Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/643,747

APPLICATION SYSTEM, CONTROL DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING A PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 10, 2021
Examiner
KITT, STEPHEN A
Art Unit
1717
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Yaskawa Denki
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
290 granted / 534 resolved
-10.7% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+39.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
578
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 534 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . The Applicant’s amendment filed on September 22, 2025 was received. Claims 1, 7 and 17-21 was amended. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued March 7, 2024. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 22, 2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hvass (US 2010/0143089) in view of Telleria et al. (US 2019/0093373) on claims 1-10 and 14-20 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1 to require that the operation information acquisition circuit acquires specific information indicating the time between a valve receiving a signal and fully actuating on that signal. Claims 1-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hvass and Tellaria et al. in view of Fritz et al. (US 2020/0078813). Regarding claim 1: Hvass et al. discloses a dispensing system which includes a mobile platform system (200) which is an application device that discharges material from an end-effector (240) such as a print head or spray gun (par. 22), such that the end-effector can be considered a discharge circuit, further including an articulated manipulator (230) which is an articulated robot that changes position and orientation of the end effector (par. 29) such that the coating is discharged towards the desired area on the surface, and a controller (110/410) using a metrology system (120/420) and/or other measurement means to acquire position and orientation data from the manipulator (430) and end-effector (435) (par. 23, 49), and which controls the system (200) based on that position/orientation data and other image data, surface data or inputs from the user interface (140), which includes medium thickness data (par. 27). This includes the steps of calculating various control functions (370) based on operating state information such as position and/or orientation information (360) and then commanding the position and/or orientation (375) of the end-effector (240) and subsequently dispensing the medium (380) (pars. 67-74, figures 2-4). In order for the controller (110) to perform these steps it therefore effectively includes the requisite circuits dedicated to target value calculation and operation control. Hvass fails to explicitly disclose that any of the data measured by the metrology systems includes data on valve response time. However, Telleria et al. discloses a very similar mobile coating system which utilizes multiple sensors in the nozzles, flow lines and pumps to measure fluid flow rate, pressure or temperature of fluid in those areas to enable detection of clogs as well as precise control of valves for material delivery (par. 43, 118, 171) those sensors being connected to the control system (322) (figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor these parts of the process including the valves as done in Telleria et al. just like any of the other input data from the dispensing system of Hvass because Telleria et al. teaches that this can enable the system to monitor the pumps, lines and nozzles for any clogs as well as precisely control material delivery (par. 118-119, 171) and indicate when a nozzle needs to be changes (par. 156). Hvass and Telleria et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the information monitored includes response time information of the valve, that being the time between the valve receives a control signal and when it is actually opened or closed. However, Fritz et al. discloses a similar coating robot apparatus which utilizes controllers (5-8) to synchronize the movement of the robot to account for the delay between the valves receiving an open or close command from the printhead control (7) and actually being opened or closed, teaching that the various controllers receive all of this information regarding the state of the valves and robot control (5) in order to correct for a spatial offset by providing the valves with a lead time (pars. 37, 60-61, 69-72, figures 2-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use valve response time information as taught by Fritz et al. for the apparatus of Hvass and Telleria et al. because Fritz et al. teaches that this helps eliminate a spatial offset from the desired drop location and improve the print resolution (par. 72). Regarding claim 2: Hvass et al. discloses that the controller (110) controls the system (200) based on image data or surface data which can correspond to various quality metrics including coating thickness (pars. 26-27, 36). Regarding claim 3: Hvass et al. discloses that the controller (110) uses multiple estimation models to determine relationship between the various process and measurement characteristics (pars. 48-49). Regarding claims 4 and 14: Hvass et al. discloses that the controller (110) uses multiple estimation models to determine a path based on various information including operating state information (pars. 48-49), and then subsequently computes the control functions necessary to execute the path planned (par. 70, figure 3). Regarding claims 5 and 15: Hvass et al. discloses that the controller (110) uses multiple estimation models to determine and output a path based on various information including operating state information (pars. 48-49). Regarding claims 6 and 16: Hvass et al. discloses that the controller (110) controls the system (200) based on image data or surface data which can correspond to the application state of the surface (pars. 26-27, 36), estimators which acquire performance information from detected information (pars. 48-49), and then subsequently computes the control functions necessary to execute the path planned (par. 70, figure 3). Regarding claims 7 and 17-20: Hvass et al. discloses sensors meant to detect the operating state of the manipulator (230) including information about the state of actuators within the manipulator joints (233) (par. 33, figure 2), and Hvass et al. combined with Telleria et al. teach sensors meant to monitor the flow rate, pressure, and temperature of coating material in the flow paths as well as the pumps (Telleria et al. par. 43, 118). Regarding claim 8: Hvass et al. discloses that one of the properties sensed by image data is coating thickness (par. 36). Regarding claim 9: Hvass et al. discloses that the controller (110) controls the execution of the system (200) to correct an error when enough of an error is detected based on the acquired position information (par. 47-48). Regarding claim 10: Hvass et al. discloses that the estimators continue estimating states until a maximum error threshold is reached, which requires a circuit corresponding to the claimed abnormality detection circuit (par. 64). Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hvass, Tellaria et al. and Fritz et al. as applied to claims 1-10 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US 2016/0193621). Regarding claim 21: Hvass, Tellaria et al. and Fritz et al. disclose the above combination in which sensors detect the operation of the pump, but Hvass, Tellaria et al. and Fritz et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the detection includes information about the actual rotation speed of actuators in the pumps. However, Mori et al. discloses a similar robotic fluid application system which uses a pump (21) controlled by a motor (22) actuator where the actual rotation speed of the motor (22) is precisely controlled and detected in order to determine the supply amount of fluid and prevent varying output while the nozzle is moved (par. 92, 97, figure 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pump with a motor for Hvass, Tellaria et al. and Fritz et al. as taught by Mori et al. because simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06) and monitor the actual rotation speed of the motor as taught by Mori et al. because Mori et al. teaches that this helps prevent deviation in material flow when moving the nozzle (pars. 33-35 and 95). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Hvass and Telleria et al. do not teach that the information received by the controller includes information about valve response time. In response: Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to the newly cited Fritz et al. reference which does teach those new limitations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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. /S.A.K/ Stephen Kitt Examiner, Art Unit 1717 11/12/2025 /YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 10, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 14, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 13, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 18, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 16, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593390
ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE PREVENTION PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593645
LIQUID TRAP TANK AND LIQUID SUPPLY UNIT FOR THE LIQUID TRAP TANK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578647
SUBSTRATE ROTATING APPARATUS, SUBSTRATE PROCESSING SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME, AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569841
ROTARY EVAPORATOR AND METHOD FOR CATALYST PREPARATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551917
DOSING SYSTEM HAVING AN ADJUSTABLE ACTUATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
54%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+39.5%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 534 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