Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 18/685,797

IMAGING DEVICE WITH ELONGATE ARM AND PIVOTABLE CAMERA

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Priority
Jan 30, 2019 — provisional 62/798,508 +3 more
Examiner
SURGAN, ALEXANDRA L
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Momentis Surgical Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allowance Rate
244 granted / 512 resolved
-22.3% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 12m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
543
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
62.0%
+22.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 512 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 . Status of Claims Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 17-23, 30, 33, 37-40 and 44 are pending, claims 9-11, 18-20, 22, 23, 30, 33, 37-40 and 44 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1, 6, 8, 17 and 21 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104 Foreign Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copies have been received. 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. Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piech et al. (U.S. 2012/0209070) in view of Hoefig et al. (U.S. 2007/0055103). With respect to claim 1, Piech et al. teaches an imaging device for capturing an image within a human body, the imaging device comprising: a. an elongate mechanical arm (50); and b. an imaging assembly (30) coupled to the arm at a distal arm-location, the imaging assembly comprising: i. a camera (32), ii. a pivot member (38) defining a pivot axis orthogonal to a longitudinal centerline of the elongate arm at the distal arm- location, the pivot member engaged with the camera such that the camera is pivotable about the pivot axis throughout a pivot range (para [0025]), and iii. an actuation member (96) configured to pivot the camera in response to a remote user input (para [0025], [0032]), However, Piech et al. is silent with respect to the pivot range of the camera. With respect to claim 1, Hoefig et al. teaches an imaging device for capturing an image within a human body, wherein the pivot range includes an orientation at which the camera is rotated at least 90° from the longitudinal centerline of the elongate arm at the distal arm-location (para [0089]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Piech et al. such that the camera can pivot at least 90 degrees in the manner taught by Hoefig et al. so that the range of possible angles of view is enlarged without increasing the space needed in the observation area for the increased range of directions of view (para [0017] of Hoefig et al. ). With respect to claim 6, Hoefig et al. teaches the pivot range includes at least a range of 90° at least in a plane parallel to a longitudinal centerline of the elongate arm at the distal arm-location (para [0089]). With respect to claim 8, Hoefig et al. teaches the pivot range is independent of a distal-arm-location orientation (para [0105]). With respect to claim 17, Hoefig et al. teaches the pivot range includes at least a range of 135° in at least the plane parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the elongate arm at the distal arm-location (para [0089]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an activation member at the distal end of the arm) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted Examiner cited paragraphs [0025] and [0032] in the rejection. Paragraph [0025] states: The camera head 30 generally includes a joint member 38 connecting a distal head 40 to a proximal head portion 42. The joint 38 is pivotally connected to the proximal head portion 42, e.g. via a pin, ball-and-socket or other pivotal connection, to allow the joint 38 and the distal head portion 40 to pivot relative to the proximal head portion 42 and beam 50. The joint 38 also provides a flange 48 defining a surface about which the distal head portion 40 may rotate about the longitudinal axis of the joint 38 (and often axis 16 as shown). The pivoting and rotation of the camera head 30 may be accomplished via appropriately located control wires 44 which pass through an interior passageway 46 of the joint 38 and through the interior of the beam 50. The control wires 44 may mechanically transfer energy to the camera head 34 for articulation, or the camera head 30 may include small motors or prime movers (not shown) that are electrically driven via electric control wires 44. Paragraph [0032] states: As also seen in FIGS. 2-3, a proximal end 50 of the beam is attached to the handle 90. As best seen in FIG. 3, the handle 90 generally includes a housing 92 defining a guide rail 94, which has been depicted as a simple slot 94 formed longitudinally through the housing 92. A thumb slider 96 slides along the housing 92 guided by the slot 94, and includes a tab 98 projecting through the slot 94 and riding within the housing 92. The tab 98 is attached to the proximal end 58 of the beam 50, i.e. to one or more proximal links 52. Through translation of the thumb slider 96, the beam 50 may be moved distally and proximally through the guide sheath 70 and within the body cavity 12. The control wires 44 extending from the camera head 30 through the beam 50 also extend through the thumb slider 96 to various controls 100 located on thereon. The controls 100 may be operatively connected to a circuit board 102 or other electronic elements for transmitting and storing signals from the camera head 30, or may be attaching to winding wheels, torque wheels, tensioning mechanisms and the like for transmitting mechanical energy through the control wires 44 (e.g. for rotation of the camera 32). That is, it is clear that Piech teaches the thumb slider 96 functions to actuate the camera head 30 via control wires 44. As such, Piech teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm 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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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. /ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 27, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 11, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12690752
ERGONOMIC CONTROLS FOR ENDOSCOPE
3y 3m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12685848
CHEST TUBE INSERTION DEVICE USING ENDOSCOPIC GUIDE
4y 3m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12635854
MOTOR-DRIVEN ENDOSCOPE
3y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12635863
Endoscopy Device and Endoscopy System with Annular View
3y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12629284
Ear Cleaning Arrangement
1y 11m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+28.0%)
3y 12m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 512 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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