Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/530,931

DEVICE FOR FEEDING AND REMOVING SURGICAL MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 06, 2023
Examiner
JENNESS, NATHAN JAY
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Karl Storz SE & Co. Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
233 granted / 434 resolved
-16.3% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+37.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
460
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§102
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 434 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 . Election/Restrictions The restriction mailed 24 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the prior art search revealing there is no search burden between the rotational and linear magazines. Claims 1-14 are examined below. 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 8 and 10-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 8 and 11-12 recite the limitation "the distal instrument tip" in line 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 1-6, 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knight et al. (US 2016/0213363), cited by applicant. [Claim 1] Knight discloses a device (#4) for supplying operating material into an endoscopic operating site or for removing operating material from an endoscopic operating site, the device comprising: PNG media_image1.png 530 792 media_image1.png Greyscale a trocar (cannula, #6); a medical instrument (elongate probe, #8, having a distal end tool, #9) that is insertable into the operating site through the trocar; and a loadable magazine (#2) which is arranged at the proximal end of the trocar and serves to accommodate material containers (chambers, #12, of the magazine are arranged to receive a medical intervention including medicine, drugs, a medical instrument or a tool) which, by means of the medical instrument and through the trocar, are insertable into the operating site or removable therefrom [pars. 0059-0061]. [Claim 2] Knight discloses the magazine is formed as a cylinder that is rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the trocar [pars. 0026, 0059-0061]. [Claim 3] Knight discloses the magazine is formed as a slide that is displaceable (moves linearly) across the longitudinal axis of the trocar [par. 0064; Fig. 4]. [Claim 4] Knight discloses the magazine is drivable by motor [pars. 0009, 0026]. [Claims 5, 6] Knight discloses each material container is securable to a distal instrument tip of the medical instrument by means of a latch mechanism, wherein the latch mechanism consists of a latch element arranged at the distal instrument tip of the medical instrument and a corresponding latch receptacle on the material container (engaging portion, #66, preferably comprising a male engaging portion which is adapted to be received in a female engaging portion, #68, provided in the tool body of the tool head) [pars. 0059, 0072-0073]. [Claim 9] Knight discloses a biopsy may be collected from a patient and withdrawn into the magazine and immediately removed for analysis whilst the surgeon carries on with the surgical operation [par. 0014]. The examiner notes the claims are directed to a device comprising a trocar, medical instrument and loadable magazine. The material containers are not positively claimed. Based on the disclosure of Knight, the magazine is capable of containing material containers wherein each material container has a sealable opening for filling and/or emptying the material container. [Claim 13] The device is couplable to a medical telemanipulation robot (this is an intended use and the instant device has a cannula which could be coupled by a clamp/mount including a clamp/mount of a medical telemanipulation robot). [Claim 14] Knight discloses the device is configured to couple with a manually operable medical instrument (user operable input arrangement includes a trigger, #14) [par. 0059]. 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. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 2016/0213363) as applied to claim 6 and claim 1 above, respectively, in view of Cowley et al. (US 2021/0059705). [Claims 7, 12] Knight discloses the latch element arranged at the distal instrument tip but does not disclose the distal instrument tip is rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the medical instrument. Cowley discloses a bi-stable spring latch connector (Figs. 6-8 #500) for analogous surgical instruments comprising a female end (#510) and male end (#520). The male end has a pair of protrusions (#522) that are rotated, along the longitudinal axis of an associated instrument, within grooves (#513) of the female end to couple the components of the latch together [par. 0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the latch taught by Knight with the bi-stable spring latch taught by Cowley in order to predictably couple the distal instrument tip to the container. The substitution constituting a simple substitution of one known coupling means for another known coupling means. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 2016/0213363) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Desjardin et al. (US 2023/0093375). [Claim 8] Knight discloses each material container (arranged to receive a medical intervention including medicine, drugs, a medical instrument or a tool) is securable to a distal instrument tip of the medical instrument but does not disclose by means of a magnetic coupling system. Hufnagel discloses a surgical system wherein interchangeable surgical instruments may be detachably fastened to the distal end of surgical robot arm using a mechanical mating feature or through magnetic coupling [par. 0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the frictional coupling system taught by Knight with a magnetic coupling system as taught by Desjardin in order to predictably couple the material container with the distal instrument tip. The substitution constituting a simple substitution of one known coupling means for another known coupling means. Claims 9 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 2016/0213363) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Nock (US 2019/0374210). [Claims 9, 10] Knight discloses a magazine that is capable of containing material containers wherein each material container has a sealable opening for filling and/or emptying the material container but does not disclose the opening of the material container is opened and closed by means of the medical instrument coupled with the material container. Nock discloses an apparatus to permit selective biopsy sample comprising a gate assembly (#600) coupled to a cutter (#130) to communicate rotational and translational motion of the gate assembly to the cutter. Rotation and translation of a cutter drive member (#502) results in corresponding rotation and translation of the cutter via the coupling between a gate portion (#504) and the gate assembly [par. 0051] i.e. to opening/closing the cutter to collect a tissue sample. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the medical instrument of Knight such that rotational and/or translation motion from the medical instrument imparted on a material container in the form of a biopsy cannula causes a cutter to open/close to collect a tissue sample as taught by Nock. The examiner notes Knight discloses a biopsy may be collected from a patient and withdrawn into the magazine and immediately removed for analysis whilst the surgeon carries on with the surgical operation [par. 0014]. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 2016/0213363) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2022/0218349). [Claim 11] Knight does not disclose the distal instrument tip of the medical instrument is able to be angled in relation to the longitudinal axis of the medical instrument by means of at least one joint. Shelton, IV discloses an analogous surgical instrument comprising an articulation joint (#32) in a shaft (#16) of the instrument that pivots to enable additional positioning during surgery [par. 0166]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the distal instrument tip taught by Knight to include an articulation joint as taught by Shelton, IV in order to provide additional positioning capabilities during surgery. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: (1) Larkin et al. (US 9,060,678) discloses an instrument magazine (#3002) having several instruments (#3004a, b, c) that may be selectively introduced into a guide tube (#3008) [col. 50, line 59 – col. 51, line 28]. PNG media_image2.png 576 544 media_image2.png Greyscale Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN J JENNESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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. /NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 18 January 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603470
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR EMITTING MULTI-WAVELENGTH LASER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12544586
HAIR REMOVAL DEVICE AND PELTIER COOLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544589
LIGHT THERAPY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12508075
LIGHT BASED SKIN TREATMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12465521
HYBRID 2-PORT VITRECTOMY AND COMBINED TREATMENT AND INFUSION PROBE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+37.8%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 434 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