Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/784,850

DEVICES AND METHODS FOR TREATING SKIN

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 07, 2020
Examiner
RASSAVONG, ERIC
Art Unit
3781
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Edge Systems LLC
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
110 granted / 152 resolved
+2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
208
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 152 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered. Status of Claims Claims 25, 27-29, and 34-45 are currently pending. Claims 1-24, 26, and 30-33 are cancelled. Claims 25, 35-36, 39-42, and 44 are currently amended. Claim 45 is newly added. No new subject matter is added. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claims 25, 27-29, and 34-45 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ignon et al. (US 8048089 B2), hereinafter referred to as “Ignon” in view of Hart et al. (US 20070005078 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Hart”. Regarding Claim 25, Ignon teaches a tip (34, see Figures 2A-11E) for skin treatment (a skin treatment system, see Abstract), the tip comprising: a distal end (102) configured to contact skin tissue (dermabrasion device, see Abstract); a peripheral member extending along the distal end (outer member 120, see Figure 5A), the peripheral member defining an interior area (outer member defines interior area of tip, see Figure 5A); at least one inlet opening for transferring a treatment fluid to the distal end of the tip (treatment material can flow distally through the lumen 92 into the through-hole 122, see Col. 8 lines 6-7); at least one waste opening for transferring spent treatment fluid and other waste away from the distal end of the tip (treatment material spreads radially outward to the peripheral through-holes 114 and the material can then flow through the through-holes into the lumen 90 for subsequent removal, see Col. 8 lines 9-12; Figure 3); at least one of a first type of protruding member (inner member 124) positioned within the interior area (see Figure 5A); and wherein the first type of protruding member is configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use (inner member configured to contact to remove skin, see Col. 11 lines 35-36); wherein the first type of protruding member comprises a substantially cylindrical shape (the protruding members 124 can be generally cylindrical members, see Col. 11 ln 48-49); and wherein the tip is configured to secure to a skin treatment handpiece (tip is secured to handpiece main body 30, see Figure 2A). However, Ignon does not explicitly disclose a plurality of a second type of protruding members positioned within the interior area, wherein the second type of protruding members are positioned laterally along outer portions of the tip along opposite ends of the at least one of the first type of protruding member; and wherein the second type of protruding members are configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use. Hart teaches a tip for skin treatment (a system for abrading skin to remove outer portions thereof includes an apparatus having a skin abrading head with a head portion, see Abstract; Figure 8), the tip comprising: a distal end configured to contact skin tissue (skin abrading head 18d, see Paragraph [0032]); a peripheral member extending along the distal end (see below), the peripheral member defining an interior area (see below); at least one of a first type of protruding member positioned within the interior area (outer circular rim 22D, see below); a plurality of a second type of protruding members positioned within the interior area (brush segments 30d, see below), wherein the second type of protruding members are positioned laterally along outer portions of the tip along opposite ends of the at least one of the first type of protruding member (second protruding members are at outer potions of the skin abrading head 18d on opposite sides of rim 22d, see Figure 8); and wherein the second type of protruding members are configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use (skin abrading brush having a plurality of bristles is located in the head interior, see Paragraphs [0035]). PNG media_image1.png 546 600 media_image1.png Greyscale Ignon and Hart are analogous art because both disclose a tip for skin treatment comprising protruding members. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the interior area of Ignon and further include a plurality of a second type of protruding members positioned laterally along outer portions of the tip along opposite ends of the at least one of the first type of protruding member, as taught by Hart. Hart teaches the second type of protruding members is beneficial for a unique combination of structural elements which cooperate in a unique manner to abrade skin and remove the abraded skin. The invention is characterized by its high degree of effectiveness and ease of use (see Paragraph [0012]). Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitation as discussed above. However, Ignon and Hart do not explicitly disclose the second type of protruding member comprises a spiral shape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of modified Ignon to have a second protruding member as a spiral shape since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative second type protruding member shape of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative second type protruding member shape would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the instant case, the device of Ignon would not operate differently with the claimed second type protruding member shape and since the shape of the second type of protruding member is used for the purpose of surface treating a person’s skin. The device would function appropriately having the claimed shape. Further, applicant places no criticality on the shape of the device claimed, indicating simply that the protruding member “can vary” in size and shape (specification pp. [0218]). Regarding Claim 27, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 25 and Ignon further teaches wherein the tip is removable from the handpiece (the tip 34 is removable and disposable, see Col. 6 lines 50-53). Regarding Claim 28, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 25 and Ignon further teaches wherein the tip is disposable (the tip 34 is removable and disposable, see Col. 6 lines 50-53). Regarding Claim 29, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 25 and Ignon further teaches wherein the peripheral member comprises an oval or oblong shape (outer member 120 is oval, see Figure 5A). Regarding Claim 34, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 25 and Ignon further teaches wherein the tip comprises a plastic material (tips 34 can be made of polymers, rubbers, metals, or other suitable materials, see Col. 13 lines 6-7). Regarding Claim 35, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 25 and Ignon further teaches wherein at least one of the first type of protruding member and the second type of protruding members is positioned fluidly between the at least one inlet opening and the at least one waste opening (inner member 124 is positioned between hole 122 and 114, see Figure 5A). Regarding Claim 36, Ignon teaches a tip (34, see Figures 2A-11E) for skin treatment (a skin treatment system, see Abstract), the tip comprising: a distal end (102) configured to contact skin tissue (dermabrasion device, see Abstract); at least one inlet opening configured for moving a treatment fluid to the distal end of the tip (treatment material can flow distally through the lumen 92 into the through-hole 122 to the distal end, see Col. 8 lines 6-7); at least one waste opening for moving waste away from the distal end of the tip (treatment material spreads radially outward to the peripheral through-holes 114 and the material can then flow through the through-holes into the lumen 90 for subsequent removal, see Col. 8 lines 9-12; Figure 3); at least one of a first type of protruding member (inner member 124) positioned along or near the distal end (see Figure 5A); and wherein a first distal end of the first type of protruding member is configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use (inner member configured to contact to remove skin, see Col. 11 lines 35-36), the distal end forming a spiral shape (see Figure 5A); and wherein the tip is configured to secure to a skin treatment handpiece (tip is secured to main body 30, see Figure 2A). However, Ignon does not explicitly disclose a second type of protruding member positioned along or near the distal end, the first type of protruding member being different than the second type of protruding members, wherein the second type of protruding members are positioned laterally along opposite ends of the at least one of the first type of protruding member; and wherein a second distal end of the second type of protruding member is configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use; Hart teaches a tip for skin treatment (a system for abrading skin to remove outer portions thereof includes an apparatus having a skin abrading head with a head portion, see Abstract; Figure 8), the tip comprising: a distal end configured to contact skin tissue (skin abrading head 18d, see Paragraph [0032]); a peripheral member extending along the distal end (see below), the peripheral member defining an interior area (see below); at least one of a first type of protruding member positioned within the interior area (outer circular rim 22D, see below); a second type of protruding member positioned along or near the distal end (brush segments 30d positioned on skin abrading head 18d, see above), the first type of protruding member being different than the second type of protruding members (see Figure 8), wherein the second type of protruding members are positioned laterally along opposite ends of the at least one of the first type of protruding member (second protruding members are at outer potions of the skin abrading head 18d at opposite ends of rim 22D, see Figure 8); and wherein the second type of protruding members are configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use (skin abrading brush having a plurality of bristles is located in the head interior, see Paragraphs [0035]). Ignon and Hart are analogous art because both disclose a tip for skin treatment comprising protruding members. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the distal end of Ignon and further include a plurality of a second type of protruding members positioned laterally along opposite ends of the at least one of the first type of protruding member, as taught by Hart. Hart teaches the first and second type of protruding members is beneficial for a unique combination of structural elements which cooperate in a unique manner to abrade skin and remove the abraded skin. The invention is characterized by its high degree of effectiveness and ease of use (see Paragraph [0012]). Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitation as discussed above. However, Ignon does not explicitly disclose the second distal end forming a circular shape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of modified Ignon to have a second protruding member as a circular shape since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative second type protruding member shape of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative second type protruding member shape would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the instant case, the device of Ignon would not operate differently with the claimed second type protruding member shape and since the shape of the second type of protruding member is used for the purpose of surface treating a person’s skin. The device would function appropriately having the claimed shape. Further, applicant places no criticality on the shape of the device claimed, indicating simply that the protruding member “can vary” in size and shape (specification pp. [0218]). Regarding Claim 37, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 36 and Ignon further teaches wherein the tip is removable from the skin treatment handpiece (the tip 34 is removable and disposable, see Col. 6 lines 50-53). Regarding Claim 38, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 36 and Ignon further teaches wherein the tip is disposable (the tip 34 is removable and disposable, see Col. 6 lines 50-53). Regarding Claim 39, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 36 and Ignon further teaches wherein at least one of the first type of protruding member and the second type of protruding members comprises a curved shape (inner member 124 is curved spiral, see Figure 5A). Regarding Claim 40, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 39 and Ignon further teaches wherein at least one of the first type of protruding member and the second type of protruding members comprises a cylindrical shape (inner member 124 is curved spiral, see Figure 5A). Regarding Claim 41, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 39 and Ignon further teaches wherein at least one of the first type of protruding member and the second type of protruding members comprises a partial spiral shape (inner member 124 is curved spiral, see Figure 5A). Regarding Claim 42, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 39 and Ignon further teaches wherein the first type of protruding member comprises a partial spiral shape (inner member 124 is curved spiral, see Figure 5A). Hart further teaches the second type of protruding members comprises a plurality of protruding members (plurality of brush segments 30d, see Figure 8). Regarding Claim 43, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 36 and Ignon further teaches wherein the tip comprises a plastic material (tips 34 can be made of polymers, rubbers, metals, or other suitable materials, see Col. 13 lines 6-7). Regarding Claim 44, Ignon and Hart teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 36 and Ignon further teaches wherein at least one of the first type of protruding member and the second type of protruding members is positioned fluidly between the at least one inlet opening and the at least one waste opening (inner member 124 is positioned between hole 122 and 114, see Figure 5A). Regarding Claim 45, Ignon teaches a tip (34, see Figures 2A-11E) for skin treatment (a skin treatment system, see Abstract), the tip comprising: a distal end (102)configured to contact skin tissue (dermabrasion device, see Abstract); a peripheral member extending along the distal end (outer member 120, see Figure 5A), the peripheral member defining an interior area (outer member defines interior area of tip, see Figure 5A); at least one inlet opening for transferring a treatment fluid to the distal end of the tip (treatment material can flow distally through the lumen 92 into the through-hole 122, see Col. 8 lines 6-7); at least one waste opening for transferring spent treatment fluid and other waste away from the distal end of the tip (treatment material spreads radially outward to the peripheral through-holes 114 and the material can then flow through the through-holes into the lumen 90 for subsequent removal, see Col. 8 lines 9-12; Figure 3); at least one of a first type of protruding member positioned within the interior area (inner member 124, see Figure 5A); and wherein the first type of protruding member is configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use (inner member configured to contact to remove skin, see Col. 11 lines 35-36); wherein the tip is configured to secure to a skin treatment handpiece (tip is secured to handpiece main body 30, see Figure 2A). However, Ignon does not explicitly disclose a plurality of a second type of protruding members positioned within the interior area; wherein the second type of protruding members are configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use; and wherein the second type of protruding members are positioned, at least in part, on opposite sides of the first type of protruding member. Hart teaches a tip for skin treatment (a system for abrading skin to remove outer portions thereof includes an apparatus having a skin abrading head with a head portion, see Abstract; Figure 8), the tip comprising: a distal end configured to contact skin tissue (skin abrading head 18d, see Paragraph [0032]); a peripheral member extending along the distal end (see above), the peripheral member defining an interior area (see above); at least one of a first type of protruding member positioned within the interior area (outer circular rim 22D, see above); a plurality of a second type of protruding members positioned within the interior area (brush segments 30d, see above); wherein the second type of protruding members are configured to at least partially contact and abrade skin tissue during use (skin abrading brush having a plurality of bristles is located in the head interior, see Paragraphs [0035]); and wherein the second type of protruding members are positioned, at least in part, on opposite sides of the first type of protruding member (second protruding members 30d are positioned on opposite sides of rim 22d, see Figure 8). Ignon and Hart are analogous art because both disclose a tip for skin treatment comprising protruding members. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the interior area of Ignon and further include a plurality of a second type of protruding members positioned laterally along outer portions of the tip along opposite ends of the at least one of the first type of protruding member, as taught by Hart. Hart teaches the second type of protruding members is beneficial for a unique combination of structural elements which cooperate in a unique manner to abrade skin and remove the abraded skin. The invention is characterized by its high degree of effectiveness and ease of use (see Paragraph [0012]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 25, 36, and 45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RASSAVONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:30pm PT. 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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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. /ERIC RASSAVONG/ (1/22/2026)Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 07, 2020
Application Filed
Sep 15, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 21, 2022
Response Filed
May 02, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 09, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 10, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 07, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 07, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 06, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 25, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 31, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582759
Negative Pressure Charged Vibration Mechanism For Intermittent Wound Dressing Vibration
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12558251
BASE PLATE FOR AN OSTOMY APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12539233
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR REPLACING AN EYEDROPPER TIP ON AN EYEDROPPER BOTTLE WITH A REPLACEMENT EYEDROPPER TIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12485265
VALVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12458744
MULTI-CANISTER MODULE FOR NEGATIVE-PRESSURE THERAPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 152 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