Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/453,083

CABLE CAROUSEL FOR HEAVY-DUTY ELECTRIC CABLE OR UMBILICAL

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 21, 2023
Examiner
DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Mammoet Holding B V
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
982 granted / 1359 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1392
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1359 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 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. Claims 5,7,9,10,13 and 15 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. In claim 5 there is no antecedent basis for the terms “the locking pile”, “the aligned apertures” and “the connecting organ”. It appears that claim 5 should depend from claim 4. In claim 7 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the connecting organ”. It appears that claims 6 should depend from claim 4. In claim 8 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the star pattern of the reinforcement beams”. In claim 10 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the horizontal beams”. It appears claim 10 should depend from claim 8. In claim 13 it is unclear if the “upstanding side supports” are meant to reference the “upstanding supports” of claim 1, or a separate element. For the purposes of examination it was assumed the upstanding side supports was meant to reference the upstanding supports of claim 1, as this is what was meant to be claimed per the examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention. In claim 15 there is no antecedent basis for the terms “the locking pile”, “the aligned apertures” and “the connecting organ”. It appears that claim 15 should reference the cable carousel according to claim 4. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4,6,8,11,12,14,16 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: EP3260751 to van Doorn was considered the closest prior art reference. The prior art teaches a cable carousel with a support grid and upstanding supports disposed on the support grid that confine a region in which a heavy-duty electric cable or umbilical can be received and supported by the support grid, wherein the upstanding supports are placeable on the support grid at preselected positions defining both an inner barrier and an outer barrier so as to tailor the cable carousel to a dimension between the inner and outer barriers which is necessary and sufficient to store a predetermined length of the cable(fig 2 of van Doorn), however the prior art does not teach wherein the cable carousel comprises shores connecting the inner barrier to the support grid, and the shores are connectable to the inner barrier at one of a series of preselected positions above the support grid as recited in claim 1. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US11866286, US20220227600, US11345565, US10689224, US7665685, US20010035473, US3965713. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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. /BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599233
RAIL SYSTEM FOR WORKSPACE WITH MODULAR COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12565963
MOUNTING BRACKET FOR CUSTOMER PREMISE EQUIPMENT AND CUSTOMER PREMISE EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565964
FIXING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568164
STAND FOR MOBILE TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12546438
ANCHOR ASSEMBLY
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 (+20.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1359 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