Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/549,911

HAULING SYSTEM INVOLVING A CAPTIVE SAIL AND A FLYING MOORING LINE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 09, 2023
Examiner
HAYES, JOVON E
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Airseas
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
759 granted / 894 resolved
+32.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
915
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 894 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This is a first action on the merits of application 18549911. Claims 1-25 are pending. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: (fixed suspension lines (6) and mobile suspension lines (6) can’t be numbered the same. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 13 has not been further treated on the merits. Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 13 has not been further treated on the merits. Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 13 has not been further treated on the merits. Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 13 has not been further treated on the merits. Claims 22-25 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 13 has not been further treated on the merits. 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 16-25 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. Claims 16-20, state “The traction system” it is unclear if this is the same as claims 1-15 wherein it states: “The captive wing traction system”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 21 is rejected because it is an independent claim that is written as a dependent claim, which depend from claim 5 as written. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art search does not disclose the limitations of the independent claims, examiner agrees with ISA report. Claims 1-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 16-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F. 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 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. /JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 09, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589837
A BUOYANT ROTATABLE MARINE TRANSDUCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589842
Fender Hook Rope Anchor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583571
Motion Transforming Differentially Biased Transmission for Human Powered Vehicles
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583560
FLOATING POWER GENERATION PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571604
FIREARM FOR UNMANNED UNDERWATER VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
85%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+5.5%)
1y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 894 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