Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/385,605

CONTROLLER OF AN INDUSTRIAL-ROBOTIC-AIR-FRYING SYSTEM (IRAFS)

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Priority
Jun 15, 2022 — CIP of 17/806,948 +1 more
Examiner
TRAN, TIFFANY T
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Kitchen Robotics Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allowance Rate
161 granted / 271 resolved
-0.6% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+48.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
291
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 271 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Status of the Claims In the amendment dated 11/20/2023, claim 1 is pending. Examiner’s note: The Applicant filed “Response after Ex Parte Quayle Action” on 11/20/2023. However, the response was not proper because the “Ex Parte Quayle Action” had not been mailed/ sent previously. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The feature "The ornamental design for a scoop-spatula” recited in line 1, claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter “The ornamental design for a scoop-spatula” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter “The ornamental design for a scoop-spatula” is not supported by the original disclosure so that claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 recites “The ornamental design for a scoop-spatula as shown and described” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the ornamental design” in the claim. In addition, “The ornamental design for a scoop-spatula as shown and described” does not identify the particular structure, element, or subject matter being claimed. The phase “as shown and described” does not provide a reasonably clear indication of the scope of the claimed invention, and it is unclear what feature(s) are intended to define the claimed subject matter. For examination purposes, “The ornamental design for a scoop-spatula as shown and described” can have any structure(s). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Regadanz US D711199 S Regarding claim 1, Regadanz discloses The ornamental design for a scoop-spatula as shown and described (see claim 1: “The ornamental design for a spatula with scoop edge, as shown and described”). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US3730579A discloses a spatula including a normally planar blade with a handle affixed to one end thereof, said blade being divided transversely into a plurality of sections, each section being pivoted to each contiguous section for upward movement normal to the plane of the blade, but restrained against downward pivotal movement. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm. 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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12745584
MODULARIZED BONDING APPARATUS
4y 1m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12739948
ELECTRIC HEATER AND METHOD OF MAKING AN ELECTRIC HEATER
5y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734605
HANDHELD LASER MACHINING APPARATUS FOR MACHINING A WORKPIECE, AND FUNNEL FOR A HANDHELD LASER MACHINING APPARATUS
4y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12736227
HOUSEHOLD COOKING APPLIANCE
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12733670
Breading and Sifting Station
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+48.6%)
4y 0m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 271 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