Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/112,319

METHOD FOR DETERMINING A CURRENT POSITION OF A PATIENT INTERFACE OF AN EYE SURGICAL LASER BASED ON A PURKINJE IMAGE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 04, 2020
Examiner
ANJARIA, SHREYA PARAG
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Schwind Eye-Tech-Solutions GmbH
OA Round
5 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
65 granted / 124 resolved
-17.6% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
165
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§103
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§102
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
§112
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 124 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Remarks This action is in response to the remarks filed 09/22/2025. Claims 15, 16, 18-26, 28-38, and 40-46 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the rejection of claims 18, 20, 23, 24, 28, 30, 33, 34, 40, 42, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 18, 20, 23, 24, 28, 30, 33, 34, 40, 42, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, with respect to the rejection of claims 15-46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 15, 25, and 37 have been amended to include limitations from claims 17, 27, and 39, which have now been canceled. Applicant argues that Gertner does not disclose the amended limitation, because Gertner uses an axis of an eye to determine the location, whereas the instant claim uses an optical axis with respect to the patient interface. Applicant further argues that Gooding does not disclose the limitation of capturing a Purkinje image of the patient interface to position the patient interface because Gooding determines the location of the patient interface relative to the eye, whereas the instant claims are using an optical axis that describes the position of a laser beam. Applicant further argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Gertner with Maeda, Bor, and Gooding to arrive at the claimed invention. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection of claims 15, 16, 18-26, 28-38, and 40-46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. No prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting all of the features of the claimed invention as recited in claims 15, 25, and 37 in combination with the recited steps and elements of the claimed invention. No arguments have been provided for the rejection of claims 15-46 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Therefore, this rejection is maintained, as explained in the office action below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 15, 16, 18-26, 28-38, and 40-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 15, 25, and 37 recite the limitation “capturing a Purkinje image of the patient interface”. While the specification at pars. [0007] and [0041] says a Purkinje image associated with the patient interface can be captured, the specification fails to specifically disclose the claimed limitation of a “Purkinje image of the patient interface” (emphasis added). A Purkinje image of the patient interface is not the same as a Purkinje image associated with the patient interface. Claims 16, 18-24, 26, 28-36, 38, and 40-46 are rejected based on their dependency on claims 15, 25, and 37. While there are no prior art rejections for claims 15, 16, 18-26, 28-38, and 40-46, they are not currently indicated as allowable due to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as explained above. 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 SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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. /SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /PAMELA M. BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2020
Application Filed
Dec 04, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 01, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 07, 2023
Response Filed
Apr 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Sep 10, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 10, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 12, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 16, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Jan 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 22, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12543992
PACING EFFICACY DETERMINATION USING A REPRESENTATIVE MORPHOLOGY OF EXTERNAL CARDIAC SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12527966
MULTI-TIER PREDICTION OF CARDIAC TACHYARRYTHMIA
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12508076
MULTIPLEXER FOR LASER-DRIVEN INTRAVASCULAR LITHOTRIPSY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12495967
MODULAR WIRELESS PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12490935
ORAL MEASUREMENT DEVICES AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+30.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 124 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