Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/012,825

APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A FLOATING END EFFECTOR MODULE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 23, 2022
Examiner
VU, STEPHEN A
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Jabil Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
909 granted / 1113 resolved
+29.7% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1135
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§112
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1113 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 30, 2023, September 17, 2024, and June 17, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: applicant discusses, theta, throughout the specification, for example, “two or all of their axis (x, y, z and theta)” in paragraph [0029]. However, applicant has not defined or clearly identified if theta is a specific angle relative to the x,y,z-axes or another axis in the specification or drawings. Therefore, it is unclear what theta is in applicant’s invention. 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 1-20 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the location of theta relative to the x-y-z axes as an angle or another axis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby et al (US 5,308,132) in view of WO 20/067649. As to claim 1, Kirby et al discloses an end effector module (200), as illustrated in Figures 1-4, comprising tooling for grasping a part for pickup and placement (see Abstract); a module shaft (208) connected on a first end to the tooling, and having a second end opposite the tooling; and an air bearing (210) associated with the second end (see annotated Figure 2 below). However, Kirby et al doesn’t show there are two air bearings to impart degrees of freedom to the tooling in x and y axes via an angle, theta. PNG media_image1.png 628 542 media_image1.png Greyscale WO 20/067649 teaches a placement robot configured for positioning a component for placement at a selected location on a target substrate (see Abstract) comprising an upper bearing surface (26a) and a lower bearing surface (26b). When air is supplied through channels (28,30), the upper bearing surface (26a) and lower bearing surface (26b) are pressurized and act as near frictionless bearings (see page 9, line 5 – page 10, line 19 and Figures 4-5). Thus, the manner of enhancing a particular device (end effector module) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in WO 20/067649. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art of Kirby et al and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that providing a second air bearing to act as frictionless bearings with the first air bearing to facilitate picking and placing component parts. With claim 2, as modified by WO 20/067649, a vacuum fluidically connected to at least one of the air bearings, wherein actuation of the vacuum evacuate air from the connected at least one air bearing, thereby effecting a positional vacuum lock of the module shaft (see page 9, lines 11-13). With claim 3, as modified by WO 20/067649, the upper air bearing is capable of providing downward pressure on the tooling, and a lower air bearing capable providing upward pressure on the tooling (see page 10, lines 10-19 and Figure 5). With claim 4, as modified by WO 20/067649, the lower air bearing effectuates the pickup by the tooling (see Figure 5). With claim 5, as modified by WO 20/067649, the upper air bearing effectuates the placement by the tooling (see Figure 5). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsumoto, Hawkes, Boudreau, Zimmer, and McClure are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses an end effector module comprising a tooling and a module shaft. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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. STEPHEN VU Primary Examiner Art Unit 3654 /STEPHEN A VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600026
MAGNETIC CLEANING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598955
SUBSTRATE TRANSFER DEVICE AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594678
Device and Method for Gripping an Object
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589509
VACUUM SUCTION CYLINDER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583132
ROBOTIC ARM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
82%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1113 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