Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/719,057

A CANAL DOCKING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 12, 2024
Examiner
TOLEDO-DURAN, EDWIN J
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Hydbeam Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 766 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
818
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 766 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 1-21 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. As to Claim 1, the claim recites “the buoyant elements” when it should be “the at least one buoyant element” as claimed before. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites “and at least one buoyant element is made of resilient material” when it should be “and the at least one buoyant element is made of resilient material”. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 4, the claim recites “and wherein the floating structure frame comprises a series of tubes or rods inter-connected by flanges” but the claim recites “the floating structure comprises a frame comprising a tube or rod which extends through the through-holes” before so part of the limitation is duplicated. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 5, the claim recites “wherein at least one rail comprises an outer flange and the carriages engage behind the flange”. It is unclear if this refers to the “plurality of vertical rails” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 6, the claim recites “wherein at least one rail comprises an outer flange and the carriages engage behind the flange”. It is unclear if this refers to the “plurality of vertical rails” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 recites “wherein at least one carriage comprises a pair of wheels mounted by bearings to a plate”. It is unclear if this refers to the “carriages” claimed in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 7, the claim recites “at least one rail”. It is unclear if this refers to the “plurality of vertical rails” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 recites “at least one carriage”. It is unclear if this refers to the “carriages” claimed in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 8, the claim recites “at least one rail”. It is unclear if this refers to the “plurality of vertical rails” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 recites “at least one carriage” and “said carriage”. It is unclear if this refers to the “carriages” claimed in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 recites “and at least one carriage engages an inner surface of the outer flange; and wherein said carriage engages an outer surface of the inner flange and an inner surface of the outer flange”. The limitation regarding the inner surface is a duplicate. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 9, the claim recites “such as” which is improper. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 10, the claim recites “a frame”. It is unclear if this refers to the “frame” on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 11, the claim recites “a frame”. It is unclear if this refers to the “frame” on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 13, the claim recites “a dock wall” and “a dock or lock wall”. It is unclear if this refers to the “dock or lock wall” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 14, the claim recites “a dock wall” and “a dock or lock wall”. It is unclear if this refers to the “dock or lock wall” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 15, the claim recites “wherein at least one bollard”. It is unclear if this refers to the “plurality of bollards” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15 recites “radially from tube outer surface”. The limitation is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 16, the claim recites “comprises at least one short bollard and at least one longer bollard”. It is unclear if these elements are part of the “plurality of bollards” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 17, the claim recites “comprises at least one short bollard and at least one longer bollard”. It is unclear if these elements are part of the “plurality of bollards” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 recites “wherein the short bollard is connected to an arm the long bollard”. The limitation is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 18, recites “at least one carriage”. It is unclear if this refers to the “carriages” claimed in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 18 recites “a bollard”. It is unclear if this element is part of the “plurality of bollards” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 19, recites “at least one carriage” and “said carriage”. It is unclear if this refers to the “carriages” claimed in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 recites “a bollard”. It is unclear if this element is part of the “plurality of bollards” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 20, the claim recites “wherein there is no floater outwardly of a carriage, only between the carriages, whereby parts of the floaters occupy a space between juxtaposed rails in plan view”. There are no “floater” nor “floaters” claimed before. It is unclear if the “juxtaposed rails” refer to the “plurality of vertical rails” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected independent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kennedy (U.S. Patent No. 2,844,943). As to Claim 1, Kennedy discloses a docking system comprising: A plurality of vertical rails (21) for securing to a lock or dock wall (12), and A floating structure (11) comprising at least one buoyant element (51) and carriages (31) engaging the rails, the carriages allowing (31) the floating structure to rise and fall on the vertical rails (21) according to water level, Wherein the floating structure comprises a frame (50) linked to the buoyant elements (51) and at least one buoyant element (51) is of resilient material. As to Claim 2, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure (11) comprises a series of inter-linked resilient floating elements (Figure 1). As to Claim 3, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure comprises a series of inter-linked resilient floating elements (Figure 1); and wherein each floating element comprises a through-hole (Opening receiving 54) and the floating structure comprises a frame (50) comprising a tube or rod (54) which extends through the through-holes. As to Claim 4, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure comprises a series of inter-linked resilient floating elements (Figure 1); and wherein each floating element comprises a through-hole (Opening receiving 54) and the floating structure comprises a frame (50) comprising a tube or rod (54) which extends through the through-holes; and wherein the floating structure frame (50) comprises a series of tubes or rods (54) inter-connected by flanges (32b). As to Claim 5, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein at least one rail (22) comprises an outer flange (Figure 3) and the carriages (31) engage behind the flange. As to Claim 6, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein at least one rail (22) comprises an outer flange and the carriages (31) engage behind the flange; and wherein at least one carriage (31) comprises a pair of wheels (33) mounted by bearings to a plate (37). As to Claim 7, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein at least one rail (22) comprises an outer flange and the carriages (31) engage behind the flange; and wherein at least one rail (22) is of I-beam shape with an inner flange and an outer flange and at least one carriage (31) engages an inner surface of the outer flange (Figure 1). As to Claim 8, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein at least one rail (22) comprises an outer flange and the carriages (31) engage behind the flange; and wherein at least one rail is of I-beam shape with an inner flange and an outer flange, and at least one carriage engages an inner surface of the outer flange (Figure 1); and wherein said carriage (31) engages an outer surface of the inner flange and an inner surface of the outer flange (Figure 1). As to Claim 9, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure (11) is linked with the carriages (31) by connectors (37) such as shackles. As to Claim 10, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure (11) is linked with the carriages (31) by connectors (37) which are linked to a frame (50) of the floating structure. As to Claim 11, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure (11) is linked with the carriages (31) by connectors (37) which are linked to a frame (50) of the floating structure; and wherein connectors (37) are linked to flanges (32b) of a tube (53) of said frame. As to Claim 12, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure (11) comprises a plurality of bollards (47) which extend upwardly from the floating structure (11). As to Claim 13, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure comprises a plurality of bollards (61, 62) which extend upwardly from the floating structure (11); and wherein the bollards include bollards (61) which extend inwardly towards a dock wall (12) to, in use, help maintain a small gap between the floating structure and a dock or lock wall. As to Claim 14, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure comprises a plurality of bollards (61, 62) which extend upwardly from the floating structure (11); and wherein the bollards include bollards (61) which extend inwardly towards a dock wall to, in use, help maintain a small gap between the floating structure and a dock or lock wall; and wherein said bollards (61) each comprises an arm which is bent to extend inwardly (Figure 4). As to Claim 15, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure comprises a plurality of bollards (47) which extend upwardly from the floating structure (11); and wherein at least one bollard comprises an end cap (44) at the end of a tube (53) and the cap extends radially from tube outer surface akin to a flange. As to Claim 16, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure comprises a plurality of bollards (61, 62) which extend upwardly from the floating structure (11); and wherein the system further comprising at least one short bollard (62) and at least one longer bollard (61). As to Claim 17, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure comprises a plurality of bollards (61, 62) which extend upwardly from the floating structure (11); and wherein the system further comprises at least one short bollard (62) and at least one longer bollard (61); and wherein the short bollard (62) is connected to an arm (48) the long bollard (280). As to Claim 18, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure comprises a plurality of bollards (47) which extend upwardly from the floating structure (11); and wherein at least one carriage (31) supports a bollard (47). As to Claim 19, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein the floating structure (11) comprises a plurality of bollards (49) which extend upwardly from the floating structure (11); and wherein at least one carriage (31) supports a bollard (49); and wherein said carriage comprises a pair of plates (47) extending outwardly and supporting a lower end of a bollard (49) between said plates (47). As to Claim 20, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kennedy also discloses wherein there is no floater outwardly of a carriage (31), only between the carriages, whereby parts of the floaters (51) occupy a space between juxtaposed rails (21) in plan view. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy (U.S. Patent No. 2,844,943) in view of Schmid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0094665). As to Claim 21, Kennedy discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Kennedy is silent about wherein the system further comprises at least one proximity sensor for detecting a body located normally from an end of the floating structure for a minimum time threshold. Schmid discloses a system comprising at least one proximity sensor (306) for detecting a body located normally from an end of the floating structure for a minimum time threshold (Paragraph 0072). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one proximity sensor for detecting a body located normally from an end of the floating structure for a minimum time threshold. The motivation would have been to avoid collisions. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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, 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. /EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 12, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595634
FORMWORK DEVICE EQUIPPED WITH A DEVIATION-MEASURING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577748
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR OPTIMIZING REGULATION OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENT DISCHARGING BASED ON ASYNCHRONOUS PROPAGATION CHARACTERISTIC BETWEEN FLOOD PEAK AND SEDIMENT PEAK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571286
UMBILICAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559901
IMPLEMENT AND A METHOD FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION RELATED TO SAID IMPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12545827
COMBINED TREATMENT PROCESS FOR REMOVING AND INHIBITING SCALE
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
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.9%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 766 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