Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/879,858

ROBOT, ROBOT SYSTEM, AND ROBOT OPERATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 30, 2024
Examiner
FIGUEROA, JAIME
Art Unit
3656
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kawasaki Jukogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
718 granted / 839 resolved
+33.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
853
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 839 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 12/30/2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-5 are currently pending in the instant application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/13/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Examiner's Note Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns / lines numbers or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Examiner has also cited references in PTO-892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution. 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. Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umetsu (US 2012/0004774 – from IDS). Regarding claim 1, Umetsu discloses a robot (e.g., via a robot apparatus 100 and a gripping method - as shown in figure 1) comprising: PNG media_image1.png 530 524 media_image1.png Greyscale a robot hand (fig. 1: multi-fingered-hand 20) attached to a distal end portion of a robot arm (see [0022] disclosing the multi-fingered hand 20 is attached to the end of the robot arm 10 and includes three fingers 21, 22, and 23 spaced at substantially equiangular intervals.); and a control unit (fig. 1: control device 40) configured to control each operation of the robot arm (fig. 1: robot arm 10) and the robot hand (hand 20) to perform a work on an object (fig. 1: gripping target 110 and another peripheral object, such as a wall or table) (see [0025] The control device 40 includes an arm controller 41, a hand controller 42, an image processor 43, and a target database 44 – see [0026] The arm controller 41 has the function of controlling an operation of each section of the robot arm 10 on the basis of the work operation program 45), wherein the robot hand (hand 20) includes a force sensor (fig. 1: force sensors 21a, 22a, and 23a) (see [0022] The multi-fingered hand 20 is attached to the end of the robot arm 10 and includes three fingers 21, 22, and 23 spaced at substantially equiangular intervals. The three fingers 21, 22, and 23 have substantially the same configuration and include force sensors 21a, 22a, and 23a, respectively, at their ends (fingertips).), and the control unit (control device 40/41/42) controls the operation of the robot arm (robot arm 10) such that the force sensor (fig. 1: force sensors 21a, 22a, and 23a) detects position information and posture information on the object (gripping target 110) by pressing a part (fig. 1: fingers 21, 22, and 23) of the robot hand against the object (gripping target 110) (see [0026] The arm controller 41 has the function of controlling an operation of each section of the robot arm 10 on the basis of the work operation program 45. Specifically, the arm controller 41 drives the joints 12 of the robot arm 10 on the basis of location information and attitude information on the gripping target 110 acquired by the image processor 43. In an operation of gripping the gripping target 110, the arm controller 41 controls the robot arm 10 so as to carry out an approaching operation to the gripping target 110 (an operation of moving the robot arm 10 to cause the multi-fingered hand 20 to approach the gripping target 110). PNG media_image2.png 708 438 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, Umetsu discloses a robot operation method (e.g., via a robot apparatus 100 and a gripping method - as shown in figure 1-2), comprising: detecting position information on an object (fig. 1: gripping target 110) by pressing a part of a robot hand (fingers 21, 22 and 23) against the object (gripping target 110) and moving a robot arm (robot arm 10) connected to a base portion of the robot hand (multi-fingered hand 20) in a direction where a sensor output of a force sensor (force sensors 21a, 22a, and 23a) provided in the robot hand (multi-fingered hand 20) decreases (e.g., by performing a contact operation by soft touch using impedance control - force control) (see [0040] disclosing …the force sensors 21a, 22a, and 23a at the ends of the fingers 21, 22, and 23 detect the contact with the gripping target 110. At this time, force control (impedance control) performed on the fingers 21, 22, and 23 by the hand controller 42 of the control device 40 enables a contact operation with a force that does not change the location of the gripping target 110 (with a soft touch). When the contact with the gripping target 110 is detected, the operation of the robot arm 10 and the multi-fingered hand 20 is suspended.). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umetsu in view of Satou (US 2018/0043540). Regarding claim 4, Umetsu discloses as discussed above in the robot according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Umetsu is silent to disclose However, in the same field of endeavour or analogous art, Satou teaches the claimed features implemented in a robot control unit for an assembly robot (e.g., first robotic arm as a first holding means 10 for holding a first work W1). Satou further teaches a working robot (e.g., a second robotic arm (second holding means) 20 for holding a second work W2) configured to perform a predetermined work on the object. (see at least [0021] For example, when the robot control unit 30 has received a predetermined operation start signal, the first work W1 at a first work storing place is held by the first robotic arm 10, and the second work W2 at a second work storing place is held by the second robotic arm 20. Then, the first robotic arm 10 and the second robotic arm 20 actuate to fit the first work W1 and the second work W2 to each other. When the fitting is successful, the fitted first and second works W1 and W2 are placed at a predetermined work storing place by, for example, the first robotic arm 10.). Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Umetsu to include the idea of having a collaborative robot as a working robot, as taught by Satou for the benefit of having assembly capabilities when working together with another robot. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 3 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 prior art of record does not disclose the combination of limitations found in claims 2 and 3. The combination of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the claimed features. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5. 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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589494
TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLING ROBOTS USING DYNAMIC GAIN TUNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575901
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLISION DETECTION AND AVOIDANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576533
TECHNIQUES FOR FOLLOWING COMMANDS OF AN INPUT DEVICE USING A CONSTRAINED PROXY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576721
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VERIFYING BATTERY VOLTAGE DETECTION OF ECO-FRIENDLY VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558182
METHODS AND APPLICATIONS FOR FLIPPING AN INSTRUMENT IN A TELEOPERATED SURGICAL ROBOTIC SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
86%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 839 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