Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/482,957

SUCTION ACCESSORY FOR ELECTROCAUTERY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 09, 2023
Examiner
VAHDAT, KHADIJEH A
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
492 granted / 621 resolved
+9.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
645
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 621 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION A complete action on the merits of claims 1-13 follows below. 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 . 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 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. 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 9-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation “suction tubing” in line 5. It is noted that earlier in the claim “a suction unit” has been introduced including “an attachment portion extending longitudinally along a length of the electrocautery pen”. It is at most unclear if the “suction tubing” is related to the suction unit or not since the claim only requires “the attachment portion having a first end operable to connect to suction tubing”. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. Claims 10-13 are rejected due to dependency over claim 9. 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heanggi (US Patent No. 5,413,575). Regarding Claim 1, Heanggi teaches a suction unit 30 for an electrocautery pen 10 (Figs. 1-8A, 13 and 17), comprising: an attachment portion (portion 46 of tube 30) extending longitudinally along a length of the electrocautery pen (Fig. 13) when the suction unit 30 is attached to the electrocautery pen (Figs. 1-8C), the attachment portion having a first end operable to connect to suction tubing (Col. 5, ll. 36-56 and Col. 10, ll. 43-Col. 11, ll. 9 and Col. 12, ll. 58-Col. 13, ll. 2); a suction ring (section 90 of the blade cleaning accessory is here interpreted to be an open ring) fluidly connected (through connection to apertures 32) to a second end of the attachment portion (distal end of tube 30, distal to portion 46), the suction ring 90 fitting about an end of the electrocautery pen (Figs. 8A-9 and Col. 10, ll. 43-Col. 11, ll. 9); and a suction tip end 31 fluidly connected to the suction ring 90 (through apertures 32), the suction tip end operable to drawn suction in a direction away from a electrocautery tip of the electrocautery pen (Col. 5, ll. 26-35 and Col. 8, ll. 38-68). Regarding Claim 2, Heanggi teaches further comprising an extension portion (spring bend 96) fluidly extending from the suction ring 90 to position the suction tip end 31 adjacent the electrocautery tip (Figs. 8A-8C). 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 3-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heanggi as applied above, in view of Lowry (US Pub. No. 2013/0325005). Regarding Claim 3, Heanggi teaches the invention as applied above, but does not teach further comprising a cautery pen safety cover movable between a first position and a second position, the first position housing the electrocautery tip within the cautery pen safety cover, the first position blocking activation of a trigger of the electrocautery pen, the second position permitting the electrocautery tip to extend from a first end of the cautery pen safety cover, and the second position permitting user access to the trigger of the electrocautery pen. In the same field of invention, Lowry teaches a cautery pen cover designated as a protective sleeve that prevents actuation of the cautery pen trigger until the cover is retracted for safety purposes. In specific, Lawry teaches a cautery pen safety cover 14 movable between a first position and a second position ([0026]), the first position housing the electrocautery tip 30 within the cautery pen safety cover 14 (Figs. 1-2 and [0026]), the first position blocking activation of a trigger 32 of the electrocautery pen, the second position permitting the electrocautery tip 30 to extend from a first end of the cautery pen safety cover, and the second position permitting user access to the trigger of the electrocautery pen (Figs. 6, 8-9, [0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the blade extendable from the housing add a similar safety cover to the invention of Heanggi in order to prevent access to the triggers 40/41 (Col. 6, ll. 28-32) prior to the blade being in a ready state (received and extended) to prevent accidental activation of the trigger/blade prior to being ready for use in view of the teachings of Lawry. Regarding Claim 4, Heanggi in view of Lawry teaches the invention as applied above and although the blade cleaning accessory is disclosed by Heanggi to be positioned around the blade such that the sliding motion of the suction tube would move it about the blade to clean the blade, in view of the use of the safety cover of Lawry, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add the blade cleaning accessory 90 (here interpreted to be the suction ring) fits about the cautery pen safety cover, adjacent the first end thereof in order to allow cleaning of the blade as it extends out of the safety cover for the same reason Heanggi teaches. Regarding Claim 5, Heanggi teaches further comprising a clip 96 operable to fix the suction unit to the cautery pen 20 and thereby the safety cover in view of the teachings of Lawry. Regarding Claim 6, Heanggi in view of Lawry teaches wherein the suction tip end is positioned directly adjacent the first end of the cautery pen safety cover (by positioning a similar safety cover as disclosed by Lawry, the suction tip end 31 would be positioned directly adjacent the first end of the cautery pen safety cover as it is slidable positioned about the blade as seen in Figs. 8A-8C of Heanggi). Regarding Claim 9, Heanggi teaches an electrocautery system (Figs. 1-8A, 13 and 17) for an electrocautery pen 10, comprising: a suction unit 30 including: an attachment portion (portion 46 of tube 30) extending longitudinally along a length of the electrocautery pen 10 (Figs. 1 and 13), the attachment portion having a first end operable to connect to suction tubing (Figs. 1-8C and Col. 5, ll. 36-56 and Col. 10, ll. 43-Col. 11, ll. 9 and Col. 12, ll. 58-Col. 13, ll. 2); a suction ring (section 90 of the blade cleaning accessory is here interpreted to be an open ring) fluidly connected (through apertures 32) to a second end of the attachment portion (distal end of tube 30, distal to portion 46), the suction ring fitting about an end of the electrocautery pen (Figs. 8A-9 and Col. 10, ll. 43-Col. 11, ll. 9); and a suction tip end 31 fluidly connected to the suction ring (through apertures 32), the suction tip end 31 operable to drawn suction in a direction away from a electrocautery tip of the electrocautery pen (Col. 5, ll. 26-35 and Col. 8, ll. 38-68); however, does not teach a cautery pen safety cover movable between a first position and a second position, the first position housing the electrocautery tip within the cautery pen safety cover, the first position blocking activation of a trigger of the electrocautery pen, the second position permitting the electrocautery tip to extend from a first end of the cautery pen safety cover, and the second position permitting user access to the trigger of the electrocautery pen. In the same field of invention, Lowry teaches a cautery pen cover designated as a protective sleeve that prevents actuation of the cautery pen trigger until the cover is retracted for safety purposes. In specific, Lawry teaches a cautery pen safety cover 14 movable between a first position ([0026]) and a second position ([0024]), the first position housing the electrocautery tip 30 within the cautery pen safety cover 14 (Figs. 1-2 and [0026]), the first position blocking activation of a trigger 32 of the electrocautery pen, the second position permitting the electrocautery tip 30 to extend from a first end of the cautery pen safety cover, and the second position permitting user access to the trigger of the electrocautery pen (Figs. 6, 8-9, [0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the blade extendable from the housing add a similar safety cover to the invention of Heanggi in order to prevent access to the triggers 40/41 (Col. 6, ll. 28-32) prior to the blade being in a ready state (received and extended) to prevent accidental activation of the trigger/blade prior to being ready for use in view of the teachings of Lawry. Regarding Claim 10, Heanggi teaches wherein the suction unit 30 further includes an extension portion (the distal end) fluidly extending from the suction ring 90 to position the suction tip end adjacent the electrocautery tip (Figs. 8A-9). Regarding Claim 11, Heanggi teaches wherein a length of the extension portion causes the suction tip end 31 to be positioned directly adjacent the first end of the cautery pen safety cover (Figs. 8A-9 show the extension of the distal end of the suction unit 30 of Heanggi causing the end 31 to be positioned directly adjacent the first end of the cautery pen 20 and therefore, by positioning a similar safety cover as disclosed by Lawry, the suction tip end 31 would be positioned directly adjacent the first end of the cautery pen safety cover as it is slidable positioned about the blade as seen in Figs. 8A-8C of Heanggi). Regarding Claim 12, Heanggi in view of Lawry teaches the invention as applied above and although the blade cleaning accessory 90 is disclosed by Heanggi to be positioned around the blade 20 such that the sliding motion of the suction tube would move it about the blade to clean the blade, in view of the use of the safety cover of Lawry, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add the blade cleaning accessory 90 (here interpreted to be the suction ring) fits about the cautery pen safety cover, adjacent the first end thereof in order to allow cleaning of the blade as it extends out of the safety cover for the same reason Heanggi teaches. Regarding Claim 13, Heanggi teaches further comprising a clip 96 operable to fix the suction unit to the cautery pen 20 and thereby the safety cover in view of the teachings of Lawry. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heanggi as applied above, in view of Hirschfeld (US Patent No. 5,242,442). Regarding Claim 7, Heanggi teaches “an elongated generally cylindrical suction tube 30 … slidably supported within the housing” in Col. 5, ll. 26-35, but does not specify the material of the suction tube 30 to know if the suction unit is formed entirely from a rigid material or not. In the same field of invention, Hirschfeld teaches the “suction extension is constructed of a rigid material whereby said suction extension can extend from said handle without lateral support” see claim 6 and Col. 7, ll. 51-64 of Hirschfeld. Since suction tube is constructed of one piece and configured to extend out of the distal end of the housing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make it from a rigid thermoplastic material in order to allow it to extend from the housing without the need to support it and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding Claim 8, Heanggi teaches wherein the suction ring is an open-ring and not a hollow tubular member. Hirschfeld teaches “outlet end 62 can also provide an annular groove 64 for lockingly engaging a detent ring 67 formed on the outer wall of the handle 10. The suction extension 60 is securely held by the detent ring 67 and extends substantially parallel to the extended blade 20b” in Col. 7, ll. 55-59. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the ring 90 of Heanggi a closed ring of a hollow tubular member to engage the blade since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of a closed-ring shape of a hollow tubular member and the open-ring shape disclosed by Heanggi for their use in the attachment means art at the selection of any of these known equivalents to couple the suction tube to the blade while allowing them to be slidable attached would be within the level of ordinary skill. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHADIJEH A VAHDAT whose telephone number is (571)270-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST. 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 on (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. /KHADIJEH A VAHDAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594110
CRYOSURGICAL PROBE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594120
WATER-COOLLED FLEXIBLE MICROWAVE ABLATION PROBE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582459
ELECTROSURGICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575874
CUTTING BLADE FOR VESSEL SEALER WITH KNIFE RETURN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569272
Method for Radiofrequency Resection of Meniscus and Arthroscopic Instrument for Implementation thereof (Variants)
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
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.8%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 621 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month