Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/661,863

SHALLOW DRAFT CONTAINER CARRIER

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
May 13, 2024
Examiner
WIEST, ANTHONY D
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
635 granted / 896 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
925
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 896 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . A preliminary amendment was received from the applicant on 7/12/2024. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are amended. Claims 8 and 11-14 are cancelled. Claim 15 is new. Claims 1-7 , 9, 10 and 15 are pending in the current application. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first radius and second radius of the double ogive bow must be shown intersecting as claimed in claim 1 or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-7 , 9, 10 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11001350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because similar subject matter is claimed. 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. Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 limitations of claim 1 are unclear. The features claimed are not described in the specification or shown on the drawings. The first radius and the second radius of the double radius ogive bow are not described in the specification as intersecting radii and are not clearly shown as such on the drawings. Figure 12 appears to show a first radius and second radius of a first circle and a second circle which are tangential to each other. As shown the first and second radius do not appear to intersect as claimed. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00. 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 on 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. /ANTHONY D WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 13, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Oct 01, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595025
STEP APPARATUSES FOR BOATS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589836
SURGE DAMPING SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES FOR USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577942
METHODS OF SECURING A VESSEL DURING TRANSPORTATION, OFF-LOADING, AND INSTALLATION OF WIND TURBINE COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571372
FLOATING WIND TURBINE SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565296
RAPID REPLACEMENT CONTROL FIN FOR AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE
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
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 896 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