Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/227,280

METHOD OF IMPROVING OUTCOMES OF DERMAL TATTOOS AND TATTOO REMOVAL PROCEDURES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
PROSSER, ALISSA J
Art Unit
1619
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
16%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
28%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 16% of cases
16%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 482 resolved
-44.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
70 currently pending
Career history
552
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 482 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-10 and 21-41 are under consideration. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 21-41, drawn to methods comprising either having or applying a tattoo and subsequently applying a silicone-based material over the tattoo in the reply filed on October 13, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-10 and 21-41 as filed on October 13, 2025 are pending and under consideration. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 14, 2025 was considered. Specification The use of terms such as Saniderm (e.g., page 4, last line), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. These terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore these terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections Claims 10 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10: the acronym IPN should be identified at the first recitation thereof and should presumably recite “interpenetrating polymer network (IPN)” as disclosed at page 6, lines 2-3 of the instant specification. Claim 31: the apparent Oxford comma after “or” should either be deleted or should precede the “or” consistent with claim 10. Claim 31: “a” should presumably be inserted before “silicone IPN” consistent with claims 10 and 41. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36-38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller (US 2011/0009374, published January 13, 2011). Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 21, 22, 25, 31, 32, 33, 36 and 41 Keller teaches a method of wound healing and scar modulation comprising topically administering a composition comprising a corticosteroid and a silicone crosspolymer (silicone-based material, silicone, elastomer) (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1, 7, 11, 14). The composition is administered for up to 180 days, for about 90 to 180 days (maintaining for at least one day, for several days, for several weeks) (claims 5, 6). Keller exemplifies treatment of a tattoo scar (applying / creating a tattoo is implicit, applying to the tattoo is implicit) (paragraph [0080]). Keller teaches the composition is administered two or three days after wound formation (soon after, upon completion of an acute phase) (claim 3). Regarding claims 6, 7, 27, 28, 37 and 38 Keller teaches the composition is applied two or three times daily (claim 4). Keller teaches the formulation can be removed by gently wiping (paragraph [0043]). Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 21, 22, 27, 29, 31-33, 37, 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (EP 3,763,396 A1, published January 13, 2021). Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 21, 22, 27, 31-33, 37 and 41 Wang teaches a method for color maintenance and enhancement of tattoo comprising (a) tattooing a pattern on the skin of a subject and (b) covering a moist dressing on the pattern, wherein the moist dressing comprises a solid sheet-like dressing comprising a silicone dressing (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1). The covering may be applied within 2 hours after tattooing (immediately or soon after, newly created, completion of acute phase) (paragraph [0033]). The covering may be removed after 48 hours (at least one day, several days) and replaced with a new covering (paragraph [0034]). Regarding claims 8, 29, 39 The dressing comprises a film (sheet) with an adhesive surface (paragraph [0023]). The above teachings therefore anticipate the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. Claims 1-7, 10, 21-28, 31-38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2011/0009374, published January 13, 2011). The teachings of Keller have been described supra with regard to the anticipation of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36-38 and 41. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36-38 and 41 are therefore also obvious over Keller. Regarding instant claims 3, 4, 23, 24, 34 and 35 which recite maintaining for a period of a week, of two weeks and instant claim 26 which recites between 1 day and several weeks, the ranges of Keller of up to 180 days, for about 90 to 180 days (claims 5, 6; paragraph [0043]) do not disclose the instantly claimed ranges with sufficient specificity to anticipate as set forth in MPEP 2131.03, however, the ranges of Keller overlap the instantly claimed ranges which is sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Claims 1-10 and 21-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (EP 3,763,396 A1, published January 13, 2021). The teachings of Wang have been described supra with regard to the anticipation of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 21, 22, 27, 29, 31-33, 37, 39 and 41. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 21, 22, 27, 29, 31-33, 37, 39 and 41 are therefore also obvious over Wang. Wang further teaches the replacement of the covering is performed six times (paragraph [0035]). Wang further exemplifies embodiments wherein the dressing was replaced every 0.5 to 2 days depending upon the amount of blood and wound exudates, and a new dressing was applied until the wound healed (e.g., Example 1). Regarding instant claims 3-5, 23-25 and 34-36 which recite maintaining for a period of a week, of two weeks, of several weeks and instant claim 26 which recites between 1 day and several weeks, Wang renders obvious removal after 48 hours (2 days) and replacement six times (12 days, about two / several weeks) and Wang expressly teaches the duration of application is a result-effective variable motivating optimization until the wound is healed. It is prima facie obvious to optimize such result-effective variables within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding instant claims 7, 9, 28, 30, 38 and 40 which recite application several times per day, Wang renders obvious replacement every 0.5 days (several times) and Wang expressly teaches replacement is a result-effective variable motivating replacement as needed depending upon the amount of blood and wound exudates. It is prima facie obvious to optimize such result-effective variables within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bunting et al. (US 8,663,162) teaches a tattoo removal system and teaches use of silicone gel sheeting 12 to 24 hours per day for 8 to 12 weeks to prevent scarring (title; abstract; claims; column 9, lines 35-39; column 10, lines 8-24). McClernon et al. (US 2010/0084074) teaches a method of tattoo aftercare comprising the application of a breathable polyurethane film for at least 12 hours (title; abstract; claims). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA PROSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-5164. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 10 am - 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID BLANCHARD can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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. /ALISSA PROSSER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1619 /BENNETT M CELSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12478570
Cosmetic Formulation
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12390503
GINKGO BILOBA LEAVE EXTRACT CAPSULE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 19, 2025
Patent 12310358
Fighting Against Varroa Parasite in Beekeeping Using a Natural Formulation Comprising Essential Oils and Wood Vinegar
2y 5m to grant Granted May 27, 2025
Patent 12280101
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR STABILIZATION OF ACTIVE AGENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 22, 2025
Patent 12257328
Oil-Based Solid Cosmetic
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 25, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
16%
Grant Probability
28%
With Interview (+12.3%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 482 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month