Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/682,501

WORKPIECE SUPPLY ROBOT AND WORKPIECE SUPPLY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 09, 2024
Examiner
WALTERS, RYAN J
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Amada Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
585 granted / 789 resolved
+4.1% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
819
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 789 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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, 5, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Itatsu (JP 2007222971 A, machine translation relied on, from IDS). Re Claim 1, Itatsu discloses a workpiece supply robot 25 comprising:a support arm 27/2; a permanent robot hand 4 fixedly provided to the support arm, and [configured to hold a workpiece placed on a workpiece placement platform] (para. 15, 24, 36; Fig. 5, 13); and an extending robot hand 3 configured to hold the workpiece together with the permanent robot hand, wherein the workpiece supply robot is [configured to be able to transport the workpiece from the workpiece placement platform], and the extending robot hand is configured to be removable (para. 15, 25, 36; Fig. 13). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed. This statement applies to dependent claims as well. Re Claim 2, Itatsu discloses the support arm includes a permanent side removable unit 33 from which the extending robot hand is removable, the extending robot hand includes an extending side removable unit 31 [capable of being connected to the permanent side removable unit], and electric power is supplied from the permanent robot hand via the extending side removable unit (para. 38-39; Fig. 13-14). Re Claim 5, Itatsu discloses the extending robot hand is arranged in a bilaterally symmetrical manner with the extending side removable unit as a center (Fig. 13-14). Re Claim 8, Itatsu discloses the permanent robot hand is [configured to lift up one end of an uppermost workpiece from among a plurality of the workpieces stacked on the workpiece placement platform] (para. 15, 24-25, 38-39; Fig. 5-6, 13-14). Re Claim 9, Itatsu discloses the extending robot hand is [configured to lift up one end of an uppermost workpiece from among the plurality of the workpieces stacked on the workpiece placement platform] (para. 15, 24-25, 36; Fig. 5-6, 13). Re Claim 10, Itatsu discloses a workpiece supply system comprising: a workpiece supply robot according to claim 1; and a workpiece placement platform 28, wherein the workpiece placement platform includes a storage unit 29 for storing the extending robot hand (Fig. 13). Re Claim 11, Itatsu discloses the workpiece placement platform includes a plurality of workpiece placement units (between rods 29), and the storage unit 29 is arranged in a gap between the plurality of the workpiece placement units (Fig. 13). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itatsu in view of Nakayama (PGPub 2018/0297200). Re Claim 3, Itatsu discloses the permanent side removable unit is provided to a side surface of the support arm (Fig. 13-14) but does not disclose the extending side removable unit is connected to the permanent side removable unit from a horizontal direction. However, Nakayama teaches extending side removable unit 11 for an extending robot hand 10 is connected to a permanent side removable unit from a horizontal direction (Fig. 10). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize extending side removable unit is connected to the permanent side removable unit from a horizontal direction, as taught by Nakayama, for the purpose of providing more flexibility in movement and easy adjustment for adapting to different objects to be picked up. Re Claim 4, Itatsu discloses the extending robot hand further includes: a first extending hand unit 5 and a second extending hand unit 5 opposed to each other with the permanent robot hand between the first extending hand unit and the second extending hand unit (i.e. when viewed from the side, arm 4 extends between fingers 5; Fig. 10, 13-14); and a connection unit 7 [configured to connect the first extending hand unit and the second extending hand unit], and the extending side removable unit 31 is provided to the connection unit (Fig. 10, 13-14). Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itatsu in view of Ban (7,123,992). Re Claim 6, Itatsu does not disclose the permanent robot hand includes a surface detection unit, and the surface detection unit is configured to be able to detect a surface of the workpiece. However, Ban teaches robot hand includes a surface detection unit, and the surface detection unit is configured to be able to detect a surface of a workpiece (col. 3-4; Fig. 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a surface detection unit, as taught by Ban, for the purpose of enabling efficient automated picking up of objects safely and effectively. Re Claim 7, Itatsu does not disclose the permanent robot hand includes a material detection unit, and the material detection unit is configured to be able to detect whether or not the workpiece is placed on the workpiece placement platform. However, Ban teaches robot hand includes a material detection unit, and the material detection unit is configured to be able to detect whether or not the workpiece is placed on a workpiece placement platform (col. 3-4; Fig. 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a material detection unit, as taught by Ban, for the purpose of enabling efficient automated picking up of objects safely and effectively. Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itatsu in view of KR101848215B1 (from IDS). Re Claim 12, Itatsu does not disclose the storage unit includes: a support column extending in a direction intersecting with the workpiece placement platform; and a hanging unit extending in a direction intersecting with an extending direction of the support column. However, KR101848215B1 teaches a storage unit 400 includes: a support column 410 extending in a direction intersecting with the workpiece placement platform; and a hanging unit 430 extending in a direction intersecting with an extending direction of the support column (Fig. 9-10). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize storage unit with this configuration, as taught by Ban, for the purpose of enabling easy access to numerous attachments for the robot and to ensure safe placement without damaging components. Re Claim 13, Itatsu discloses the extending robot hand further includes:a first extending hand unit 5 and a second extending hand unit 5 opposed to each other with the permanent robot hand 4 between the first extending hand unit and the second extending hand unit (i.e. when viewed from the side, arm 4 extends between fingers 5; Fig. 10, 13-14); and a connection unit 7 configured to connect the first extending hand unit and the second extending hand unit; the extending side removable unit 31 is provided to the connection unit (Fig. 10, 13-14), and the hanging unit is [configured to be able to hang the connection unit of the extending robot hand]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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. /Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 09, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599996
MULTI-SPINDLE MACHINE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589457
SPINDLE UNIT AND PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586670
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FAST MONTE CARLO DOSE CALCULATION USING A VIRTUAL SOURCE MODEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582539
CLAMSHELL IRIS-STYLE CRIMPER FOR MEDICAL DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569950
INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND MACHINE TOOL
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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 789 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