Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/656,410

ROBOTIC PICKING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 06, 2024
Priority
May 07, 2023 — provisional 63/464,608
Examiner
KIM, SANG K
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Plus One Robotics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
1461 granted / 1794 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
1828
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1794 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 . 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 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 19/380351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim a gripping apparatus with a plurality of compensators, each compensator having a cylinder, a piston, a piston rod, and a vacuum chamber surrounding the cylinder and a vacuum port in a sidewall….being isolated from the vacuum pathway when the compensator is in the retracted position, the claims of the two applications differing only by minor phraseology which obviously does not affect the scope of the invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s), set forth in this Office action. The claims 1-15 are patentable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not show or render obvious the combination set forth in claims 1 and 10, including every structural element recited in the claim, especially a gripping apparatus with a plurality of compensators, each compensator having a cylinder, a piston, a piston rod, and a vacuum chamber surrounding the cylinder and a vacuum port in a sidewall….being isolated from the vacuum pathway when the compensator is in the retracted position. The prior art, Hvass ‘987 shows a similar vacuum gripping system, but lacks all the structural elements and how each element is arranged with respect to each other. None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). SK 9/2/26 /SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 06, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746621
METHOD FOR MACHINING TOOL
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12747677
INTEGRATED IN-LINE EMERGENCY LUBE PUMP ASSEMBLY FOR PLANETARY GEARBOX CONFIGURATIONS
1y 5m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12742438
CONTROL DEVICE AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING A WIND TURBINE
4y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741840
SHEET FEEDING DEVICE AND RECORDING APPARATUS
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12734777
A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SHELL OF A WIND TURBINE BLADE
2y 11m 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
81%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1794 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