Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/583,519

NON-DISRUPTIVE UNDERGROUND PIPE REPLACEMENT PROCESS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 21, 2024
Examiner
ANDRISH, SEAN D
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
9 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
10-11
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
793 granted / 1109 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1109 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 2, and 4 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites a new underground pipe and both an “old underground pipe” and an “existing pipe”. The original disclosure describes a new underground and a single underground pipe that has been laid before the new underground pipe and the new underground pipe is laid adjacent the single pre-installed underground pipe. Therefore, one of the two pre-existing pipes (old underground pipe; existing pipe) represents new matter. 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 1, 2, and 4 - 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. Regarding claim 1, the structural limitation "an old underground pipe" as recited in lines 1 - 2 and in line 4, renders the claim(s) indefinite because "old" can be interpreted differently. For instance, "old" can be interpreted as "pre-existing" or "having existed for a long time". Claim 8 contains a similar error. It is unclear how many pipes Applicant intends to recite in claim 1. The preamble of claim 1 recites a method for installing a “new underground pipe” adjacent an “old underground pipe”. However, the body of claim 1 recites forming vertical boreholes to visibly expose an old underground pipe, but the new underground pipe is installed adjacent an existing pipe. While it is possible that Applicant intends the “old underground pipe” and the “existing pipe” to refer to the same structural element, since claim 1 has been amended to recite both an old underground pipe and an existing pipe, Examiner has interpreted the old underground pipe and the existing pipe as referring to separate structural elements. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the existing pipe" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21 - 24 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4 - 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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. /SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 SA 3/19/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2024
Application Filed
May 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 22, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 29, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 11, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 09, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 09, 2025
Response Filed
May 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 19, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 29, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 20, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 30, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 10, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 31, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601132
FISH TRANSFER SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600571
RAINWATER STORAGE DEVICE AND CONSTRUCTION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601136
MONOPILE FOUNDATION AND METHOD FOR INSTALLATION OF A MONOPILE FOUNDATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595635
OFFSHORE PILE INSTALLATION METHOD AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12565945
MANIPULATOR DEVICE TO APPLY MODULES AROUND A PIPELINE, LAYING VESSEL COMPRISING SAID DEVICE AND METHOD TO OPERATE SAID LAYING VESSEL
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

10-11
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1109 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