Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/701,112

METHOD FOR DETERMINING A CHARACTERISTIC LENGTH OF SKIN SURFACE REPRESENTATIVE OF A QUALITY OF COLLAGENIC INTERNAL ORGANS OF A PATIENT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 12, 2024
Examiner
MEMON, OWAIS IQBAL
Art Unit
2663
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
UNIVERSITE DE PARIS-SACLAY
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
75 granted / 101 resolved
+12.3% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
128
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.8%
+11.8% vs TC avg
§102
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
§112
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 101 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 . Drawings Objection Figure 1 is objected to as depicting a block diagram without “readily identifiable” descriptors of each block, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(n). Rule 84(n) requires “labeled representations” of graphical symbols, such as blocks; and any that are “not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.” In the case of figure 1, the blocks are not readily identifiable per se and therefore require the insertion of text that identifies the function of that block. That is, each vacant block should be provided with a corresponding label identifying its function or purpose. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 6-13 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. System comprising: Processing system in claims 6-13 includes the processing system but the steps that follow where the processing system is configured to execute specific tasks appear to be programming instructions or method steps. To the extent that any of this is software, it is unclear how the method of use of the processing system defines the structure of the processing system. For purposes of applying the prior art, the claim has been treated as a processor plus a memory operatively connected to the processor, where the memory contains instructions that when executed by the processor and cause the processor to perform the recited steps . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 14 are allowed Claims 6-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for allowance. The claimed features of “acquiring at least one image of a cutaneous replica of a portion of the skin surface of the patient, the cutaneous replica being obtained from a skin patching device applied on the portion of the skin surface;… determining the characteristic length representative of the quality of the collagenic organs of the patient based on the extracted features, the characteristic length Lc being given by: PNG media_image1.png 67 320 media_image1.png Greyscale with Nb the number of geometrical shapes, Ai the area of the i-th geometrical shape, and Pi the perimeter of the i-th geometrical shape.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims, are neither anticipated nor obvious in view of the prior art of record. Voros et al NPL “Age-Related Changes of the Human Skin Surface Microrelief” discloses measuring the area and perimeter of the polygons formed on the skin but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole Trojahn et al NPL “Relation between skin micro-topography, roughness, and skin age” discloses image analysis of the skin image to analyze the number of closed polygons formed by the lines, wrinkles and scales on the skin for determining the age of the subject but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole Connor et al US20200327670 discloses determining the geometric shape area of skin lesion or tissue abnormality based on images of skin but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole Dacosta et al US20170236281 discloses image analysis being performed on a wound after marking the perimeter of the wound but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST. 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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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. /OWAIS I MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597224
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FEATURE SUB-IMAGE DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION IN A GIVEN IMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591989
METHOD FOR DEPTH ESTIMATION AND HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592013
REAL SCENE IMAGE EDITING METHOD BASED ON HIERARCHICALLY CLASSIFIED TEXT GUIDANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586338
SYSTEM FOR UPDATING NEURAL NETWORK PARAMETERS BASED ON OBJECT DETECTION AREA OVERLAP SCORE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573069
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING AND CODING MULTIPLE FOCAL PLANES FROM TEXTURE AND DEPTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
74%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+22.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 101 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