Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 21, 2026
Application No. 19/022,733

BUOY WITH BUOYANT CORE AND COLLAR HAVING MULTIPLE FLOTATION COMPONENTS

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Jan 15, 2025
Priority
May 26, 2017 — AU 2017901999 +3 more
Examiner
POLAY, ANDREW
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sealite Pty Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
673 granted / 909 resolved
+22.0% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
933
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 909 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 § 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. 2, 5, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Campbell (GB 1465043 A). Regarding Claim 1, Campbell discloses a buoy comprising: a buoyant core component having a plurality of cavities positioned therein; at least two detachable flotation components surrounding and supporting the buoyant core component (See Fig. 1.); and a pair of tie bar assemblies mounted within the plurality of cavities of the buoyant core component (See Fig. 2.). Regarding Claim 2, Campbell discloses the buoy of claim 1, wherein the buoyant core component includes at least two lifting holes (Element 42) located at an upper portion of the buoyant core component, and at least two mooring holes located at a lower portion of the buoyant core component. (Element 41) Regarding Claim 5, Campbell discloses the buoy of claim 1, wherein each tie bar assembly of the pair of tie bar assemblies comprises: a rod assembly comprising one or more rods extending substantially through a height of the buoyant core component (Element 40);a first bracing mount fixed to a top of the rod assembly for lifting the buoyant core component (Element 42); and 1a second bracing mount fixed at a bottom of the rod assembly for mooring of the buoy (Element 41). Claim 9 is a combination of Claims 1 and 2 and is rejected on the same grounds. Regarding Claim 10, Campbell discloses the buoy of claim 9, wherein the pair of tie bar assemblies provide a lifting point towards a top (Element 42) portion of the buoy and a mooring point towards a bottom portion (Element 41) of the buoy. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No.12233991. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims contain all the limitation of the present invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific. 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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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. /ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 26 Sept 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 15, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12767294
Accumulator module and swimming and diving aid having such an accumulator module
4y 4m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767313
SET OF PARTS FOR MARINE VESSEL PROPULSION ASSEMBLIES
4y 0m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767311
HULL ASSEMBLY FOR A WATERCRAFT HAVING AN ACOUSTIC PANEL AND WATERCRAFT HAVING SAME
3y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767310
CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A WATERCRAFT
3y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767308
ELECTRICALLY POWERED WATERCRAFT
3y 7m to grant Granted Oct 20, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+20.9%)
2y 4m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 909 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