Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/233,624

GRASP DETERMINATION FOR AN OBJECT IN CLUTTER

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Aug 14, 2023
Priority
Nov 13, 2019 — provisional 62/934,946 +1 more
Examiner
PATEL, JAYESH A
Art Unit
2677
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
NVIDIA Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
754 granted / 902 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
929
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
76.6%
+36.6% vs TC avg
§102
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§112
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 902 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 8-12, filed on 01/30/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 103 rejections of claims of claim 21, 23, 27, 29, 33, 34 and 36 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s response however did not address the double patenting rejections to claims 21-40 made in the last office action. Examiner therefore maintains the double patenting rejection made in the last office action. 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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 16-22 of U.S. Patent No.11724401. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims 21-40 are broader and obvious in scope than the allowed claims 1-8 and 16-22. Appl # 18233624 US11724401 Claim 21 Claim 1 Claim 22 Claim 2 Claim 23 Claim 3 Claim 24 Claim 4 Claim 25 Claim 5 Claim 26 Claim 6 Claim 27 Claim 7 Claim 28 Claim 8 Claim 29 Claim 1 Claim 30 Claim 2 Claim 31 Claim 4 Claim 32 Claim 5 Claim 33 Claim 7 Claim 34 Claim 16 Claim 35 Claim 17 Claim 36 Claim 18 Claim 37 Claim 19 Claim 38 Claim 20 Claim 39 Claim 21 Claim 40 Claim 22 Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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. /JAYESH PATEL/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2677 /JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed
May 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12675847
COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR OBTAINING A COMBINED IMAGE
3y 0m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12657878
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
3y 9m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12651361
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR AUGMENTING DENSE DEPTH MAPS USING SPARSE DATA
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12651373
Visual Localization Method, Terminal, And Server
1y 12m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12646170
PULMONARY TRACTOGRAPHY APPARATUSES AND METHODS
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+5.3%)
2y 11m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 902 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