Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/591,439

Soft shading needles for tattooing

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Examiner
SCHWIKER, KATHERINE H
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
271 granted / 408 resolved
-3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
453
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 408 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 . It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner. A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Specification The amendment filed 04/10/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The last paragraph on page 6 reciting “To create a full-fledged tattoo cartridge with a new shape, it is supposed to use an adapted cartridge with an existing membrane system inside 3, illustrated in Fig.10 and Fig.14. An adapted cartridge implies an expanded capsule body 2 where needles are located, illustrated in Fig.9, Fig.10, Fig.12 and Fig.13,Fig.14, Fig.16” and page 9 reciting the sequence listing. The Office notes that a sequence listing is only required if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid which is not the case in this application. Therefore, this section should be deleted in it’s entirety from the specification. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. 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 1-16 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. Claim 1 recites “The method of assembling the tattoo needle shape described in option 1 of the specification”. First, The Office notes that the specification describes a first option 1 and a second option 1 making it unclear which option 1 this claim is referring to. Second, by simply referring to “option 1” it is unclear what features of said option are intended to be in the scope of the claim. Additionally, it is not proper to refer to shapes/devices described in the specification in the claims. Instead, the shapes/devices should be explained in the claims. Third, the preamble of the claim recites “method of assembling” but the specification does not specify any method steps that would make up a method of assembling. Instead, the specification describes a tattooing device. Appropriate correction is required. Should applicant choose not to hire an attorney, The Office recommends the following: review the cited US documents in the conclusion section below for examples of claim language; rewrite the claims without referring to the specification; and change the preamble of the claims to be device claims. Claim 2 recites “The method of assembling the tattoo needle shape described in option 2 of the specification”. First, The Office notes that the specification describes a second option 1 but not an option 2 making it unclear which option this claim is referring to. Second, by simply referring to “option 2” it is unclear what features of said option are intended to be in the scope of the claim. Additionally, it is not proper to refer to shapes/devices described in the specification in the claims. Instead, the shapes/devices should be explained in the claims. Third, the preamble of the claim recites “method of assembling” but the specification does not specify any method steps that would make up a method of assembling. Instead, the specification describes a tattooing device. Appropriate correction is required. Should applicant choose not to hire an attorney, The Office recommends the following: review the cited US documents in the conclusion section below for examples of claim language; rewrite the claims without referring to the specification; and change the preamble of the claims to be device claims. Claims 3-7 recite “According to point 1”. It is unclear what point 1 is referring to. If applicant is intending for these claims to be dependent claims off of claim 1, the following format should be used “The method (or device) according to claim 1,”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 8-9 recite “According to point 7”. It is unclear what point 7 is referring to. If applicant is intending for these claims to be dependent claims off of claim 7, the following format should be used “The method (or device) according to claim 7,”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 10-14 recite “According to point 2”. It is unclear what point 2 is referring to. If applicant is intending for these claims to be dependent claims off of claim 2, the following format should be used “The method (or device) according to claim 2,”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 15-16 recite “According to point 14”. It is unclear what point 14 is referring to. If applicant is intending for these claims to be dependent claims off of claim 14, the following format should be used “The method (or device) according to claim 14,”. Appropriate correction is required. Due to the lack of clarity, particularly for claims 1 and 2, the scope of the claims could not be determined for the purposes of applying prior art. The Office would like to direct applicant’s attention to some relevant prior art cited in the conclusion section. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Paradis (US 20180311104 A1); Spendlove et al. (US 20150151098 A1); Cheng (US 20130197560 A1); O’Brien et al. (US 20170354810 A1); and Lee (US 20120041374 A1). All of these references teach a cylindrical grouping of needles used for tattooing. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE H SCHWIKER whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-4:00 pm. 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. /KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 29, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594070
SUTURING DEVICE WITH IMPROVED NEEDLE TRANSFERRING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588921
TREATMENT TOOL, TREATMENT TOOL ASSEMBLING METHOD, AND TREATMENT TOOL DISASSEMBLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569252
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TREATING ANEURYSMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564392
CONTAINMENT BAG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558090
MULTI-FIRE FASTENER DELIVERY SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
66%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.5%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 408 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