Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/214,411

DEVICES AND METHODS FOR COSMETIC SKIN RESURFACING

Non-Final OA §103§112§DP
Filed
May 21, 2025
Priority
Mar 29, 2016 — provisional 62/314,748 +4 more
Examiner
MCGRATH, ERIN E
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Cytrellis Biosystems Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allowance Rate
263 granted / 438 resolved
-10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
480
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§112
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 438 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112 §DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11166743 (the “patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because (1) the patent recites additional limitations not in the current claim, and (2) the patent fails to recite “configured to remove a portion of the skin tissue when the hollow needle is inserted into and withdrawn from the skin tissue.” However, the patent recites removing skin tissue, and due to its same structure, would perform this same function if inserted and removed from the skin tissue. 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. Claim 1 is 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. The limitation “the hollow needle is configured to remove a portion of the skin tissue when the hollow needle is inserted into and withdrawn from the skin tissue” renders the claim indefinite because it fails to provide a claer0cut indication of the scope of claimed subject matter. It is not clear whether a needle meeting the other recited characteristics would satisfy the claim limitations or not, or whether further structure is required by the claim. Certainly, hollow needles with the claimed angle and structure are known in the art (see Austen Jr., 2014/0277055 A1) but it is unclear whether Austen would read on the claimed invention or not. See MPEP 2173.05(g) 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austen [US 2014/0039523 A1]. Re. claim 1, Austen discloses an apparatus for producing a cosmetic effect in a skin tissue [Par. 0002], comprising: at least one hollow needle [120, Fig. 5B, Par. 0009] comprising at least a first prong [two prongs 550 are shown] provided at a distal end of the hollow needle [Par. 0065], wherein an acute angle is formed between a lateral side of the first prong and a longitudinal axis of the hollow needle [Par. 0065] wherein the hollow needle is configured to remove a portion of the skin tissue when the hollow needle is inserted into and withdrawn from the skin tissue [Par. 0009]. The invention of Austen discloses an acute angle (i.e. between 0-45.deg.) between a lateral side of a first prong and the longitudinal axis of the needle. This overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 20 degrees.” In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Austen, Jr. (2014/0277055 A1) discloses at least one hollow needle [Fig. 1A] comprising at least a first prong provided at a distal end of the hollow needle, wherein an angle between a lateral side of the first prong and a longitudinal axis of the hollow needle is at least about 20 degrees [Par. 0033]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MCGRATH whose telephone number is (571)270-0674. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 am to 3 pm ET. 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, JACKIE HO can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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. /ERIN MCGRATH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 21, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702731
UHMWPE DIP-COATED TUBES
3y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12661137
Umbrella Catheter Device
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12636016
ENDOSCOPE CLIP AND OPERATION METHOD FOR CLIP ARM
5y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12636034
MEDICAL DEVICE
3y 10m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12636411
UHMWPE DIP-COATED TUBES
1y 8m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+29.6%)
3y 6m (~2y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 438 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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