Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/247,635

OCULAR SYSTEM TO ASSESS OPERATIONAL RISK

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 18, 2020
Examiner
CWERN, JONATHAN
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Senseye Inc.
OA Round
6 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
402 granted / 797 resolved
-19.6% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
848
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 797 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/16/26 has been entered. 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 1-2 and 4-20 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. In claims 1, 6, and 12 the limitations “each oculomotor task defining a contemporaneously displayed stimulus having one or more expected ocular response parameters” and “evaluating, via the computing device, the identified ocular response features relative to the expected ocular response parameters of the contemporaneously displayed stimuli” are not mentioned in the specification and are considered new matter. Also in claims 6 and 12, the limitation “without evaluating changes from a previous state and/or baseline state of the subject”. 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. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are 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. In claims 1, 6, and 12 the limitation “each oculomotor task defining a contemporaneously displayed stimulus having one or more expected ocular response parameters” renders the claim indefinite. The scope of the limitation “contemporaneously displayed stimulus” is unclear. It is noted that the word “contemporaneously” is not mentioned in the specification. Furthermore, in the limitation “evaluating…the identified response features relative to the expected ocular response parameters of the contemporaneously displayed stimulus”, the scope of the term “relative” is unclear. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments regarding the 112a rejection, examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains that applicant’s disclosure fails to provide support for the claimed subject matter: Applicant’s cited examples fail to provide support for a specialized computer processing algorithm which performs “evaluating, via the computing device, the identified ocular response features relative to the expected ocular response parameters of the contemporaneously displayed stimuli”, “without evaluating changes from a previous state and/or baseline state of the subject”. Furthermore, applicant’s specification does not expressly “exclude” the use of any other types of information. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CWERN whose telephone number is (571)270-1560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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. /JONATHAN CWERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2020
Application Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 01, 2023
Response Filed
Dec 05, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 10, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 24, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590949
A Radiomics-Based Imaging Tool to Monitor Tumor-Lymphocyte Infiltration and Outcome in Cancer Patients Treated by Anti-PD-1/PD-L1
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588897
VISCOELASTICITY MEASUREMENT METHOD AND ULTRASONIC IMAGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564313
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF INTEGRATED REAL-TIME VISUALIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564374
SPINAL CEREBRAL ARTERY RUPTURE DETECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558576
SYSTEM FOR NERVE MODULATION AND INNOCUOUS THERMAL GRADIENT NERVE BLOCK
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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+36.3%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 797 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