Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/379,432

MEDICAL INSTRUMENT FOR TREATING A BODY WITH A PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 12, 2023
Examiner
DANG, PHONG SON H
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Karl Storz SE & Co. Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
532 granted / 683 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
699
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.4%
-0.6% vs TC avg
§102
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 683 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a third elastic sealing element in a third recess” “a further elastic sealing element in a further recess” in claim 2, “a third interior space” “a fourth interior space” “further interior spaces”, “the third recess” and “the further recess” in claim 3 and “the third recess” “the further recess” in claim 4,must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 3 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “an overpressure” should be “the overpressure”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 3-5, 11-12 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 3, recites the limitation "the second recess" in line 5, “the third recess”, “the further recess” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, recites the limitation "the second recess" in line 3, “the third recess” in lines 2-3 and “the further recess” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the elastic sealing elements" in line 3. It is unclear if these sealing elements are the same as “the at least one elastic sealing element” in claim 1. Claim 11, page 5, recites the limitation "the drive device" in line 3, “the cavity of the guide tube” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the sonotrode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0181606 to Waagen et al. (Waagen). Waagen teaches: Claim 1: A medical instrument configured to treat a body, wherein the medical instrument has comprises: a carrier unit (100, Fig. 1) having an outside to an environment and at least one first interior space (105, Fig. 1) within the carrier, and an overpressure can be applied to the interior space (functional limitation) (abstract), wherein the medical instrument has a pressure relief device (200, Fig. 4) having at least one elastic sealing element (416, fig. 4), wherein the at least one elastic sealing element is arranged in a first recess (interior volume of the vent closure, para. 0038) in and/or on the outside of the carrier unit and the at least one interior space (105, Fig. 1) is connected to the first recess by at least one pressure relief channel (420, Fig. 4), such that, when the overpressure is applied to the at least one interior space, the overpressure can be discharged into the environment by the first recess being freed by the at least one elastic sealing element (functional limitation, the pressure relief device 200 is doing just that). Claim 5: The elastic sealing element (416, Fig. 4) is designed as an elastic sealing band and/or elastic sealing ring (O-ring, para. 0038). 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. Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0010486 to Hirt in view of Waagen. Hirt teaches: A medical instrument configured to treat a body (Fig. 1) comprises a hollow probe or sonotrode (8, Fig. 1). Hirt fails to teach: A carrier unit having an outside to an environment and at least one first interior space within the carrier, and an overpressure can be applied to the interior space, wherein the medical instrument has a pressure relief device having at least one elastic sealing element, wherein the at least one elastic sealing element is arranged in a first recess in and/or on the outside of the carrier unit and the at least one interior space is connected to the first recess by at least one pressure relief channel, such that, when the overpressure is applied to the at least one interior space, the overpressure can be discharged into the environment by the first recess being freed by the at least one elastic sealing element. Waagen teaches: A carrier unit (100, Fig. 1) having an outside to an environment and at least one first interior space (105, Fig. 1) within the carrier, and an overpressure can be applied to the interior space (functional limitation) (abstract), wherein the medical instrument has a pressure relief device (200, Fig. 4) having at least one elastic sealing element (416, fig. 4), wherein the at least one elastic sealing element is arranged in a first recess (interior volume of the vent closure, para. 0038) in and/or on the outside of the carrier unit and the at least one interior space (105, Fig. 1) is connected to the first recess by at least one pressure relief channel (420, Fig. 4), such that, when the overpressure is applied to the at least one interior space, the overpressure can be discharged into the environment by the first recess being freed by the at least one elastic sealing element It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the medical device of Hirt with the medical device having the mechanism for pressure relief as taught by Waagen in order to provide pressure relief during the procedure after the sonotrode which is excited by an electrically controlled ultrasonic transducer for generating oscillations for the fragmentation of calculi via the distal end of the sonotrode (Hirt’s abstract). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-4, 6-11 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: Regarding claim 2, the prior art Waagen fails to disclose a second elastic sealing element in a second recess. Regarding claim 3, the prior art fails to disclose a second interior space connected via a respective pressure relief channel. Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose second recess connected to two or more pressure relief channels. Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose the recess is shaped conically on the side wall. Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose the recess has a shaped contact surface for the sealing element. Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to disclose the recess has sealing rib. Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to disclose a fluid-passage configured to transport a crushed stone fragment away and/or to transporting heat. Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose a ballistic lithotripsy device, a sonotrode to oscillation by mechanical impact of the projectile. Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG SON DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5. 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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. /PHONG SON H DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 12, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575841
FLUIDIC DEVICES, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575823
ELECTRIC SUTURING DEVICES FOR ENDOSCOPY AND LAPAROSCOPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575828
THREADED ANCHOR ADVANCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575824
KNOT TYING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569244
ENDOSCOPIC SUTURE CUTTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 683 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