Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/356,669

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HARVESTING AND IMPLEMENTING HAIR GRAFT ON BODY SURFACE WITHOUT USING PRESERVATIVES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
FISHBACK, ASHLEY LAUREN
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
754 granted / 942 resolved
+10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
966
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.1%
-3.9% vs TC avg
§102
35.8%
-4.2% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 942 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-10 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. Regarding claims 1-10, applicant claims a ‘plurality of marker’ throughout. This terminology also appears throughout the specification and the drawings with no other alternate phrasing. It is unclear by this phrase if a typographical error was made throughout and the intent is to claim multiple ‘markers’ or if only one ‘marker’ is intended and the ‘plurality of’ was meant to read ‘plurality of points’. Based upon the function of the ’plurality of marker’ described in the claims and specification, examiner believes that there is only one ‘marker’ intended to be claimed and the ‘plurality of’ was intended to describe what the marker is used for. A more definitive way of claiming the latter scenario would be to say ‘a marker for tracing the marked points’ or just ‘a marker’. Claim Objections Claims 1, 5, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term ‘implementing’/’implemented’ is used interchangeably with ‘implant’/’implanting’ throughout claims 1, 5, and 9. Examiner does not consider ‘implementing’/ ’implemented’ to be interchangeable with ‘implant’/’implanting’ since they are not synonymous. ‘Implant’/’implanting’ would be the proper terminology for the hair graft system/procedure being claimed/disclosed. The term ‘implementing’/’implemented’ is also found throughout the specification, title, and drawings. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 14, 20, & 29 - ‘the processor configured to’ should be amended to read --the processor is configured to--; line 24 - ‘the trimmer configured’ should be amended to read --the trimmer is configured--. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 - ‘measuring device configured’ should be amended to read --measuring device is configured--. Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 & 3- ‘pointer configured’ should be amended to read --pointer is configured--. Specification/Drawings/Title The disclosure and drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: With respect to the 35 USC 112(b) Rejection and Claim Objections made above, the Specification, Title, and Drawings will require appropriate correction as well. Allowability over Prior Art There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-10. Examiner cites US Pub. No. 2025/0041045 A1 as the closest art (although not prior based on EFD). This reference discloses a process/system for on-demand graft harvesting and implantation, however, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least the following elements of the claimed system/process: a ‘marker’ connected with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to instruct the marker to trace the marked points of the first and second image and mark a plurality of points in the first area and the second area of the body surface of the subject where hairs get harvested and implanted, and ‘a trimmer’ communicatively connected with the processor and the harvester pointer, wherein the trimmer is configured to catch harvested hair from the harvester pointer and trim the harvested hair as per the instructions provided by the processor on basis of depth of the marked point in the second area of the body surface of the subject. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2016/0338732 A1 - discloses a common robotic hair transplantation system/procedure in the art - failing to disclose, teach, or suggest at least the elements ‘marker’ and ‘trimmer’ as discussed above under ‘Allowability over Prior Art’ section. US Pub. No. 2002/0103500 A1 - discloses another common robotic hair transplantation system/procedure in the art that includes a step of plug trimming; however, this is not the same as the claimed ‘trimmer’ communicatively connected with the processor and a harvester pointer, wherein the trimmer is configured to catch harvested hair from the harvester pointer and trim the harvested hair as per the instructions provided by the processor on basis of depth of the marked point in the second area of the body surface of the subject. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY LAUREN FISHBACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a-3:30p. 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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. ASHLEY LAUREN FISHBACK Primary Examiner Art Unit 3771 /ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 March 19, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599396
ULTRASONIC TREATMENT INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594091
ULTRASONIC SURGICAL INSTRUMENT WITH PROBE AT ANGLE TO HANDPIECE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594086
OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588926
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF MATERIAL IN A VASCULATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582524
HEART ANCHOR POSITIONING DEVICES, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS FOR TREATMENT OF CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE AND OTHER CONDITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.8%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 942 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