Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 26, 2026
Application No. 18/542,305

AFFORDANCE-AWARE, MULTI-RESOLUTION, FREE-FORM OBJECT MANIPULATION PLANNING

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 15, 2023
Priority
Jun 26, 2020 — continuation of 11/878,419
Examiner
NGUYEN, ROBERT T
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
392 granted / 469 resolved
+31.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
487
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§103
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 469 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. 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. Claims 21-37, 39-41, and 43 are 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 claim(s) contains subject matter 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. As per claims 21, 28, and 35, the amended claims currently recite that the neural network uses labeled point cloud data and labeled RGB image data as inputs to output a plan to grasp an object. The disclose does not appear to provide support for this combination. Paragraphs 77-78 of the specification as filed discloses the robot modeler uses a trained neural network to generate graspability maps based on a semantic surface map. Paragraph 26 defines the surface map as a semantic labelled map and may be a structured point-cloud. There does not appear to be any recitation of using both the labeled point cloud data and labeled RGB image data as inputs to a neural network to determine a grasp. Therefore, this subject matter is treated as new matter. Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, 36-37, 39-41, and 43 are rejected under the same rationale by virtue of dependency. 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 21-37, 39-41, and 43 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. As per claims 21, 28, and 35, it is unclear due to the sentence structure whether or not the neural network uses both the labeled point cloud data and the labeled RGB image data as inputs. For the purposes of compact prosecution it will be interpreted as using both as inputs. Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, 36-37, 39-41, and 43 are rejected under the same rationale by virtue of dependency. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET. 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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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. /ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 8 earlier events
Jan 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 20, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12759533
DIAGNOSTIC METHOD FOR VEHICLE COOLING SYSTEM AND DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE FOR VEHICLE COOLING SYSTEM
2y 0m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12752818
Driving Cues and Coaching
3y 7m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12755581
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM STORING INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM
1y 10m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12746818
METHOD FOR ADJUSTING AN INTERIOR ELEMENT OF A VEHICLE, AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND VEHICLE HAVING AN EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE SYSTEM
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741372
METHOD FOR HANDLING OBJECTS AND HANDLING SYSTEM
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 469 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