Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/108,480

M ultiple Actuator Control on a Soft Everting Robot

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 04, 2025
Priority
Sep 20, 2022 — provisional 63/408,312 +1 more
Examiner
FIX, THOMAS S
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
229 granted / 318 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
356
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
39.4%
-0.6% vs TC avg
§102
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 318 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires “having a soft everting robot”, whereas Claim 6 recites “wherein the robot is an everting robot or a soft everting robot”, which fails to be further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-7 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. Claim 1 recites “the robot” in line 8, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. If Applicant intends the antecedent basis to be the “soft everting robot” of line 2, Examiner recommends amending to –the soft everting robot--. Claim 6 recites “the robot”, which previously had antecedent basis to the “robot” of parent Claim 1, but parent Claim 1 has now been amended to recite “a soft everting robot.” It is unclear if “the robot” of Claim 6 intends to refer to the “soft everting robot” of Claim 1, line 3, or to “the robot” of Claim 1, line 8. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p. 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 5712707778. 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. /T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 04, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 29, 2026
Response Filed
May 29, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 29, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 17, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12704173
GEARSHIFT LEVER ASSEMBLY WITH MAGNETIC FEELING FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE
1y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12697716
PARALLEL LINK MECHANISM
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12692738
DRIVE DEVICE HAVING A SUPPORTING DEVICE
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12685559
DRIVE ASSEMBLY FOR SURGICAL ROBOTIC SYSTEM
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12678974
LOW DEFLECTION TOOLING APPARATUS
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 3m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 318 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