Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/079,899

GRIPPING MECHANISM FOR INSPECTION OF RETICLE INNER POD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 13, 2022
Examiner
QURESHI, REHMAN AHMED
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Gudeng Equipment Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-52.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
18
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.7%
+1.7% vs TC avg
§102
50.0%
+10.0% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Newbold et al. (US 2024/0092570). Regarding claim 1, Newbold et al. discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 1, comprising: a quadrilateral frame having four border strips (see annotated fig. 7 below); and a four gripper units (140) respectively disposed at the four border strips, the four gripper units being opposite in pairs (see Fig. 7), each of the gripper unit having a body, a first gripping portion and a second gripping portion (see annotated fig. below); the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion respectively located on different positions of the body (see 140 on annotated fig. below), the respective first gripping portions of the four gripper units forming a first gripping plane, and the respective second gripping portions of the four gripper units forming a second gripping plane (see 140 on annotated fig. below); wherein, at least two adjacent gripper units have a power member, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies (see Para. 0014). Regarding claim 2, Newbold et al. discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion are grooves parallel to the border strips (see annotated Fig. 7 below). PNG media_image1.png 440 452 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 155 327 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3, Newbold et al. discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first gripping plane is parallel to the second gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 7 below). PNG media_image3.png 440 452 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, Newbold et al. discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gripper units further comprise a packing element, which is connected to the body and packs against the body (see Para. 0057). Regarding claim 6, Newbold et al. discloses the gripping mechanism comprising: a quadrilateral frame having four border strips (see annotated Fig. 7 below); and two power units respectively in power connection with at least two adjacent border strips to adjust a distance between the two border strips (see Para. 0014); and a four gripper units (140) respectively disposed at the four border strips, the four gripper units being opposite in pairs (see annotated Fig. 7 below), each of the gripper units having a body, a first gripping portion and a second gripping portion (see 140 on annotated Fig. 7 below); the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion respectively located on different positions of the body (see 140 on annotated Fig. 7 below), the respective first gripping portions of the four gripper units forming a first gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 7 below), and the respective second gripping portions of the four gripper units forming a second gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 7 below). PNG media_image3.png 440 452 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7, Newbold et al. discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion are grooves parallel to the border strips (see annotated Fig. 7 below). PNG media_image1.png 440 452 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 8, Newbold et al. discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first gripping plane is parallel to the second gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 7 below). PNG media_image3.png 440 452 media_image3.png Greyscale 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. Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newbold et al. (US 2024/0092570) in view of Morita (JP 2021172921 A). Regarding claim(s) 4 and 9, Newbold et al. discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 1. Newbold et al. fails to disclose wherein the gripper units further comprise a plurality of adhesive tapes respectively disposed on positions near the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion. However. Morita teaches wherein the gripper units further comprise a plurality of adhesive tapes (20) respectively disposed on positions near the first gripping portion (H1) and the second gripping portion (H2) (see Page 3, Para. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce comprise a plurality of adhesive tapes respectively disposed on positions near the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion on the gripping mechanism of Newbold et al. as taught by Morita in order to appropriately grip and convey the work (see Page 4, Para. 4). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm. 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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. /REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 13, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

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
Grant Probability
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 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