Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/710,815

A JACK-UP VESSEL

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 16, 2024
Priority
Nov 16, 2021 — NL 2029776 +2 more
Examiner
KRECK, JANINE MUIR
Art Unit
3672
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Itrec B.V.
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
1051 granted / 1346 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1367
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
63.2%
+23.2% vs TC avg
§102
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1346 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 . The amendment dated 30 April 2026 has been entered. Applicant has overcome some of the section 112 rejections, but the rejection based on no clear disclosure of the corresponding structure remains. Applicant’s arguments on that issue are not persuasive: Applicant asserts—page 1 of 30 April remarks—that “the corresponding description1 in the patent specification describes the operation of the control system 152. Figures 5a and 5b and the corresponding description also describe an example flow diagram related to functions of the control system. Thus, the control system includes sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions (i.e., a hardware embedded processor executing the appropriate functions/algorithm).” This is not a sufficient showing of corresponding structure. The courts have held that the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. “a hardware embedded processor executing the appropriate functions/algorithm” is not sufficient because Applicant has failed to disclose the algorithm THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. 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. Claim limitation “control system” (claim 1) and [step of] ”determining” (claim 9) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph2. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As established in the Office Action dated 4 March 2026, the function/step of determining is understood to require special programming, and therefore amounts to a special purpose computer- implemented means-plus-function limitation. Applicant has not disclosed any programming or algorithm Therefore, claims 1 and 9 ( and 2-8 and 12-16 by dependency) are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 EST. 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 5712725405. 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. /Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 1 Applicant fails to identify the “corresponding description” by page and line or by paragraph. 2 See Non-Final 4 March 2026 at 5 and 6 (page 4 and 5). Applicant has not contested Examiner’s finding that the claim limitations invoke 112f.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 30, 2026
Response Filed
May 18, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 12, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680450
Hybrid Tunnel Boring Using Combination of Thermal and Mechanical Processes
1y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12662939
GUIDE SHOE FOR MINING MACHINE
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12650076
ACTIVE CONTROL METHOD AND DEVICE FOR LARGE DEFORMATION OF DEEP THIN-BEDDED SURROUNDING ROCK
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12644383
Device for Milling in Particular Rock and Other Materials
2y 0m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12644384
WEAR PROTECTION CAP AND A BIT HOLDER ARRANGEMENT
1y 11m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+13.6%)
2y 3m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1346 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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