Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 26, 2026
Application No. 19/213,426

INSTALLATION OF A WIND TURBINE ON A FLOATING FOUNDATION

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
May 20, 2025
Priority
Oct 22, 2020 — NL 2026733 +3 more
Examiner
FIORELLO, BENJAMIN F
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Itrec B.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
846 granted / 1145 resolved
+21.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1183
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1145 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Priority Pursuant to MPEP 201.06, a divisional application is a later application for an independent or distinct invention. The claims to the current application are not independent nor distinct from the claimed invention of parent application 18/033,097. No restriction was implemented in application 18/033,097. Therefore, the claims to the current application are considered a continuation of 18/033,097 and are accordingly subject to double patenting rejection(s). 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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,331,719. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims to the current application are merely broader than the claims to US Patent No. 12,331,719 and are thus encompassed by said claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action is/are overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the independent claim(s). Installations systems for wind turbines offshore are known such as those taught by Roodenburg et al. (8,701,579) and Lindblade et al. (2019/0071830). Roodenburg discloses a method of installation on a foundation that is repeatedly described as a fixed foundations and teaches away from a floating foundation. Lindblade discloses a method of installation of a wind turbine on a floating foundation however teaches awayfrom utilizing a crane. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant's invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant's own disclosure. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance." Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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. /BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 BF 10/14/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 20, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12768120
BOUYANCY-ASSISTED WEIR
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12768271
Carbon Fiber Rock Bolt
3y 0m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767309
MARINE DRIVES AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR COOLING ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS OF MARINE DRIVES
2y 9m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767288
TRANSPORT SHIP COMPRISING A TRIM CONTROL SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE SEA
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12753566
Modular Pit Frame
1y 9m to grant Granted Oct 06, 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
81%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 2m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1145 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