Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/781,903

MOTORIZED ACTUATION MODULE FOR ACTUATING AN ENDOSCOPIC INSTRUMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 02, 2022
Examiner
LUU, TIMOTHY TUAN
Art Unit
3795
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire De Chirurgie Mini-Invasive Guidee Par L'Image
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
19 granted / 40 resolved
-22.5% vs TC avg
Strong +44% interview lift
Without
With
+44.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
84
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 40 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Amendment Amendments to claim 1 of 12/9/2025 acknowledged and entered. New claim 18 of 12/9/2025 acknowledged and entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pereira (AU 2018298123 A1). Regarding claim 1, Pereira teaches A motorized actuation module for an endoscopic instrument, comprising: a mounting plate (fig. 1a, element 45, [0034], housing 45 has a flat face with mounting structure 47 attached) configured to be detachably attached to a grasping zone of a handgrip of an endoscope (fig. 1a, element 16, [0035], mounting structure 47 may be engageable with second end 16 of the handle body 10, the handle body portion 16 being considered a zone of the handgrip that may be grasped); wherein said mounting plate having a bearing surface extended by a heel (fig. 1a, element 45, housing 45 has a thickness direction perpendicular to the mounting face) extending in a direction forming an angle of 90 degrees ± 25° relative to a plane of said bearing surface, said heel comprising an electromechanical sensor delivering a control signal operable to control movement of said endoscopic instrument (fig. 1a, [0036], data and power cable 52 controls motor 50). Regarding claim 2, Pereira teaches The motorized actuation module according to claim 1, wherein a median of said ulnar-palmar bearing surface is extended on an opposite side by a motorized drive block (fig. 1a, element 46, [0035], interior cavity of housing 45), comprising a motorized mechanism of a filiform element (fig. 1a, element 50, [0034], motor 50) for connection with said instrument, a lower end of which opens into a flexible rod (fig. 1a, element 17, [0025], port 17 of endoscope accepts the wire element 42 of the motorized block) of said endoscope to ensure connection with said instrument, said mounting plate further being connected with said handgrip of said endoscope which is flexible. Regarding claim 5, Pereira teaches The motorized actuation module according to claim 1, wherein said heel is formed by a protrusion (fig. 1a, element 45, housing shaped to protrude in the direction and hollow to have an internal compartment) having thickness of less than 3 millimeters having, at its end, and a sensor whose actuating surface is defined by a generatrix forming an angle of 90 degrees ± 20° with a longitudinal axis of said handgrip (fig. 1a, element 49, [0035], scope device interface 49 extends perpendicularly to the housing). Regarding claim 6, Pereira teaches The motorized actuation module according to claim 1, wherein it further comprises, in a lower part of said ulnar-palmar grasping zone, a drive block (fig. 1a, element 46, [0035], interior cavity 46) comprising a motorized mechanism of a filiform element (fig. 1a, element 50, [0036], motor 50) for connection with said instrument, a lower end of which opens into a flexible rod (fig. 1a, element 17, [0025], port 17 of endoscope accepts the wire element 42 of the motorized block) of said endoscope to provide a connection with said instrument. Regarding claim 7, Pereira teaches The motorized actuation module according to claim 6, wherein said drive block has a side actuating button controlling an emergency stop of movement of said instrument (fig. 1a, element 22, [0042], selection toggle 22 may switch on or off the motor 50). Regarding claim 18, Pereira teaches A motorized actuation module for an endoscopic instrument, comprising: a mounting plate (fig. 1a, element 45, [0034], housing 45 has a flat face with mounting structure 47 attached) configured to be attached to a grasping zone of a handgrip of an endoscope (fig. 1a, element 16, [0035], mounting structure 47 may be engageable with second end 16 of the handle body 10, the handle body portion 16 being considered a zone of the handgrip that may be grasped), said mounting plate having a bearing surface extended by a heel (fig. 1a, element 45, housing 45 has a thickness direction perpendicular to the mounting face) extending in a direction forming an angle of 90± 250 relative to a plane of said bearing surface, said heel comprising an electromechanical sensor delivering a control signal operable to control movement of said endoscopic instrument; wherein the grasping zone is a semi-tubular lateral surface of the handgrip that extends between the two transverse front ends of the handgrip so that a palm of a hand is able to surround the grasping zone (fig. 1a, mounting section 38 is between the two ends of the handgrip on the side). 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. 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. Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada (US 20150119641 A1). Regarding claim 3, Pereira teaches The motorized actuation module according to claim 2, Pereira does not explicitly teach a device comprising a connection of said handgrip of said endoscope comprises an endpiece configured to be inserted into a working channel of said flexible rod of said endoscope. However, Yamada teaches a device comprising a connection of said handgrip (fig. 1a, element 33, [0062]) of said endoscope comprises an endpiece (fig. 1a, element 36, [0070], insertion cap inserted into the treatment instrument insertion hole) configured to be inserted into a working channel of said flexible rod of said endoscope. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Pereira to include the working channel connection of Yamada in order to better control advancement and retreating of the treatment instrument (Yamada [0005]). Regarding claim 4, Pereira in view of Yamada teaches The motorized actuation module according to claim 3, Further, Pereira teaches the device wherein said motorized drive block comprises a motor placed below said endpiece (fig. 1a, element 50). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY TUAN LUU whose telephone number is (703)756-4592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-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, Michael Carey can be reached at 5712707235. 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. /TIMOTHY TUAN LUU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795 /MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 23, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 29, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 29, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575716
ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564312
MANAGING AND MANIPULATING A LONG LENGTH ROBOTIC ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560799
SCOPE MODIFICATIONS TO ENHANCE SCENE DEPTH INFERENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551091
ENDOSCOPE CAP, ENDOSCOPE TREATMENT TOOL, AND ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12507874
ACTUATOR FOR AN ENDOSCOPIC PROBE, ENDOSCOPIC PROBE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN ACTUATOR OF AN ENDOSCOPIC PROBE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+44.0%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 40 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