Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/600,751

CABLE-DRIVEN ROBOTIC PLATFORM FOR LARGE WORKPLACE OPERATIONS

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Oct 01, 2021
Examiner
ADAMS, NATHANIEL L
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
4 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
369 granted / 514 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
560
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 514 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites “the at least one counterbalancing is,” which appears to contain a typographical error (i.e. “counterbalancing system is”). Appropriate correction is required. 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 12 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. Claim 12 recites “the… counterweight system,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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, 8-10, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108582034 A (hereinafter “Ren”). Regarding claim 1 Ren discloses a system for a robotic platform for use in large workspaces comprising: a moving platform (5); a set of cable controlling units (11/12); a set of towers (1) defining the large workspace, the set of towers (1) for housing at least two of the set of cable controlling units (11/12), the at least two of the set of cable controlling units (11/12) vertically spaced apart from each other (see figs. 1 and 3); a set of cables (14/15) connected between the moving platform (5) and the set of cable controlling units (11/12), wherein the set of cables (14/15) are connected in a parallelogram manner (see fig. 1) to the moving platform (5); and at least one counterbalancing system (10) for managing unwanted forces being experienced by the moving platform (5), wherein each of the at least one counterbalancing systems (10) is attached to the moving platform (5) via at least two of the cable controlling units (11/12). Regarding claim 8 Ren discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the at least one counterbalancing [system] (10) is a counterweight system. Regarding claim 9 Ren discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the counterweight system comprises: a counterweight apparatus (10); and a closed cable loop (14/15 are wound together at 18, forming a closed loop from 10 to 5; see paragraph 30) passing through two adjacent cable controlling units (11/12) and the counterweight apparatus (10) and connected to two corners (see fig. 1) of the moving platform (5), the closed cable loop being a part of the set of cables (14/15). Regarding claim 10 Ren discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the counterweight apparatus comprises: a set of pulleys (pulleys 9); and a counterweight (10); wherein at least some of the set of pulleys (9) are associated with the closed cable loop and are indirectly connected to the counterweight (10). Regarding claim 12 Ren discloses the above system, and further discloses a controller (i.e. winches must have an operator interface or they cannot be operated) for controlling the cable controlling units (11/12) and the at least one counterbalancing system (10). Regarding claim 15 Ren discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein each of the set of cable controlling units (11/12) comprises a top actuator unit (11, which is actuated indirectly by 8). Regarding claim 16 Ren discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein each of the set of cable controlling units (11/12) comprises a bottom actuator unit (12, which is actuated indirectly by 8). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 5-7, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time. 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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. /NATHANIEL L ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 01, 2021
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
May 16, 2024
Response Filed
May 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Dec 02, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569899
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR GUIDING METAL STRIPS, COMPRISING GRINDING BODIES WITH SUPPORT ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570099
SUBSTRATE ALIGNMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565405
Modular and Collapsible Server Lift Assist for Immersion Cooling System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552646
WILDERNESS LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545557
WIND TURBINE LIFTING ARRANGEMENT
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+20.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 514 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