Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/286,872

APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF PROVIDING A STABILIZING DRIVE SYSTEM FOR A ROBOTIC VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§112§DP
Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Examiner
TO, TOAN C
Art Unit
3614
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Jabil Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
903 granted / 986 resolved
+39.6% vs TC avg
Minimal -4% lift
Without
With
+-3.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
998
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§102
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 986 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112 §DP
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the plurality of ball casters passively driven, does not reasonably provide enablement for the plurality of ball casters actively driven. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with the claim. In this case, the specification does not disclose any essential element in connection with the plurality of ball casters in order to actively drive the plurality of ball casters. 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 10-11 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 10-11 recite the limitation "the stabilizing" in line 1 of claims 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-5, 9, 12-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul (U.S. 2018/0250178). Paul discloses a drive system for a robot (a transportation apparatus 30 is capable of using with a robot), comprising: a robot body base (34) including a drive wheel (76a, 76b); and a plurality of ball casters (98) positioned within frames (paragraph 0060 discloses each spherical wheel 98 is mounted to a post; therefore the post is considered to be equivalent to a frame as claimed) proximate to a periphery (see fig. 2 of the robot body base (34) to provide stabilization of driving, wherein the plurality of ball casters comprises four ball casters, and wherein the positioning of the ball casters comprises proximate to corners of the robot body base (fig. 2 shows 4 spherical wheels 98 are located at each corner of the base 34), wherein the plurality of frames (a post as disclosed in paragraph 0060) comprise low coefficients of friction so as to allow free rotation of the plurality of ball casters (98), wherein the low coefficients of friction are provided by a smooth surface; a unitary under-body frame (44-50), wherein ones of the plurality of frames (a post) are physically associated with the unitary under- body frame (44-50), wherein the robot body base further comprises a front bumper (top portion of a transportation apparatus 30 in fig. 2), and wherein at least ones of the plurality of ball casters (98) at a front of the robot body base are inset from the front bumper, wherein the driving comprises forward and reverse (see paragraph 0084), wherein the plurality of ball casters (98) is passively driven; wherein the drive wheel (76a, 76b) comprises two forward and reverse drive wheels (76a, 76b), and two turning drive wheels (76a, 76b). Claims 1, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (U.S. 2018/0329409). Huang discloses a drive system for a robot comprising: a robot body base (see fig. 2) including a drive wheel (157, 158); and a plurality of ball casters (152, 154) positioned within frames (each ball caster 152 and 154 rests in a socket; therefore the socket is considered to correspond with frame) proximate to a periphery (see fig. 2 of the robot body base (34) to provide stabilization of driving; a processing system (500) having non-transitory computing code (computer executable instructions) associated therewith which, when executed by the processing system (500), causes to be driven the drive wheel (157, 158), and a plurality of sensors (120, 162-168) to which the processing system is responsive, wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least cameras (120), wherein the driving comprises an autonomous navigation (see fig. 5); wherein the processing system (500) is partially off- board the robot. Double Patenting The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 1 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 2 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 3 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 4 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 5 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 6 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 7 of the instant application. Claims 1, 6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 8 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 9 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 10 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 11 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 12 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 13 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 14 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 15 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 16 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 18 of the instant application. Claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,067 reads on claim 19 of the instant application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN C TO whose telephone number is (571)272-6677. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, Monday-Friday. 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, JASON D SHANSKE can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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. /TOAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614 April 4, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600189
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VEHICLE SUSPENSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589624
PITCH AND ROLL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589625
VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583279
CONTROL VALVE DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS, AND HYDRAULIC FLOW-THROUGH SOLENOID VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583277
DAMPER CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
92%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (-3.8%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 986 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