Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/476,277

ORGAN HARVESTING TOOL

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 15, 2024
Examiner
FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Maquet Cardiovascular LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
136 granted / 191 resolved
+1.2% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
252
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 191 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on December 23, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Accordingly, claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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)(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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boudreaux et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0272659). In regard to claims 1, 3, 7 and 9, Boudreaux et al. teach a surgical instrument 2 for clamping and treating tissue (see para. 0001) such as clamping and cutting vessels (see title). The surgical instrument 2 includes an end effector 10 coupled to the distal end of a shaft assembly 12 (actuator rod) and a handle assembly 4 (see Fig. 1). The end effector 10 comprises a first jaw member 14a that is pivotably coupled to a second jaw member 14b to grasp tissue therebetween (see Fig. 1 and para. 0038). The handle assembly 4 includes a plurality of components including those for affecting the closure of the jaws 16a, 16b (see para. 0039). A two-stage trigger 9 (actuator) rotates a trigger plate 24 about a rotation point defined by a rotation pin 25 which in turn causes rotation of a clamp plate 26 that transitions the jaws 16a, 16b from an open position to a closed position (see para. 0040). In operation, rotation of the two-stage trigger 9 rotates the trigger plate 24 and a cam plate 54 about an axis defined by a pivot pin 97a and rotation of the trigger plate 24 drives the floating pin 48 upward in the pin track 56 (see para. 0048). The floating pin 48 engages the clamp plate 26 and rotates the clamp plate 26 about the axis defined by the pivot pin 97a and rotation of the clamp plate 26 drives the toggle clamp 52 proximally, moving the yoke 32 proximally and compressing a closure spring 42 (see para. 0048). In regard to claim 2, Figure 7 shows that the cam plate 54 has a cam path 68 that has an angled path and, at the two ends of the path, a proximal pocket and a distal pocket. See also paras. 0052-0056 noting that moving the two-stage trigger 9 (button) in the proximal direction moves the plunger pin 41 to the proximal pocket and moving the two-stage trigger 9 in the distal direction moves the plunger pin 41 to the distal pocket. With further respect to claim 7 and in regard to claim 4, see para. 0059 which discusses a partially returned position. In regard to claims 5 and 8, Boudreaux et al. teach a firing spring 38 and a closure spring 52 (see para. 0059). In regard to claim 6, Boudreaux et al. teach that the end effector 10 comprises at least one electrode to deliver energy and the handle assembly 4 includes mechanisms for delivering the energy to the electrodes (see para. 0038-0039). An energy circuit 266 is formed integrally with the handle assembly 4 and an energy switch connection 286 couples the energy circuit 266 to the energy delivery button 22 (see Fig. 22 and para. 0065). An end of stroke switch 284 is configured to prevent delivery of energy to the electrodes of the end effector 10 when the end effector 10 is not in a closed position (see para. 0065). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreaux et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0272659). In regard to claim 10, Boudreaux et al. are silent as to the shaft 12 being flexible. However, it is well known in the surgical arts to have surgical devices that are flexible depending upon the surgical application (e.g., tight or narrow spaces to access). Furthermore, the term “flexible” is a matter of degree as even some rigid surgical device structures having a degree of flexibility. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the shaft 12 of Boudreaux et al. flexible in order to equip the device with the ability to navigate tight or narrow spaces during surgical procedures. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 5:00PM. 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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. /BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582467
SURGICAL INSTRUMENT WITH HOVER SENSOR AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582468
APPLICATION OF NON-THERAPEUTIC WAVEFORMS WITH GRADIENT SENSING TO PREDICT PULSED FIELD ABLATION (PFA) FIELDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582469
GROUPED PIN RECEPTACLE CONNECTOR FOR ABLATION CATHETER HANDLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575881
CALIPER TOOL WITH TOGGLING BETWEEN MULTIPLE ABLATION MODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569139
MICROSURGICAL SYSTEMS FOR PERFORMING SURGICAL PROCEEDURES
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
71%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+23.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 191 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