Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 05, 2026
Application No. 18/935,361

SYSTEMS, APPARATUS, AND METHODS FOR ROBOTIC LEARNING AND EXECUTION OF SKILLS

Non-Final OA §OTHER
Filed
Nov 01, 2024
Priority
Feb 25, 2017 — provisional 62/463,628 +7 more
Examiner
MARC, MCDIEUNEL
Art Unit
3656
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Diligent Robotics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allowance Rate
1204 granted / 1323 resolved
+39.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
1337
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§112
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1323 resolved cases

Office Action

§OTHER
DETAILED ACTION Claims 19-45 are pending. 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority of U.S provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority or continuation and divisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 120. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements provided complies with the provisions of MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. A signed copy of the form is attached. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the phrase “can be” and “etc”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Double Patenting The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 19-45 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,172,314. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element of step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Hence, it is obvious that the claimed combination or the narrower claims of the patent would encompass the broader claimed combination of the claims of the instant application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MCDIEUNEL MARC whose telephone number is (571) 272-6964. The examiner can normally be reached on Work 9:00 AM to 7:30. 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)-273-3976. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. PNG media_image1.png 275 275 media_image1.png Greyscale /McDieunel Marc/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §OTHER (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12667443
SYSTEM AND METHOD
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12667303
TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTRA-OPERATIVE LIGAMENT BALANCING USING MACHINE LEARNING
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12662088
VERFAHREN ZU EINER REINIGUNG, REINIGUNGSVORRICHTUNG UND FAHRZEUG
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12661794
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROPRIOCEPTIVE AND RESPONSIVE ROBOTIC DOOR OPENING
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12662332
ROBOT CONTROL DEVICE, ROBOT, AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE ROBOT
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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
91%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 0m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1323 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