Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/521,950

OFFLINE OPTIMIZATION TO ROBOT BEHAVIOR

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 28, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, BAO LONG T
Art Unit
3656
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
boston dynamics Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
447 granted / 540 resolved
+30.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
566
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 540 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to communications on 12/9/2025 Claim 10 is canceled. Claims 1-9, 11-21 are pending and addressed below. 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 12/9/2025 is being considered by the examiner. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 17, see starting page 7 of REMARKS, have been considered but are moot because of new amendments thus the arguments do not apply to the current rejection. In addition, applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Starting on page 7, Applicant is arguing: Ota does not teach the claimed method comprising simulating "a motion of an object that the limbed robot interacts with, ... the simulated motion of the object comprising a first simulated motion of the object during the simulated motion of the limbed robot and a second simulated motion of the object after the simulated motion of the limbed robot." However, Ota at [0038] teaches “The motion planner module 158 may be utilized to plan how the robot will grasp the target object, how it will be moved, and how it will be placed at a target location”. This gives the interpretation that at least simulation/planned motion of the robot during grasping the target object and moving it but before placing it at a target location read on the claimed simulating a motion of the limbed robot. Then the simulated/planned position/motion of the target object during grasping the target object and moving it but before placing it read on the claimed “a first simulated motion of the object during the simulated motion of the limbed robot”. The simulated/planned position/motion of the target object during the time it being placed at the target location read on the claimed “a second simulated motion of the object after the simulated motion of the limbed robot”. 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)(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. (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) 1-2, 8, 11-12, 17-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ota et al. (US 20130184860). Regarding claims 1, 11, 17, Ota et al. teaches: A robot comprising: a body; an arm configured to interact with an object; and a control system in communication with the body and the arm, the control system comprising data processing hardware and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to: (at least figs. 3-4 [0004]-[0007] [0019]-[0040] discussed robot 100, manipulator 110, end effector/hand portion 116, processor 140, memory 143, discussed simulation to select some grasping patterns so robot can grasp target object to move it to target position); simulate a motion of the robot and a motion of the object that the robot interacts with, the simulated motion of the robot and the simulated motion of the object simulated with a set of control parameters using a model, the simulated motion of the object comprising a first simulated motion of the object during the simulated motion of the robot and a second simulated motion of the object after the simulated motion of the robot; determine a score for the simulated motion of the robot and the simulated motion of the object based on a goal and one or more constraints; select the set of control parameters based on the score; (at least figs. 3-4 [0004]-[0007] [0019]-[0040] discussed robot 100, manipulator 110, end effector/hand portion 116, processor 140, memory 143, discussed simulation to select some grasping patterns so robot can grasp target object to move it to target position; in particular [0027]-[0031] discussed select and filter out grasp patterns with control parameters/goal/constraints such as thumb-up vector V, angle threshold, elbow height, etc...; [0033] discussed models; [0038] discussed planning/simulating motion of target object; discussed “The motion planner module 158 may be utilized to plan how the robot will grasp the target object, how it will be moved, and how it will be placed at a target location”; at least simulation/planned motion of the robot during grasping the target object and moving it but before placing it read on the claimed simulating a motion of the limbed robot. Then the simulated/planned position/motion of the target object during grasping the target object and moving it but before placing it read on the claimed “a first simulated motion of the object during the simulated motion of the limbed robot”. The simulated/planned position/motion of the target object during the time it being placed at the target location read on the claimed “a second simulated motion of the object after the simulated motion of the limbed robot”); modify a behavior of the robot based on the selected set of control parameters; and control a movement of the robot based on the modified behavior of the robot; (at least figs. 3-4 [0004]-[0007] [0019]-[0040] discussed robot 100, manipulator 110, end effector/hand portion 116, processor 140, memory 143, discussed simulation to select some grasping patterns so robot can grasp target object to move it to target position; in particular [0027]-[0031] discussed select and filter out grasp patterns with control parameters/goal/constraints such as thumb-up vector V, angle threshold, elbow height, etc...; [0033] discussed models; [0038] discussed planning/simulating motion of target object; [0034] discussed “manipulation planning block 154 receives the aforementioned inputs and generates output commands for the robot in the form of motion sequences that are provided to the actuators of the robot to control the robot to perform the desired tasks”); Regarding claim 2, Ota et al. teaches: wherein the goal comprises an end state for the object resulting from the simulated motion of the object (at least figs. 3-4 [0004]-[0007] [0019]-[0040] discussed robot 100, manipulator 110, end effector/hand portion 116, processor 140, memory 143, discussed simulation to select some grasping patterns so robot can grasp target object to move it to target position; in particular [0027]-[0031] discussed select and filter out grasp patterns with control parameters/goal/constraints such as thumb-up vector V, angle threshold, elbow height, etc...; [0033] discussed models; [0038] discussed planning/simulating motion of target object; at least either of the end effector and the target object read on the claimed object that the robot interacts with; [0034] discussed “manipulation planning block 154 receives the aforementioned inputs and generates output commands for the robot in the form of motion sequences that are provided to the actuators of the robot to control the robot to perform the desired tasks”); Regarding claim 8, Ota et al. teaches: wherein the model comprises a representation of the object that depends on a particular task for the limbed robot to perform with respect to the object (at least figs. 3-4 [0004]-[0007] [0019]-[0040] discussed robot 100, manipulator 110, end effector/hand portion 116, processor 140, memory 143, discussed simulation to select some grasping patterns so robot can grasp target object to move it to target position; in particular [0027]-[0031] discussed select and filter out grasp patterns with control parameters/goal/constraints such as thumb-up vector V, angle threshold, elbow height, etc...; [0033] discussed models; [0038] discussed planning/simulating motion of target object; at least either of the end effector and the target object read on the claimed object that the robot interacts with; [0034] discussed “manipulation planning block 154 receives the aforementioned inputs and generates output commands for the robot in the form of motion sequences that are provided to the actuators of the robot to control the robot to perform the desired tasks”); Regarding claim 12, the cited portions and rationale of rejection to claim 2 read on this claim. Regarding claim 18, the cited portions and rationale of rejection to claim 2 read on this claim. Regarding claim 21, the cited portions and rationale of rejection to claim 8 read on this claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-7, 9, 13-16, 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30. 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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. BAO LONG T. NGUYEN Examiner Art Unit 3664 /BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 10, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Dec 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Mar 25, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600042
CONTROL DEVICE AND ROBOT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589950
OBJECT RECOGNITION SYSTEM FOR PICKING UP ITEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588960
MEDICAL ROBOT FOR PLACEMENT OF MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS UNDER ULTRASOUND GUIDANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585277
OFF-ROAD MACHINE-LEARNED OBSTACLE NAVIGATION IN AN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575473
Route Generation Method, Route Generation System, And Route Generation Program
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+7.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 540 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month