Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/713,717

DUAL ROBOTIC ENDOSCOPE CONFIGURATION FOR TISSUE REMOVAL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 28, 2024
Examiner
GHIMIRE, SHANKAR RAJ
Art Unit
3795
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tamar Robotics Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
207 granted / 272 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
318
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 272 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim 7 is 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. Claim7 recites the limitation "wherein the curved section bends unidirectionally between the first straight section and the second straight section." Generally, bending brings about directional change. Thus, as recited, the unidirectional bending is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11, 13, 15-18, 20-27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 rejected as being anticipated by Cohen (US 20200170736). Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses surgical manipulator arm system (FIGS. 1A, 1C, 1D) comprising: an introducer (support segment 102, 103; Para [0295]), defining a lumen having a distal aperture; and first and second manipulator arms (arms 104, 106; para [0295]), sized to pass through and distally out of the introducer lumen, alongside each other and along a distal longitudinal axis of the introducer; wherein the first and second manipulator arms: each respectively define a lumen (Note the segment 112 sliding from section 108; Para [0295]) with a distal opening, the lumen and distal opening being sized to receive a surgical tool (Note the third segment 124, 126; Para [0295]) passing therethrough, deploy to orient their respective distal openings so that surgical tools exiting them advance towards a shared zone within which the respective surgical tool of each manipulator arm is operable; and wherein the advance is from mutually opposing directions along the distal longitudinal axis (FIG. 1A). PNG media_image1.png 709 1393 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Cohen discloses wherein each of the first and second manipulator arms, upon deployment distally from the introducer, comprises: a first straight section (second segment 112) oriented along the distal longitudinal axis of the introducer, and reaching from the introducer to a curving section (section 120); the curving section, curved throughout its longitudinal extent to reach a deflection angle orienting the curving section's distal longitudinal axis oblique or perpendicular to the distal longitudinal axis of the introducer (FIG. 1A); and a second straight section (second segment 116), oriented along the distal longitudinal axis of the curving section, and reaching from a side of the curving section opposite the first straight section to the distal opening of the manipulator arm (FIG. 1D). Regarding claim 3, Cohen discloses wherein the respective first straight sections (112: FIGS. 1C, 1D) of each of the deployed first and second manipulator arm are advanced from the introducer to different longitudinal extents (As shown in FIGS. 1C, 1D, the deployed first and second manipulator extend with different lengths.), and the respective curving sections are bent to different said deflection angles (The curving sections are bent to different said deflection angles. FIGS. 1C, 1D). Regarding claim 4, Cohen discloses the deployed first manipulator arm is positioned with the deflection angle of its curved section being less than 90 degrees (FIG. 1A); and the deployed second manipulator arm is positioned with the deflection angle of its curved section being 90 degree or more (FIG. 1A; each of the curving section include different curvature providing different deflection angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the introducer.). Regarding claim 5, Cohen discloses wherein the curved section bends through a radius of curvature which is less than a diameter of the lumen of the introducer (As can be seen from FIG. 1A, the radius of curvature of the curving section is less than the diameter of the introducer). Regarding claim 6, Cohen discloses wherein the deflection angle of the curved section adjusts according to how far the curved section is longitudinally advanced relative to the first straight section (If the curving section is withdrawn, the deflection angle is adjusted.). Regarding claim 7, Cohen discloses wherein the curved section bends unidirectionally between the first straight section and the second straight section (FIGS. 1C, 1D). Regarding claim 10, Cohen discloses wherein the second straight section remains in a same plane with the first straight section as the curved section bends (FIGS. 1C, 1D). Regarding claim 11, Cohen discloses wherein a region of coplanarity extends from at least where the first straight section leaves the introducer, and through the curved section and second straight section up to the distal opening of the manipulator arm (As seen from FIGS. 1C, 1D). Regarding claim 13, Cohen discloses wherein the first straight section, the curving section, and the second straight section comprise tubular members, defining a lumen sized for passing a surgical tool out to and beyond the distal opening of the manipulator arm (FIG. 1D). Regarding claim 15, Cohen discloses wherein the first straight section is controllable to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the first straight section, relative to the introducer (First actuator 540 is configured to rotate an arm portion; Para [0380]). Regarding claim 16, Cohen discloses wherein the second straight section is controllable to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the second straight section, relative to the curved section (Second straight section is controllable to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the second straight section; FIG. 1D). Regarding claim 17, Cohen discloses comprising an auxiliary introducer inside the introducer, and wherein a lumen of the auxiliary introducer guides the relative positioning of the first and second manipulators as they deploy distally from the introducer (FIG. 1D, annotated). Regarding claim 18, Cohen discloses wherein the lumen of the auxiliary introducer (FIG.1D, annotated) is sized so that the first and second manipulator arms are held in position by contact both with the lumen wall of the lumen, and with each other. Regarding claim 20, Cohen discloses wherein the manipulator arms deploy to define a shared action zone located beyond their respective distal openings (Note the shared zone of the manipulators arms; FIG. 1A), accessible by a tool deployed to extend straight beyond the distal opening of either of the manipulator arms. Regarding claim 21, Cohen discloses wherein the shared action zone is positioned (No definite area of the shared zone is defined.) longitudinally distanced from the distal end of the first straight section of the first manipulator arm by less than a diameter-length of the introducer (A shared zone below or above the distal end of the manipulator arm may be defined to meet this requirement. FIG. 1A annotated). Regarding claim 22, Cohen discloses wherein the shared action zone is positioned radially distanced by at least one radius-length beyond a distal axial shadow of the introducer (No definite area of the shared zone is defined. Off axis shared zone can be defined which is radially distanced by at least one radius-length.). Regarding claim 23, Cohen discloses comprising a camera module (FIG. 11A; camera 1178; para [0484]), wherein the camera module deploys to orient a field of view of at least one camera of the camera module with a central view axis pointing proximally along the distal longitudinal axis (The camera 1178 position can be moved to meet this requirement; FIG. 11A). Regarding claim 24, Cohen discloses a second camera (Camera 1306; FIG. 13; Para [0498]), oriented with a field of view having a central view axis pointing distally along the distal longitudinal axis (Field of view of the camera 1306 may be adjusted for viewing distally along the distal longitudinal axis.). Regarding claim 25, Cohen discloses a side-pointing camera module (camera 1306; FIG. 13), wherein a central viewing axis of a field of view of a camera of the camera module is oriented to point within 30 degrees of an axis perpendicular to the distal longitudinal axis of the introducer (Bendable arm 1308 provides 30-degree field of view of an axis perpendicular to the distal longitudinal axis of the introducer. FIG. 13). Regarding claim 26, Cohen discloses wherein the central viewing axis of the camera oriented to point within 15 degrees of the axis perpendicular to the distal longitudinal axis of the introducer (Bendable arm 1308 provides 15-degree field of view for the camera 1306.). Regarding claim 27, Cohen discloses wherein the camera deploys to a position radially beyond a distal axial shadow of the introducer (Camera 1306; The camera 1306 can be deployed to a position radially beyond a distal axial shadow of the introducer). Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 rejected as being anticipated by Ito (US 20190201149). Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a surgical manipulator arm system (medical treatment instrument 101; FIG. 2) comprising: an introducer (tube 12; FIG. 2), defining a lumen (FIG. 4) having a distal aperture; and first and second manipulator arms (surgical tools 1), sized to pass through and distally out of the introducer lumen, alongside each other and along a distal longitudinal axis of the introducer; wherein the first and second manipulator arms: each respectively define a lumen (lumen 11; FIG. 4) with a distal opening, the lumen and distal opening being sized to receive a surgical tool passing therethrough (Distal end portion 20 have piece members 29a and piece members 29b; Para [0071]), deploy to orient their respective distal openings so that surgical tools exiting them advance towards a shared zone (FIG. 3) within which the respective surgical tool of each manipulator arm is operable; and wherein the advance is from mutually opposing directions along the distal longitudinal axis (FIG. 3). 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20200170736) in view of Hendrick (US 20170095299). Regarding claim 14, Cohen does not expressly disclose wherein at least a portion of the curving section deploys from inside the lumen of the first straight section, and at least a portion of the second straight section deploys from inside the curving section. Hendrick is directed to robotic surgical apparatus (abstract) and teaches wherein at least a portion of the curving section (FIG. 4 annotated below) deploys from inside the lumen (lumen of the outer tube 160; FIG. 4) of the first straight section (FIG. 4, annotated; Para [0071]), and at least a portion of the second straight section (FIG. 4, annotated) deploys from inside the curving section (FIG. 4). PNG media_image2.png 462 499 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cohen to include an outer tube with the manipulator’s arms in accordance with the teaching of Hendrick so that more flexibility and degree of freedom for bending could be provided by way of having an additional lumen with the arms of Cohen. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO -892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-4963. 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. /SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795 /ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 03/18/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600865
ANTI-FOULING ENDOSCOPES AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569118
ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM AND PACKAGING MATERIALS FOR ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558180
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A MOVEMENT OF A MEDICAL DEVICE IN A MAGNETIC FIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557973
OPTICAL UNIT, IMAGE PICKUP UNIT, AND ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557976
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF BODY LUMENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
76%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+19.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 272 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