Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/877,080

LIGHT DOSAGE ADMINISTERING DEVICE INCLUDING OPTICAL ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF ADMINSTERING A DOSAGE OF LIGHT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 29, 2022
Examiner
ROANE, AARON F
Art Unit
3792
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Into Technologies Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
632 granted / 868 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
903
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 868 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Amendment Claims 1-13, 28, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 59-61, 65, and 67-72 have been amended since the independent claims 1, 59, and 70 have been directly amended. The amendments to claims 1, 59, and 70 contain subject matter and/or errors that have resulted in claims 1-13, 28, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 59-61, 65, and 67-72 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) – see the rejections below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13, 28, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 59-61, 65, and 67-72 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. The new grounds for rejection was necessitated by the amended claims. The new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), written description requirement and/or new matter situation. Accordingly, this action is made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 112(a) 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 1-13, 28, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 59-61, 65, and 67-72 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. Claim 1 (line 22) recites “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols.” However, the written description provides no support for such a recitation. All of the other amendments to claim 1 are well supported by the written description, but there is no disclosure of “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols” or the like. The word “protocol” shows up a single time and is used in reference to a wireless protocol for communication and not treatment protocols. The word “protocol” and (its cognates) do not show up in any disclosure regarding a memory that stores a plurality/multiplicity of treatment protocols/plans or the like. Claim 1 (line 26) recites “a user selecting a treatment protocol.” The written description provides no support for such a recitation. Claim 59 (line 25) recites “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols.” However, the written description provides no support for such a recitation. All of the other amendments to claim 59 are well supported by the written description, but there is no disclosure of “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols” or the like. The word “protocol” shows up a single time and is used in reference to a wireless protocol for communication and not treatment protocols. The word “protocol” and (its cognates) do not show up in any disclosure regarding a memory that stores a plurality/multiplicity of treatment protocols/plans or the like. Claim 59 (line 29) recites “a user selecting a treatment protocol.” The written description provides no support for such a recitation. Claim 70 (line 29) recites “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols.” However, the written description provides no support for such a recitation. All of the other amendments to claim 59 are well supported by the written description, but there is no disclosure of “the memory stores a plurality of treatment protocols” or the like. The word “protocol” shows up a single time and is used in reference to a wireless protocol for communication and not treatment protocols. The word “protocol” and (its cognates) do not show up in any disclosure regarding a memory that stores a plurality/multiplicity of treatment protocols/plans or the like. Claim 70 (line 33) recites “a user selecting a treatment protocol.” The written description provides no support for such a recitation. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. /AARON F ROANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 29, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 07, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599454
MECHANISMS AND METHODS TO CONTROL MOVEMENT OF A HEAD OF A MEDICAL SYSTEM RELATIVE TO AN ANATOMICAL SITE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599778
Precise Targeting of Beneficial Effects of Coherent Energy Using Nanoparticles
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575852
TISSUE TREATMENT PROBE WITH BENT OPTICAL FIBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564391
SURGICAL ROBOT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551304
CO-MANIPULATION SURGICAL SYSTEM FOR USE WITH SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS FOR PERFORMING SURGERY ACCORDING TO STORED SURGEON'S PREFERENCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+10.0%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 868 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