Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/555,407

PHOTOCHEMICAL TISSUE BONDING CLAMP AND IRRADIATION CHAMBER AND METHOD OF USE THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 13, 2023
Examiner
DIETRICH, JOSEPH M
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The General Hospital Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
743 granted / 918 resolved
+10.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
959
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 918 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0106119 – in IDS). Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a device (e.g. 100) for performing photochemical tissue bonding on a biological structure (e.g. ¶ 31 describes an anastomosis procedure. While this isn’t a photochemical tissue bonding procedure, this is an apparatus claim and the device of Lin would be capable of performing the photochemical tissue bonding procedure), the device comprising: a first channel (e.g. Fig. 1, ring body 1) sized to receive a first portion of the biological structure (e.g. Fig. 2A, ring body 1 receives vessel 5); a second channel (e.g. Fig. 1, ring body 2)sized to receive a second portion of the biological structure (e.g. Fig. 2A, ring body 2 receives vessel 6); and an open window (e.g. Fig. 1, between ring body 1 and ring body 2) positioned between the first channel and the second channel (e.g. Fig. 1), wherein a third portion of the biological structure is exposed within the open window when the first channel receives the first portion and the second channel receives the second portion so that photochemical tissue bonding may be applied to the third portion (e.g. Fig. 1 and 2A). Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses a first panel and a second panel (e.g. Fig. 1, there are two structures 4 which read on two panels). 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, 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 9, 10, 15, and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0158342 – in IDS) in view of Lin et al. Regarding claims 9 and 15, Chan discloses a kit and a method for using the kit (e.g. ¶ 164) for performing photochemical tissue bonding on a biological structure (e.g. ¶ 165; for use in photochemical tissue bonding), the kit comprising: a device (e.g. ¶ 165; accessory tools for tissue approximation); and a photoactive dye (e.g. ¶ 125 and 164; a photosensitizer agent). Chan does not explicitly disclose a first channel sized to receive a first portion of the biological structure, a second channel sized to receive a second portion of the biological structure, and an open window positioned between the first channel and the second channel, wherein a third portion of the biological structure is exposed within the open window when the first channel receives the first portion and the second channel receives the second portion wherein the open window is configured for photochemical tissue bonding to be applied to the third portion. Lin teaches the claimed device as described above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the kit as taught by Chan with the anastomosis device as taught by Lin, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of facilitating approximation of two vessels for tissue bonding. Regarding claim 10, modified Chan discloses the kit of claim 9, and Chan further discloses a light source (e.g. ¶ 143). Regarding claims 18 – 20, Chan discloses the photoactive dye as claimed (e.g. ¶ 125 and 164). Claim(s) 12, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. in view of Lin et al. as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Zheng (US PGPUB 2017/0224344 – in IDS). Regarding claims 12, 13 and 17, Chan in view of Lin discloses the kit and method as previously described, but does not explicitly disclose a wrap configured to wrap around the third portion of the biological structure in the window. Zheng is in the field of sutureless repair of soft tissue defects ( ¶ 1) and teaches a kit (e.g. claim 12), further comprising a wrap (e.g. ¶ 111, 112; collagen-containing patch) configured to wrap around the third portion of the biological structure in the window (e.g. ¶ 112; the collagen-containing patch substantially envelops the tissue defect site). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the kit and method as taught by Chan in view of Lin with the collagen-containing patch as taught by Zheng, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of facilitating the formation of new tissue, thereby facilitating tissue repair (e.g. Zheng ¶ 112-113). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 – 8, 11, 14, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the first panel and the second panel are coupled together and rotatable relative to each other via a hinge as required by claim 3 along with the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Claims 4 – 8 depend upon claim 3. Claim 14 contains the limitation comprising a stand configured to hold the light source, wherein the device includes attachment sites configured to engage the stand to position the light source over the window which is not found in the prior art along with the other limitations of the claims. Claim 16 contains limitations about the panels similar to claim 3. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00. 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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. /JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599766
Systems and Methods For Treating Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599773
POWER MANAGEMENT FOR IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588822
Remote Physiological Monitor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589254
WEARABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATOR WITH AI-BASED FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589245
SYSTEMS AND METHODS RELATED TO THE TREATMENT OF BACK PAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
81%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+8.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 918 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