Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/860,242

CONNECTION STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 25, 2024
Examiner
PRATHER, GREGORY T
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Seegene Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
360 granted / 525 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
546
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§102
32.5%
-7.5% vs TC avg
§112
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 525 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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US2022/0241959) in view of Tecan (JP2007-533981, cited by Applicant, translation attached to this office action). Re claim 1 Sugimoto discloses: A connection structure for connecting a robot arm capable of three-axis movement, the connection structure comprising: a first member (1) comprising a robot arm connection part connected to the robot arm (see Fig. 4) and a first shaft connection part protruding from the robot arm connection part in a first direction; a second member (2) coupled to the robot arm connection part by a main shaft (4), the second member comprising a second shaft connection part; and a tilting member (including 3 and 5. Note in the instant application that the term “member” encompasses not just single-piece components but multi-subcomponent components - see claim 2 of the instant application where the “tilting member” comprises many subcomponents including a cover, housing, and piston.) having one end coupled to the first shaft connection part by a first shaft (9) and the other end coupled to the second shaft connection part by a second shaft (8), the tilting member configured to tilt the second member by a predetermined angle with respect to the first member (para. [0019]), wherein the tilting member (including 3 and 5) is configured to move at an angle about the first shaft while pushing the second shaft, and the second member is configured to be pushed by the tilting member to move at an angle about the main shaft (para. [0019]). Sugimoto does not explicitly disclose a dispensing module for dispensing a solution in a predetermined amount, that the second member comprises a dispensing module connection part connected to the dispensing module and that the second shaft connection part protrudes from the dispensing module connection part, and that the tilting occurs during solution dispensing. Tecan teaches a dispensing module (2) for dispensing a solution (see abstract) in a predetermined amount, that the second member comprises a dispensing module connection part (9 in Tecan) connected to the dispensing module and that the second shaft connection part (portion of 2 connecting to second shaft 8 in Sugimoto) protrudes from the dispensing module connection part, and that the tilting occurs during solution dispensing (see abstract), for the purpose of working with a liquid sample (see abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Sugimoto such that a dispensing module for dispensing a solution in a predetermined amount, that the second member comprises a dispensing module connection part connected to the dispensing module and that the second shaft connection part protrudes from the dispensing module connection part, and that the tilting occurs during solution dispensing, as taught by Tecan, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of working with a liquid sample. Sugimoto as modified above further suggests: Re claim 6. The connection structure of claim 1, wherein an angle at which the second member (2) is tilted with respect to the first member (1) is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10° (The starting angle before tilting may be considered 0°. The first member is titled relative to the second member, which would include tilting through an angle that is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10°.). Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US2022/0241959) in view of Tecan (JP2007-533981, cited by Applicant, translation attached to this office action), and further in view of Kubo (US2021/0207625). Re claim 2 Sugimoto as modified above further suggests: The connection structure of claim 1, wherein the tilting member comprises: a cover (see annotated Fig. 4 below) coupled to the first shaft connection part by the first shaft such that a top surface of the cover is spaced apart from a lower portion of the first shaft connection part by a predetermined distance; a housing (see Fig. 4 below) coupled to the cover and having a hollow inner space formed therein; and PNG media_image1.png 679 792 media_image1.png Greyscale a piston (3) configured to separate the inner space into an upper space and a lower space and move in the direction of the lower space or the upper space based on air pressure injected into the upper space or the lower space, wherein when fluid pressure is applied to the upper space, the piston (3) is configured to move in the direction of the lower space to push the second shaft to tilt the second member with respect to the first member, and when air pressure is applied to the lower space, the piston is configured to move in the direction of the upper space to pull the second shaft to restore the second member with respect to the first member. However, Sugimoto as modified does not disclose that the fluid pressure that is applied is air pressure. Kubo teaches that the fluid pressure that is applied is air (para. [0007] - “pneumatic”) pressure, for the purpose of reducing weight (para. [0007]) as well as increasing cleanliness (i.e. no oil leaks). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to further modify the device of However, Sugimoto such that that the fluid pressure that is applied is air pressure, as taught by Kubo, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of reducing weight as well as increasing cleanliness. Sugimoto as modified above further suggests: Re claim 3. The connection structure of claim 2, wherein the piston comprises: a piston (3) body configured to separate the inner space of the housing into the upper space and the lower space; and a piston rod (3b) having one end coupled to the piston body and the other end extending outside the housing to be coupled to the second shaft connection part by the second shaft (para. [0021]). Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US2022/0241959) in view of Tecan (JP2007-533981, cited by Applicant, translation attached to this office action), and further in view of Hirono (US2017/0266773). Re claim 7 Sugimoto as modified above does not disclose the first member (1) has an insertion groove through which the robot arm is inserted and coupled. Hirono teaches the first member has an insertion groove (62a) through which the robot arm is inserted and coupled (para. [0057]-[0058]), for the purpose of reliably performing (para. [0018]) the connection of the components. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to further modify the device of Sugimoto such that the first member has an insertion groove through which the robot arm is inserted and coupled, as taught by Hirono, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of reliably performing the connection of the components. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5 and 8-9 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 4, the closest prior art is Sugimoto (US2022/0241959) in view of Tecan (JP2007-533981, cited by Applicant), and further in view of Kubo (US2021/0207625). Sugimoto as modified above further discloses at least one tilt angle adjustment member (see para. [0024]), but does not disclose, teach, or suggest that the at least one tilt angle adjustment member (see para. [0024]) is disposed to pass through the first shaft connection part and comprises an upper protruding portion protruding upward from the first shaft connection part and a lower protruding portion protruding downward from the first shaft connection part, wherein the lower protruding portion is configured to contact a top surface of the cover to restrict a tilting angle of the tilting member and the second member, in combination with all other claim limitations. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to modify the prior art to have all of the missing claim limitations, in combination with all other claim limitations, without the use of impermissible hindsight. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 PM. 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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. /GREGORY T PRATHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3618 /MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583312
ACTUATOR FOR ACTIVE GRILLE SHUTTLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578749
MULTIDIRECTIONAL INPUT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571458
LINEAR ACTUATOR WITH CUSHION MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571457
ACTUATOR, AND ROBOT, BRACE, AND HAPTIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547204
CONTROL DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING REAL OR VIRTUAL AIRBORNE OBJECTS
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
69%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+20.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 525 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