Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/038,402

ROBOT LIMB STRUCTURE AND ROBOT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Examiner
BOES, TERENCE
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BEIJING YOUZHUJU NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
534 granted / 789 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
806
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§102
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 789 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 10 and 20, line 9 recite “configured to brake the rotor and/or the output shaft” rendering the claims indefinite. It is unclear if braking merely the rotor or alternatively braking both the rotor and the output shaft is required. The term “respectively” is used throughout the claims. The term renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear as to what would or would not be limited in scope by the term. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LI et al. CN 117341859 A. Li discloses: Claim 1- a main limb body (7), wherein the main limb body is provided with two joint-connection parts (6, 8) respectively at two ends; two joint components (2-3, 14), wherein the two joint components are connected to the two joint- connection parts, respectively, and each joint component forms a connecting rod mechanism with a joint-connection part corresponding to each joint component (see figues); and two telescopic parts (5, 13), which are provided corresponding to the two joint-connection parts, wherein one end of each telescopic part is hinged to a joint component of the two joint components (see figures 4, 6, 9 and 10), and the other end of each telescopic part is hinged to the main limb body (at 7-4 and at 7-3), and a length of each telescopic part is adjustable so as to drive a connecting rod mechanism connected to each telescopic part to move (the device is capable of this function). Claim 11- a leg structure (fig. 1) which adopts a robot limb structure; a trunk structure (left of A in fig. 1) which is positioned above the leg structure, and is connected to a joint component (A figure 1) at an upper end of the leg structure; and a base (see unnumbered lower leg in figure 1) which is positioned below the leg structure, and is connected to a joint component (B) at a lower end of the leg structure, a main limb body (7), wherein the main limb body is provided with two joint-connection parts (6, 8) respectively at two ends; two joint components (2-3, 14), wherein the two joint components are connected to the two joint- connection parts, respectively, and each joint component forms a connecting rod mechanism with a joint-connection part corresponding to each joint component (see figures); and two telescopic parts (5, 13), which are provided corresponding to the two joint-connection parts, wherein one end of each telescopic part is hinged to a joint component of the two joint components (see figures 4, 6, 9 and 10), and the other end of each telescopic part is hinged to the main limb body (at 7-4 and at 7-3), and a length of each telescopic part is adjustable so as to drive a connecting rod mechanism connected to each telescopic part to move (the device is capable of this function). 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 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Li et al. CN 117341859 A in view of Kamon US 10,828,787 B2. Li discloses all of the claimed subject matter as described above. Li does not disclose two telescopic bodies which are symmetrically provided on two sides of the main limb body, and each of the two telescopic bodies is connected to the main limb body through a connector. Kamon teaches two telescopic bodies (14, 16) which are symmetrically provided on two sides of a main limb body (3), and each of the two telescopic bodies is connected to the main limb body through a connector (unnumbered see fig. 2) for the purpose of additional strength and flexibility. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li and provide two telescopic bodies which are symmetrically provided on two sides of the main limb body, and each of the two telescopic bodies is connected to the main limb body through a connector, as taught by Kamon, for the purpose of additional strength and flexibility. Claims 4, 10, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Li et al. CN 117341859 A. Regarding claims 4, and 14, Li does not disclose spherical hinges. It is old and well known to utilize spherical hinges for the purpose of improved flexibility. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li and provide spherical hinges, for the purpose of improved flexibility. Regarding claims 10 and 20, It is old and well known to utilize linear motor constructed as a housing; an output shaft which is provided in the housing, wherein one end of the output shaft extends out of the housing; a stator which is positioned in the housing and sleeves the output shaft; a rotor which is matched with the stator and is positioned in the housing, and the rotor sleeves the output shaft in a threaded fitting manner; and a brake unit, which is provided in the housing and is configured to brake the rotor and/or the output shaft during power off; and wherein one of the housing and the output shaft is connected to a joint component corresponding to each telescopic part, and the other one is connected to the main limb body in order to reliably drive a robotic limb structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li and provide a housing; an output shaft which is provided in the housing, wherein one end of the output shaft extends out of the housing; a stator which is positioned in the housing and sleeves the output shaft; a rotor which is matched with the stator and is positioned in the housing, and the rotor sleeves the output shaft in a threaded fitting manner; and a brake unit, which is provided in the housing and is configured to brake the rotor and/or the output shaft during power off; and wherein one of the housing and the output shaft is connected to a joint component corresponding to each telescopic part, and the other one is connected to the main limb body for the purpose of reliably driving a robotic limb structure. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-9, and 15-19 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: the prior art neither discloses nor renders obvious the claimed combinations including: wherein each joint-connection part of the two joint-connection parts comprises a first hinge point and a second hinge point which are provided on the main limb body at an interval, and a third hinge point is further provided on the main limb body; wherein each joint component comprises: a first connecting rod, a second connecting rod, and a third connecting rod; one end of the first connecting rod is connected to the first hinge point, one end of the second connecting rod is connected to the second hinge point, two ends of the third connecting rod are hinged to the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod, respectively; a point where the second connecting rod and the third connecting rod are hinged is a fourth hinge point; and one end of a telescopic part corresponding to each joint-connection part is connected to the fourth hinge point, and the other end of the telescopic part is connected to the third hinge point. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6832131 B2 discloses a similar device with similar structure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERENCE BOES whose telephone number is (571)272-4898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6:30. 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. TERENCE BOES Primary Examiner Art Unit 3618 /TERENCE BOES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12571464
CAM AND HARMONIC REDUCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553504
STRAIN WAVE DRIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553505
GEARBOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553501
Hydrostatic Rotating Machine with Radial Pistons and with Improved Distribution
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12540659
SCREW ACTUATORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
68%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+21.3%)
2y 10m
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