Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/499,656

LACRIMAL IMPLANT DETECTION

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Oct 12, 2021
Examiner
WIEST, PHILIP R
Art Unit
3781
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Mati Therapeutics Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
758 granted / 933 resolved
+11.2% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
960
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 933 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Response to Arguments Applicant argues the Double Patenting rejection should be withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimed filed on 10/21/2025. However, as discussed below, the Terminal Disclaimer has been disapproved by the office. Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/21/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 9,011,361 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted. This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, the patentee or an attorney or agent of record. See 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). Applicant must file a Power of Attorney that gives power to the attorney who is signing the Terminal Disclaimer, along with another copy of the Terminal Disclaimer that is signed by the applicant. No new fee is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 33-52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9,011,361. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets are drawn to a lacrimal implant comprising a puntal plug, an implant core, a sheath body, a plug body, and a contrast agent. The instant claims are broader than the ‘361 claims because they do not necessarily require that the contrast agent is present in the implant core or the plug body. Instead, the instead claims only require that the contrast agent is present in the plug body. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 33-52 would be allowable upon filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome the Double Patenting rejection set forth above. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is Borgia (US 2008/0045911), which teaches a punctal plug comprising an implant core 102 and an outer plug body 103 defining a cavity, wherein the implant core is disposed within the cavity, and a contrast agent. Borgia, however, does not teach or suggest that the device further comprises a sheath body partially surrounding the implant core. Additionally, Heitzmann et al. (US 11,318,043) and Haffner et al. (US 10,813,789) both teach similar drug eluting ocular implants comprising an implant core, a sheath body, a plug body, and a contrast agent. However, Heitzmann and Haffner taught a lacrimal implant as claimed, neither of these references qualify as prior art. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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 Philip R Wiest whose telephone number is (571)272-3235. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, 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. /PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 12, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582551
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR INCREASING AQUEOUS DRAINAGE OF THE EYE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582757
MEDICAL WETNESS SENSING DEVICES AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582756
EXTRACORPOREAL OXYGENATOR WITH INTEGRATED AIR REMOVAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576198
TRAUMA PATIENT HEMORRHAGE CONTROL INCLUDING RAPID AUTOTRANSFUSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569665
EXTRACORPOREAL BLOOD PUMP, HEART-LUNG MACHINE, METHOD FOR OPERATING AN EXTRACORPOREAL BLOOD PUMP, AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A HEART-LUNG MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+16.6%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 933 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