Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 05, 2026
Application No. 18/717,073

HUMANOID ROBOT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Priority
Dec 06, 2021 — provisional 63/286,426 +1 more
Examiner
FERNSTROM, KURT
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Apptronik, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
1058 granted / 1605 resolved
-4.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1637
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
§103
60.5%
+20.5% vs TC avg
§102
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1605 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 § 103 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 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. Claims 1-7, 13, 16, 21, 27, 33-35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linn. Linn discloses in the Figures and specification a humanoid robot device 10 comprising a base 50 (see paragraph [0026]), a robotic torso 11 coupled to the base (paragraph [0025]), at least one robotic arm 22, 24 (paragraph [0018]), at least one robotic shoulder coupling the arms and torso (paragraph [0015]), a robotic neck 14 coupled to the torso (paragraph [0015]), and a plurality of actuators configured to move at least a portion of at least one of the torso, arms, shoulders and neck (paragraph [0014]). Linn also discloses in paragraph [0014] that “the robot 10 may be configured to be of a human scale, allowing the robot 10 to share the same workspaces 30 that are typically designed for human workers”, thus suggesting that the components of the humanoid robot deviate less than 25% from respective proportions of a human. With respect to claims 2, 3, 5 and 6, the above referenced teaching in paragraph [0014] pertaining to the robot being of a “human scale” suggests that each of the recited individual components are between 75% and 15% of the respective proportions of the corresponding human components. With respect to claim 4, Linn discloses at paragraph [0019] that each arm comprises a robotic elbow 32 and robotic wrist 38. While the specific terms “bicep” and “forearm” are not used in the specification of Linn, these features are suggested in Figure 1, which shows upper and lower arm segments connected by the elbow components. With respect to claim 7, Linn discloses at paragraph [0109] the provision of actuators which are configured to actuate the shoulder elements in abduction and adduction movements. With respect to claims 13, 16, 21, 27, 33, 34 and 38, Linn further discloses actuators configured to move each of the specific components of the robot in the manner recited. With respect to claim 35, Linn also discloses an actuator configured to move the neck element in the manner recited. The provision of an upper neck and a lower neck configured for relative rolling movement is considered to be an obvious variation on Linn, which teaches such an actuator at the position where the neck connects to the torso, and amounts to an obvious rearrangement of elements having no new or nonobvious results under MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linn in view of Kamon. Linn discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of an upper torso and lower torso with a pitch actuator as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Kamon at paragraph [0028], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of facilitating relative angular movement of the torso as recited. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-26, 28-29, 31-32, 36-37 and 39-45 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6. 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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. /KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 April 9, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 22, 2026
Interview Requested
Jun 29, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 29, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12667793
MODEL VEHICLE VERTICAL DRIVE SYSTEM
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12663234
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROXIMITY BASED ASSIGNMENT
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12651536
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TEACHING CURRICULUM AS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12649113
Omnidirectional Steering Mechanism for a Remote Control Toy Car
2y 0m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12642467
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PREDICTING A NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL STATE OF A USER
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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
66%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+14.6%)
2y 7m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1605 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