Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/915,801

ENDOSCOPY DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 17, 2023
Examiner
GHIMIRE, SHANKAR RAJ
Art Unit
3795
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Novatech SA
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
207 granted / 272 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
318
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 272 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee. Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with attorney Wolfgang Stutius on 1/29/2026. The application has been amended as follows: Claim 15 A method for introducing an expandable body into a cavity, the method comprising: positioning a first outer endoscope in the cavity; inserting a video unit into a second inner endoscope, with video unit extending parallel to the expandable body and a distal end of the video unit disposed next to a distal end of the expandable body accommodated in the second inner endoscope; pushing the second inner endoscope under video control by the video unit into the cavity to a desired depth; creating an abutment at a proximal end of the expandable body the proximal end of the expandable body withdrawing the second inner endoscope while the proximal end of the expandable body is supported on the distal end of the withdrawn video unit Claim 16 16. The method of claim 15, further comprising: placing as the abutment at the proximal end of the expandable body a further endoscope with a gripping device disposed at a distal end of the further endoscope; and rotating the expandable body with the gripping device into a desired position. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US 20080183272) in view of Gittings (US 20020004663). Regarding claim 12, Wood discloses an endoscopy device (FIG. 5) for introducing an expandable body into a cavity, comprising: a second endoscope accommodating the expandable body (delivery system 10 includes a video device; FIG. 5; Para [0034]) and insertable with the expandable body (Expandable body is not positively claimed) in the working channel of a first endoscope; and a video unit (delivery system 10 includes a video device) located in the second endoscope in parallel relation to the expandable body (FIG. 5, delivery system 10 is extending parallel to the expandable body, stent 26; FIG. 3) and having a distal end situated next to a distal end of the expandable body (The distal end of the delivery system 10 is next to the stent 26; FIGS. 3-5) in order to place the expandable body under visual control in the cavity prior to expansion, wherein the video unit, after positioning of the expandable body, is designed to be withdrawn and to form with the distal end of the video unit an abutment (As the intermediate tubular member 36 is pushed, or, tube 12 is withdrawn for deployment of the stent 26, FIG. 4; the video of the device 10 is located at the proximal end of the expandable body 26) at a proximal end of the expandable body in the cavity, when the second endoscope is withdrawn. Wood does not expressly disclose a first endoscope having a working channel. Gitting is directed to device (130) designed for use in a minimally invasive (e.g., laparoscopic, thoracoscopic or endoscopic) procedure (para [0101]) and teaches a first endoscope having a working channel (stent 146; FIG. 15; Para [0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood to include an outer endoscope, the first endoscope, in the cavity so that outer endoscope could provide a pathway for deploying the stent system. Regarding claim 13, Wood discloses wherein the video unit is flexible (delivery system 10 is flexible). Regarding claim 14, Wood discloses wherein the video unit has a flexibility which in an area of the distal end is greater than in an area of a proximal end thereof (proximal end 16 is more rigid; FIG. 1). Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US 20080183272) in view of Gittings (US 20020004663). Regarding claim 15, Wood discloses method (FIG. 5) for introducing an expandable body into a cavity, the method comprising: inserting a video unit (delivery system 10 includes a video device; Para [0034]) into a second inner endoscope (delivery system 10 with channel 22 and camera connected to a video; Para [0034]), with video unit extending parallel (FIG. 5, delivery system 10 is extending parallel to the expandable body, stent 26) to the expandable body (Expandable body is not positively claimed) and a distal end of the video unit disposed next to a distal end of the expandable body accommodated in the second inner endoscope (The distal end of the delivery system 10 is next to the stent 26; FIGS. 3-5); pushing the second inner endoscope under video control by the video unit into the cavity to a desired depth (Tube 12 of the system 10 is pushed into the bodily lumen 24; FIG. 3); creating an abutment at a proximal end of the expandable body by withdrawing the video unit until the distal end of the video unit is located at the proximal end of the expandable body (As the intermediate tubular member 36 is pushed, or, tube 12 is withdrawn for deployment of the stent 26, FIG. 4; the video of the device 10 is located at the proximal end of the expandable body;); and withdrawing the second inner endoscope while the proximal end of the expandable body is supported on the distal end of the withdrawn video unit so as to release the expandable body (As the intermediate tubular member 36 is pushed, or, tube 12 with withdrawn for deployment of the stent 26, FIG. 4; the video of the device 10 is located at the proximal end of the expandable body). Wood does not expressly disclose positioning a first outer endoscope in the cavity. Gitting is directed to device (130) designed for use in a minimally invasive (e.g., laparoscopic, thoracoscopic or endoscopic) procedure (para [0101]) and teaches positioning a first outer endoscope in the cavity (FIG. 15; Para [0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood to include an outer endoscope in the cavity so that outer endoscope could provide a pathway for deploying the stent system. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US 20080183272) in view of Gittings (US 20020004663) further in view of Takahashi (US 20090069822). Regarding claim 16, Wood does not expressly disclose placing as the abutment at the proximal end of the expandable body a further endoscope with a gripping device disposed at a distal end of the further endoscope; and rotating the expandable body with the gripping device into a desired position. Takahashi is directed to ultrasonic endoscope (abstract) and teaches placing as the abutment at the proximal end of the expandable body a further endoscope (FIG. 6) with a gripping device (forceps elevator 7; Para [0059]) disposed at a distal end of the further endoscope (When the main body 51 is rotated, the stent is also rotated; FIG. 27; Para [0098]); and rotating the expandable body with the gripping device into a desired position (When the main body 51 is rotated, the stent is also rotated; Para [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood in accordance with the teaching of Takahashi so that stent could be rotated as needed during surgery. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM. 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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. /SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795 /ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 02/22/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600865
ANTI-FOULING ENDOSCOPES AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569118
ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM AND PACKAGING MATERIALS FOR ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558180
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A MOVEMENT OF A MEDICAL DEVICE IN A MAGNETIC FIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557973
OPTICAL UNIT, IMAGE PICKUP UNIT, AND ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557976
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF BODY LUMENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+19.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 272 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