Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/608,347

System And Method For Reducing Tool Vibration At A Variable Stiffness End Effector Of A Surgical System

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 18, 2024
Examiner
LAU, MICHAEL J
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Medtronic Navigation Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
207 granted / 292 resolved
+0.9% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
337
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 292 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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) 1-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 12053252 B2 in view of Timm (US 11602474 B2). Regarding claims 1, 15, and 29, Thompson discloses a method of operating a surgical system comprising: positioning a variable stiffness end effector assembly relative to a patient (Eg. Fig 1, cart 100) comprising an end effector support having a tool insertion device disposed therein (eg. Col. 6, Ln. 36 – Col. 7, Ln. 20); rigidly coupling the end effector support to the tool insertion device in a first mode by forming a rigid coupling mechanism (eg. Col. 6, Ln. 1-16, Col. 8, Ln. 50 – Col. 9 Ln. 11, Col. 11, Ln. 10 – Col. 12, Ln. 37, Col. 13, Ln. 25 – Col. 14, Ln. 45, latching mechanism having a locked and unlocked position); inserting a tool within the tool insertion device (eg. Col. 7, Ln. 40-50, Col. 8, LN. 4-31, Col. 13, Ln. 25-46); but does not disclose vibrating the tool insertion device with the tool; and decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism and compliantly coupling the tool insertion device in a second mode after vibrating. Timm teaches a surgical system that uses a tool to vibrate the tool insertion device (eg. Col. 2, Ln. 14-32, Col. 14, Ln. 60 – Col. 15, Ln. 15, Col. 21, Ln. 35 – Col. 22, Ln. 11), sensing vibration signal (eg. Col. 10, Ln. 3 - Col. 12, Ln. 63, Col. 13, Ln. 59 – Col. 14, Ln. 28, Claim 8) and decoupling into a second mode (eg. Col. 21, Ln. 59 – Col. 22, Ln. 11, Col. 35, Ln. 23-44, Col. 35, Ln. 60 – Col. 36, Ln. 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Thompson with the vibration mechanism as taught by Timm to reduce unwanted vibrational cross-talk to enhance positional accuracy of the distal ends of robotic arms and devices attached thereto (Eg. Timm, Col. 2, Ln. 14-32, Col. 14, Ln. 60 – Col. 15). Regarding claims 2 and 16, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses detecting the vibrating at a vibration sensor and wherein decoupling is performed in response to detecting vibration greater than a predetermined threshold (eg. Timm, Col. 10, Ln. 18-32, Col. 11, Ln. 40-53, Col. 21, Ln. 35 – Col. 22, Ln. 11, Claim 1). Regarding claims 3, 28, and 30, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses detecting the vibrating at a vibration sensor and wherein generating a warning signal (eg. Timm, Col. 12, Ln. 15-63, Col. 13, Ln. 59 – Col. 14, Ln. 28, Claim 8). Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism using a user interface (Eg. Thompson Fig. 8 and 10, Col. 14, Ln. 45 – Col. 15, Ln. 27, Col. 17, Ln. 30-60). Regarding claims 5 and 18, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism and compliantly coupling the end effector support to the tool insertion device with a compliant coupling (eg. Thompson Col. 6, Ln. 1-16, Col. 9, Ln. 12 – Col. 10, Ln. 2). Regarding claims 6 and 19, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism and compliantly coupling the end effector support to the tool insertion device with a plurality of springs (eg. Thompson, Col. 5, Ln 30-67, Col. 14, Ln. 11-31). Regarding claims 7 and 20, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of pins retractably disposed between the end effector support and the tool insertion device (eg. Thompson Col. 14, Ln. 32 – Col. 15, Ln. 41, Col. 17, Ln. 9 – Col. 19, Ln. 43, Col. 20, Ln. 30-67, Col. 23, Ln. 17-28, Col. 24, Ln. 28-52, Col. 25, Ln. 52 – Col. 27, Ln. 29). Regarding claims 8 and 21, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of cams retractably coupled between the end effector support and the tool insertion device (eg. Thompson Col. 14, Ln. 32 – Col. 15, Ln. 41, Col. 17, Ln. 9 – Col. 19, Ln. 43, Col. 20, Ln. 30-67, Col. 23, Ln. 17-28, Col. 24, Ln. 28-52, Col. 25, Ln. 52 – Col. 27, Ln. 29). Regarding claims 9 and 22, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of cams retractably coupled between the end effector support and the tool insertion device using a motor coupled to the plurality of cams (Eg. Thompson, Col. 17, Ln. 32 – Col. 18, Ln. 40, Col. 21, Ln. 54 – Col. 23, Ln. 47 Col. 25, Ln. 10 – 27, Ln. 50, one of ordinary skill would have been able to add a motor to the moving parts to allow for automated actuation since motorizing cams is common in the art). Regarding claims 10 and 23, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a first plurality of stops coupled to the end effector support and a second plurality of stops coupled to the tool insertion device by moving the first plurality of stops from being aligned with the second plurality of stops to where the first plurality of stops are not aligned with the second plurality of stops (eg. Thompson Col. 14, Ln. 32 – Col. 15, Ln. 41, Col. 17, Ln. 9 – Col. 19, Ln. 43, Col. 20, Ln. 30-67, Col. 23, Ln. 17-28, Col. 24, Ln. 28-52, Col. 25, Ln. 52 – Col. 27, Ln. 29). Regarding claims 11 and 24, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling by rotating the end effector support relative to the tool insertion device (Eg. Thompson Col. 27, Ln. 49-67). Regarding claims 12 and 25, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of fasteners retractably coupled through the end effector support, said plurality of fasteners axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device (eg. Thompson Col. 14, Ln. 32 – Col. 15, Ln. 41, Col. 17, Ln. 9 – Col. 19, Ln. 43, Col. 20, Ln. 30-67, Col. 23, Ln. 17-28, Col. 24, Ln. 28-52, Col. 25, Ln. 52 – Col. 27, Ln. 29, clamping arms). Regarding claims 13 and 26, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the plurality of fasteners comprises rotating screws coupled to a motor (Eg. Thompson Col. 17, Ln. 32 – Col. 18, Ln. 40, Col. 21, Ln. 54 – Col. 23, Ln. 47 Col. 25, Ln. 10 – 27, Ln. 50, one of ordinary skill would have been able to add a motor to the moving parts to allow for automated actuation since motorizing cams is common in the art). Regarding claims 14 and 27, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of pneumatic cylinders retractably coupled to the end effector support by axially retracting the plurality of pneumatic cylinders relative to the tool insertion device (eg. Timm, Col. 8, Ln. 49 – Col. 9, Ln. 16, Col. 10, Ln. 18-32, one of ordinary skill could use pneumatic systems for retractable actuation of Thompson’s blocks/arms since pneumatic systems are common in robotics to provide force feedback). Regarding claim 31, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses receiving a vibration signal comprises receiving a vibration signal from a vibration sensor disposer on an end effector support, a tool insertion device or a robotic arm. (eg. Timm, Col. 10, Ln. 3 - Col. 12, Ln. 63, Col. 13, Ln. 59 – Col. 14, one of ordinary skill could place a vibration sensor where desired, see MPEP 2144.04 VI). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-2317. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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. /MICHAEL J LAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 18, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599762
LEAD ANCHOR FOR A NEUROMODULATION LEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588824
CARDIAC PULSE WAVE RETRIEVAL FROM AN ELECTRICAL SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588849
GARMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582343
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR WAVELENGTH MAPPING CARDIAC FIBRILLATION AND OPTIMIZING ABLATION LESION PLACEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564443
Tailored Laser Pulses for Surgical Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
96%
With Interview (+25.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 292 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