Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/254,694

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 26, 2023
Examiner
ADAMS, NATHANIEL L
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rolls-Royce
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
369 granted / 514 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
560
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 514 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/25. 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 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. 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. 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 limitations are: “handling device” in claim 1; and “engagement member” in claim 6. 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 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 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. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2364986 A (hereinafter “McGinty”). Regarding claim 1 McGinty discloses a trolley for transporting (capable of transporting; i.e. this is a functional limitation) one or more stud tensioner devices in a nuclear plant, the trolley comprising: a support frame (S; see annotated figure below) for supporting (capable of supporting; i.e. this is a functional limitation) a stud tensioner; PNG media_image1.png 513 578 media_image1.png Greyscale a plurality of wheels (19) rotatably mounted to the frame (S); and a handling device (30) mounted to the frame (S) so as to be movable with respect to the frame (S), the handling device (30) configured to engage and move the stud tensioner relative to the support frame (S). Regarding claim 2 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the support frame (S) comprises an elongate gantry (15) to which the handling device (30) is movably mounted so as to be movable along a longitudinal axis of the gantry (15). Regarding claim 3 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the gantry (15) extends substantially horizontally. Regarding claim 4 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the support frame (S) comprises a base (20) for supporting (capable of supporting; i.e. this is a functional limitation) the stud tensioner thereon, the gantry (15) disposed above, and spaced from, the base (20). Regarding claim 5 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the wheels (19) are rotatably mounted to the base (20). Regarding claim 6 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the handling device (30) comprises a winch, the winch comprising an engagement member (see fig. 3; i.e. or else the load 44 could not be engaged) for engaging (capable of supporting; i.e. this is a functional limitation) the stud tensioner and moving the stud tensioner along a substantially vertical axis. Regarding claim 7 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the support frame (S, above) is configured to be convertable between a collapsed configuration and an expanded configuration (see abstract). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time. 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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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. /NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569899
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR GUIDING METAL STRIPS, COMPRISING GRINDING BODIES WITH SUPPORT ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570099
SUBSTRATE ALIGNMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565405
Modular and Collapsible Server Lift Assist for Immersion Cooling System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552646
WILDERNESS LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545557
WIND TURBINE LIFTING ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+20.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 514 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