Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/243,674

Dual Pumping Hydrofoil System And Balanced Dual Linear Drive Propulsion System And Vehicles And Boats Using Same

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 08, 2023
Examiner
VENNE, DANIEL V
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
1162 granted / 1635 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1686
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
43.8%
+3.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1635 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is a Continuation of Application No. 17/134431, now US 11753115 B2. Amendments were filed by applicant on 12/08/2025 and 12/09/2025. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2 and 3 are new. Claims 1-3 are remaining in the application. The amended Specification is accepted, except as otherwise noted. 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 claimed feature: “first mechanical stop” and “second mechanical stop” must be shown (it is suggested with appropriate reference characters corresponding to these features as correlated to the written description for these features) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above feature (it is suggested with appropriate reference characters corresponding to these features in the written description) consistent with the Specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. No new matter should be entered. In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification does not include drawing reference characters in the written description for the features identified in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Office Action. Appropriate correction is required. The Specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claimed phrases “first hydrofoil blade”, “second hydrofoil blade”, “first strut”, “second strut”, “first hydrofoil blade and second hydrofoil blade are adapted to pump up and down in reciprocating alternating fashion” and “first hydrofoil blade resides forward of [said] second hydrofoil blade” are not found in the Specification as are recited in the claims. Claim limitations should be consistent with features found in and described in the Specification; and terminology and nomenclature should be consistent throughout the disclosure (Abstract, Specification and Claims). This objection is not the same as an objection of the Specification for lacking sufficient support for the claimed subject matter. The following applicable section of the MPEP is provided for applicant’s consideration in reply to this matter: 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022] The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. Glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP § 608.01(o) and MPEP § 2181, subsection IV. Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): 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. 15. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. 16. The claimed limitation “the pivoting” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims (it is suggested that such limitation be replaced with -pivoting- in these claims). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 is allowed. Claims 2 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 19. 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. 20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571). The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. 21. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J Morano can be reached on (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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 22. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Daniel V Venne/ Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3617 12/17/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 08, 2023
Application Filed
May 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 08, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600446
DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR MOUNTING A TRANSDUCER WITHIN A WATERCRAFT HULL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595030
HULL-MOUNTED INSTALLATION CONVERSION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595034
Variable Angle Rudder Lift Actuation Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589834
DEVICE FOR CONNECTING TWO PARTS OF A HULL OF A SHIP, AND HULL OF A SHIP COMPRISING SUCH A DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583561
SAILING BOAT WITH AN AUXILIARY HYDRODYNAMIC SURFACE
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
71%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+14.9%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1635 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month