Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/675,669

METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A ROBOT DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 28, 2024
Examiner
DOROS, KAYLA RENEE
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FÜR LUFT- UND RAUMFAHRT E.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
19 granted / 26 resolved
+21.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
56
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§103
53.7%
+13.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 26 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 . Remarks The claims being considered in this application are those submitted on 05/28/2024. Claims 1-17 are pending. Priority The applicant’s claim to priority of DE10 2023 113 815.4 on 05/25/2023 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed on 05/28/2024 and 10/08/2024 have been annotated and considered. Specification A substitute specification including the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because certain parts of the specification/claims are difficult to read, such as the equations/table, due to the text being fuzzy/blurry. Additionally, the fonts/sizes for the different variables/equations throughout the specification should be consistent. In efforts to streamline, the examiner recommends submitting a substitute specification to avoid potential issues raised by the office of data management/publication branch if the application becomes allowable. A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “From tis, the computer…” should read “From this,…” in ¶0056. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 recites “controlling the actuator by a first actuator control device that sends first control signals to the actuator” in lines 5-6, and recites “but also additional first gravity-compensating control signals are sent from the actuator control device to the actuator” in lines 17-19. The term “additional” renders this claim unclear as to whether there are “first gravity-compensating control signals” being sent twice, or if lines 17-19 are referring to the same instance of first gravity-compensating control signals being sent. The examiner believes that these are referring to the same instance, and if so, suggests amending to refer to “the” first gravity-compensating control signals, such as by stating “…but also the first gravity-compensating control signals…. Additionally, lines 16-17 recite “not only gravity-compensating second control signals…”. This should recite “the” gravity-compensating second control signals in order to make the language clear. Independent Claims 1 and 12 are indefinite for these reasons, and thereby the dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-17 are rejected by dependency of indefinite parent claims. Claim 4 recites “the optimum distribution” in line 1. However, Claim 3, from which it depends on, recites “the distribution” in line 3. Claim 5 which depends on claim 4 also refers to “the distribution”. It is believed that the distribution of Claim 3 is different than the optimum distribution of Claim 4. In order to make the language clear and to avoid lacking antecedent basis, the examiner recommends reciting “a distribution” and “an optimum distribution” in claims 3 and 4 respectively, as they are the first instances of the terms; or clarifying if they are the same distribution by using consistent language (re: “distribution” versus “optimum distribution”) Claims 3-5 and 15-17 are indefinite for these reasons. Claims 7-8 respectively recite the equations: γ c * = W γ + J c A W τ J c A T - 1 J c A W τ G A   , and τ g A * = ( 1   -   J c A T W γ +   J c A W τ J c A T - 1 J c A W τ ) G A . The variables of these equations are not defined within the claims, and thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these equations/limitations in the claims, making the claims indefinite. All variables should be defined in the claim to overcome this rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Regarding Claims 1-17, If all outstanding 112(b) rejections are overcome, then Claims 1-17 would be allowable over the prior art. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stommen et. al. (US 20060259165 A1) Nakamoto (US 20170182661 A1) Takebayashi et. al. (US 20170348859 A1) Xu et. al. (CN 116142495 A - Translation Attached) Motonaga et. al. (WO 2020039508 A1 – Translation Attached) Weidmann et. al. (DE 102015206121 B3 – Translation Attached) Nishida (JP 2000271887 A – Translation Attached) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA RENEE DOROS whose telephone number is (703)756-1415. The examiner can normally be reached Generally: M-F (8-5) EST. 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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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. /K.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602048
TRAVEL ROUTE GENERATION METHOD FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE AND CONTROL APPARATUS FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576840
VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570012
ROBOT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING VISUAL RECORD OF TASK PERFORMED IN WORKING AREA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566451
Interactive Detection of Obstacle Status in Mobile Robots
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544925
ROBOT CONTROL SYSTEM, ROBOT CONTROL METHOD AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
73%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+2.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 26 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