Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/291,855

CABLE LAYING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Examiner
WILSON, LEE D
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
1458 granted / 1824 resolved
+9.9% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1858
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§102
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1824 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-4 are 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 following claims 1-4 do not recite any method steps and provide any method steps. 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by JPS5391332 U (Admitted Prior Art or APA) . The claimed invention is recited and shown below: Claims 1. (Original) A cable laying method, comprising: fixing (depending upon a new install where the cable can be attached before cap installed or exising repair where the cap is already attached would be a matter inherent worker decision) a cable (wiring par.002) to a hook (15 Par.002) attached to a surface of a cap-type structure (2 par.002) on the ground (power pole 1 is stuck in ground par.002) in the vicinity of a pole built (power pole 1 on ground par.002) on the ground; lifting the structure up to the vicinity of a tip of the pole; and covering (See Fig.1 with cap 2 covering top of power pole 1) the tip of the pole with the structure. 2. (Original) The cable laying method, comprising: lifting a cap-type structure up to the vicinity of a tip of a pole built on the ground; covering the tip of the pole with the structure; pulling a cable up to the vicinity of the structure; and fixing the cable to a hook attached to a surface of the structure. See Fig.2 3. (Currently Amended) The cable laying method according to claim 1 See Fig.2 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS5391332 U (Admitted Prior Art or APA) in view of Reese et al 5837937. JPS5391332 U (Admitted Prior Art or APA) discloses the claimed invention except for a transparent plastic. Reese et al disclose that is known in the prior art to employed a transparent plastic as a substitute for a metal housing which allows for viewing internal structures and has impact toughness and it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have used modified the JPS5391332 U (Admitted Prior Art or APA) device such as a known a transparent plastic which allows for viewing internal structures and has impact toughness yield the predictable result of viewing the an inside. KSR Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30. 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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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. LEE D. WILSON Examiner Art Unit 3723 Ldw /LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 January 18, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599789
RESCUE ACCESS WEDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595849
SEAL RING INSTALLATION MODULE AND SEAL RING INSTALLATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589976
LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583068
Clamping Arrangement
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564923
MOUNTING TOOL FOR POSITIONING A SHAFT SEALING RING ON A SHAFT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A SHAFT SEAL
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+18.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1824 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