+30.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1930
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1896 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . The present application is a 371 of PCT/GB2021/051292 filed on May 27, 2021. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered. An amendment was filed by the applicant on December 1, 2025. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claims 14-15 have been added. 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 15 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. The term “relatively large radius” on line 5 of claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling (US 2018/0057128 A1) in view of Dudt et al. (US 7,707,957). Dowling discloses a manned submersible vessel pressure hull, as shown in Figures 1-14, which is comprised of a pressure hull that is made from a plurality of acrylic cylinders, each defined as Part #12, with supporting ribs, defined as Part #13, that form a central section, a front access hatch, defined as Part #9, a top hatch, defined as Part #7, battery pods, defined as Part #5, with thrusters, defined as Part #6, trim ballast compartments with metallic ballast, and a plurality of seats for multiple occupants, as shown in Figures 2-4. Another embodiment of said submersible vessel includes a single unit acrylic pressure hull, as shown in Figures 12-14, with a hemispherical acrylic access hatch section, defined as Part #28, with a major axis that is arranged transverse to a normal direction of motion of said vessel in order to provide occupants with a clear forward line of sight, as demonstrated in Figure 14, and seating for four occupants within said pressure hull. Thrusters, defined as Part #31, are also provided on said pressure hull for propulsion, as shown in Figures 12-14. Dowling, as set forth above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the use of a submersible vessel pressure hull that is spheroidal in shape. Dudt et al. discloses a structural support arrangement for underwater vessels, as shown in Figures 1A-7. On lines 25-29 of column 1, Dudt et al. discloses that the hulls of submersible vehicles are typically constructed from surface-of-revolution shapes, i.e., spherical shells, cylinders, and spheroids, with these shapes being typically compartmentalized and often reinforced. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize submersible vehicle pressure hulls that are constructed from surface-of-revolution shapes in the form of spherical shells, cylinders and spheroids, as taught by Dudt et al., in combination with the manned submersible vessel pressure hull as disclosed by Dowling for the purpose of providing a manned submersible vessel pressure hull that is spheroidal in shape. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling in view of Dudt et al., and further in view of Forman (US 4,928,614). Dowling in combination with Dudt et al. shows all of the features claimed except for the use of a pressure hull with a central section and first and second metal end caps. Forman discloses a submersible vessel, as shown in Figures 1-9, which is comprised of a pressure hull, defined as Part #12, with a central section that is formed from a transparent acrylic material, as described in lines 4-9 of column 2, where said pressure hull has a circular cross-section and an elongated profile across a major axis, as shown in Figure 1. Said hull includes a plurality of seating positions, as shown in Figure 1, for multiple occupants so as to provide both forward and lateral line of sight out of said hull. Said pressure hull includes a hemispherical acrylic member, defined as Part #38, that forms a front hatch, defined as Part #30, a central section, defined as Part #22, that is formed from one or more acrylic cylinders, and a rear section, defined as Part #24, with a metal hatch, defined as Part #156, as shown in Figure 4. An access hatch, defined as Part #250, is also positioned on an upper surface of said hull, as shown in Figure 1. Said hull is further comprised of a pair of battery pods, defined as Part #16, and a pair of propulsion housings, defined as Part #18, to move said vessel through water. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize an acrylic pressure hull with a central section and first and second end caps, as taught by Forman, in combination with the submersible vessel pressure hull as disclosed by Dowling and the teachings of Dudt et al. for the purpose of providing a pressure hull with means to enter or exit said pressure hull on both ends of said pressure hull. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling in view of Dudt et al., and further in view of Moorhouse (US 2008/0149016 A1). Dowling in combination with Dudt et al. shows all of the features claimed except for the use of a submersible vessel with ballast tanks. Moorhouse discloses a submersible vessel, as shown in Figures 1-9, with a pressure hull, defined as Part #20, having transparent acrylic viewing sections, defined as Parts #21 and 22, a top hatch, defined as Part #33, a propeller, defined as Part #15, an internal passenger compartment, defined as Part #30, with seating for multiple occupants, and one or more enclosed ballast tanks contained in a space between body sections #23 and 24, as shown in Figures 4-5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize a submersible vessel with ballast tanks, as taught by Moorhouse, in combination with the submersible vessel as disclosed by Dowling and the teachings of Dudt et al. for the purpose of providing a submersible vessel with means to facilitate depth and buoyancy control of said vessel. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling in view of Dudt et al., and further in view of Roberts (US 3,813,462). Dowling in combination with Dudt et al. shows all of the features claimed except for the use of an acrylic pressure hull that is formed by slush casting. Roberts discloses a process for manufacturing molded articles, as shown in Figures 1-12B, using either slush casting or rotational molding, as described in lines 14-26 of column 5, to mold a plastisol shell, where said plastisol shell may consist of a mixture of a vinyl dispersion resin and a reactive acrylic monomer, as described in lines 54-62 of column 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize slush casting to form an acrylic article, as taught by Roberts, in combination with the submersible vessel as disclosed by Dowling and the teachings of Dudt et al. for the purpose of providing means to form an acrylic pressure hull for a submersible vessel. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 regarding claims 1-3 and 5-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Dowling (US 2018/0057128 A1) does not disclose or suggest the use of a manned submersible vessel pressure hull that is spheroidal in shape. In response to the applicant’s argument, Dowling discloses a manned submersible vessel pressure hull which is comprised of a pressure hull that is made from a plurality of acrylic cylinders (12) with supporting ribs (13) that form a central section, a front access hatch (9), a top hatch (7), and a plurality of seats for multiple occupants. Another embodiment of said submersible vessel includes a single unit acrylic pressure hull with a hemispherical acrylic access hatch section (28) with a major axis that is arranged transverse to a normal direction of motion of said vessel in order to provide occupants with a clear forward line of sight and seating for four occupants within said pressure hull. However, Dowling does not specifically disclose an embodiment in which said manned submersible vessel pressure hull is constructed to have a spheroidal shape. As a result, the examiner has relied upon the teachings of Dudt et al. to demonstrate that the use of a submersible vessel pressure hull having a spherical, cylindrical or spheroidal shape is known in the marine art. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize submersible vehicle pressure hulls that are constructed from surface-of-revolution shapes in the form of spherical shells, cylinders and spheroids, as taught by Dudt et al., in combination with the manned submersible vessel pressure hull as disclosed by Dowling for the purpose of providing a manned submersible vessel pressure hull that is spheroidal in shape. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm. 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, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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. December 31, 2025 /LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 01, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 15, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600444
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE TRIM OF A TRANSPORT SHIP WITHOUT SEAWATER BALLAST
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600441
THRUSTER CONDUIT ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589835
BUOYANCY SUPPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583559
Watercraft Portage Apparatus and Method of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583556
SELF-DRAINING SCUPPER
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1896 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