Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/741,061

INSERT GUIDE MEMBERS FOR SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, AND RELATED DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 12, 2024
Examiner
OUYANG, BO
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
230 granted / 381 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
440
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
58.1%
+18.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 381 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Applicant's preliminary amendments and remarks, filed 10/3/24, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 2-21 are pending with claim 1 canceled, claims 2-21 new. The following is a complete response to the 10/3/24 communication. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 Objections Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: "comprises position" should be "comprises positioning". Appropriate correction is required. 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) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2013/0012928) in view of Manzo (US 2012/0215220). Regarding claim 19, Cooper teaches a method of assembling a surgical instrument, comprising: positioning an insert guide member (guide member 70) relative to a surgical instrument comprising a shaft (14), end effector (12), and wrist coupling the end effector to the shaft (10 couples 14 to 12), the wrist having a first axis of articulation (axis of articulation for pitch bending as in par. [0095]-[0097]) and a second axis of articulation spaced from and transverse to the first axis of articulation (axis of articulation for yaw bending par. [0095]-[0097]), wherein a portion of the insert guide member extends through the wrist (70 through wrist 10).Cooper is not explicit regarding routing a flux conduit operably coupled to the end effector through a passage of the insert guide member so as to follow a path through the wrist that is nonhelical and intersects or nearly intersects each of the first axis of articulation and the second axis of articulation. However, Manzo teaches conductors 11a-b in side passages through a guide as in par [0087] to couple to an end effector and intersects through axes of articulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cooper such that conductors are used in the side passages, as in Manzo, as lumens that may be used to deliver conductors to the end effectors. Regarding claim 20, Cooper teaches further comprising installing a sleeve over the insert guide member (sleeve 74 as in at least Fig. 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this would cover the flux conduit given the flux conduit is within the insert guide which is being covered by the sleeve. Regarding claim 21, Cooper teaches wherein fitting the insert guide member relative to the surgical instrument further comprises positioning a second portion of the insert guide member at least partially in the shaft of the instrument (second portion 54 of guide member 70 partially in the shaft), and wherein routing the flux conduit through the passage further comprises routing the flux conduit through the passage so as to follow a path through the second portion of the insert guide member that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of a central bore of the guide member (second portion of 54 at a distal end parallel to the longitudinal axis of the guide member as in Fig. 6). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-18 are allowed. The closest prior art of record are Cooper, Manzo, and Nelson (US 6,249,708). However, the prior art does not teach each of the one or more passages along the second portion is nonhelical and intersects or nearly intersects each of the first axis and the second axis. Rather, the passages of Cooper and Nelson are either straight (Cooper) or helical (Nelson as in Fig. 9). Examiner has not found any piece of art that discloses, fairly suggests, or makes obvious the arrangement. See also related application 16/872,538, now patent number 12,042,209. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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. /BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 12, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588940
TESTING DEVICE FOR AN ELECTROSURGICAL GENERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588939
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR REGULATING CRYOGENIC TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569294
TIMING SYSTEM FOR USE DURING ABLATION PROCEDURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558149
SURGICAL END EFFECTOR JAW AND ELECTRODE CONFIGURATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12544168
SURGICAL INSTRUMENT AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLING SURGICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
60%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+6.2%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 381 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