Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/649,100

MICRO-ROBOT SEPARATOR DESIGN FOR LASHES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Apr 29, 2024
Examiner
DINH, THAI T
Art Unit
2846
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
L'Oréal
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
558 granted / 651 resolved
+17.7% vs TC avg
Minimal -0% lift
Without
With
+-0.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
678
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.4%
+9.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 651 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
3DETAILED 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 . 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 1, 13-16 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 20, 20, 20, 19 and 18 of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0331589 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they can be interpreted to describe substantially identical or very similar a gate drive system with essentially the same relationship. Regarding claims 1, 13-16 and 18 of instant application, see comparison with claims 11, 20, 20, 20, 19 and 18 of US Publication No. 2025/0331589 A1, respectively. Differences between the respective claims are underlined. Instant application 18/649,100 U.S. Publication No. 2025/0331589 A1 Claim 1. A micro-robot crane system comprising: a microrobot crane, comprising: a back micro-robot, comprising: a first plurality of magnets, a rotary bearing, and a separation arm, wherein the separation arm includes a separating tip; and a front micro-robot, comprising: a second plurality of magnets; a mount configured to slide along the separation arm, and a mechanical stop, configured to prevent the separation arm from disengaging from the mount, and wherein the front micro-robot is configured to raise and lower the separation arm. Claim 13. A method of applying eye lashes, the method comprising: moving a first micro-robot crane to a first side of an eye; positioning a separator tip of a separator arm into a lash line of the eye by moving a front micro-robot of the first micro-robot crane; and moving the first micro-robot crane in a first direction to separate a first side of the eyelashes. Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises: moving a second micro-robot crane to a second side of an eye; positioning a second separator tip of a second separator arm into the lash line of the eye by moving a front micro-robot of the second micro-robot crane; and moving the first micro-robot crane in a second direction to separate a second side of the eyelashes, so that a gap is formed between the first side of the eyelashes and the second side of the eyelashes. Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the method further comprises: applying a single eyelash into the gap between the first side of the eyelashes and the second side of the eyelashes. Claim 16. The method of claim 15, wherein applying the single eyelash comprises: securing a first micro-robot having a wire comb to a first location; positioning a second micro-robot along the wire comb with a tube so that a gripper of the second micro-robot contacts an attachment end of the wire comb; gripping an eyelash between the gripper and the attachment end; positioning the second micro-robot to apply the eyelash; retracting the gripper from the attachment end; and applying the eyelash. Claim 18. The method of claim 14, wherein the method further comprises: monitoring the first micro-robot crane, the second micro-robot crane, or both; and transmitting image data to the processor; and adjusting a position of the first micro-robot crane, the second micro-robot crane, or both based on the image data. Claim 1. The dispenser of claim 10, wherein at least two micro-robots of the one or more micro-robots comprise: a back micro-robot, comprising: a plurality of magnets, a rotary bearing, and a separation arm, wherein the separation arm includes a separating tip; and a front micro-robot, comprising: a plurality of magnets; a mount configured to slide along the separation arm, and a mechanical stop, configured to prevent the front micro-robot from moving, and wherein the front micro-robot is configured to raise and lower the separation arm. Claim 20. The method of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises: moving a first micro-robot crane to a first side of an eye; positioning a separator tip of a separator arm into a lash line of the eye by moving a front micro-robot of the first micro-robot crane; moving the first micro-robot crane in a first direction to separate a first side of the eyelashes; moving a second micro-robot crane to a second side of an eye; positioning a second separator tip of a second separator arm into the lash line of the eye by moving a front micro-robot of the second micro-robot crane; moving the first micro-robot crane in a second direction to separate a second side of the eyelashes, so that a gap is formed between the first side of the eyelashes and the second side of the eyelashes; and applying a single eyelash into the gap between the first side of the eyelashes and the second side of the eyelashes. Claim 19. The method of claim 13, wherein applying the eyelash comprises: securing a first micro-robot having a wire comb to a first location; positioning a second micro-robot along the wire comb with a tube so that a gripper of the second micro-robot contacts an attachment end of the wire comb; gripping an eyelash between the gripper and the attachment end; positioning the second micro-robot to apply the eyelash; and retracting the gripper from the attachment end. Claim 18. The method of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises: monitoring the one or more micro-robots with a camera system; transmitting image data of the one or more micro-robots to a processor; and adjusting a position of the one or more micro-robots based on the image data. Note: some claims of instant application are not exactly limitations as U.S. Publication No. 2025/0331589 A1. However, they are the same functions. Therefore, these limitations are obvious by system of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0331589 A1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-12, 17 and 19-20 are 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 THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852. 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, EDUARDO COLON-SANTANA can be reached at (571)272-2060. 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. /THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592660
DRIVING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587113
METHOD FOR PROVIDING A VOLTAGE FOR A LOAD, AND DEVICE FOR CARRYING OUT A METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576977
AIRCRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEM WITH ENGINE RATINGS AS A FUNCTION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580509
AN IMPROVED SYNCHRONIZED DUAL ACTIVE BRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570011
ROBOTIC MANIPULATOR ARM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (-0.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 651 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