Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/931,999

HOLDING DEVICE FOR A BLANK

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 14, 2022
Examiner
FORDJOUR, SARAH AKYAA
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ivoclar Vivadent AG
OA Round
4 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
71 granted / 132 resolved
-16.2% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
185
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
53.1%
+13.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 132 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION HOLDING DEVICE FOR A BLANK 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 . Response to Amendment The amendments filed 11-21-2025 has been entered. Claims 1,5-11,13-15 are currently pending and have been examined. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki (WO2021157709A1) in view of Steger (US20220192802A1). Regarding claim 1, Nishiwaki teaches a first holding element (2011, figures 6a-7) for inserting the blank (pages 5-6 of npl); a second holding element (2012, figures 6a-7) for clamping the blank (pages 5-6 of npl) to the first holding element (figures 6a-6b); wherein the second holding element (2012, figures 6a-7) is formed by an open or closed ring (figure 7) and comprises a central axis (J2, figure 6a-6b) ; wherein the second holding element is lockable to the first holding element by a rotary movement of the entire second holding element about the central axis (pages 5-6 of npl); and wherein the second holding element (2012, figures 6a-7) comprises projecting guide sections (2122, figures 6a-7 ). Nishiwaki fails to teach wherein guide sections project inwardly, and arranged on arms extending in the axial direction of the second holding element. Steger teaches a retaining device that has a first holding element (18, figure 8) and a second holding element (7, figure 8) for a workpiece (abstract) that has wherein guide section project inwardly (13, figure 8), and arranged on arms (14,15, figure 8) extending in the axial direction of the second holding element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishiwaki to have wherein guide sections project inwardly, and arranged on arms extending in the axial direction of the second holding element. This modification would help with fixing a workpiece. (see para 0007-0067 of Steger) Regarding claim 13, Nishiwaki teaches inserting the blank into a first holding element (2011, figures 6a-7; pages 5-6 of npl); clamping of the blank (200) by a rotational movement of a second holding element (2012, figures 6a-7) lockable to the first holding element (pages 5-6 of npl); wherein the second holding element (2012, figures 6a-7) is formed by an open or closed ring (figure 7) having a central axis, wherein the rotational movement of the entire second holding element pivots about the central axis; and wherein the second holding element (2012, figures 6a-7) projecting guide sections (2122, figures 6a-7). Nishiwaki fails to teach wherein guide sections project inwardly, and arranged on arms extending in the axial direction of the second holding element. Steger teaches a retaining device that has a first holding element (18, figure 8) and a second holding element (7, figure 8) for a workpiece (abstract) that has wherein guide section project inwardly (13, figure 8), and arranged on arms (14,15, figure 8) extending in the axial direction of the second holding element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishiwaki to have wherein guide sections project inwardly, and arranged on arms extending in the axial direction of the second holding element based on the teachings of Steger. This modification would help with fixing a workpiece. (see para 0007-0067 of Steger) Regarding claim 14, modified Nishiwaki teaches wherein a clamping force is generated on the blank (see Nishiwaki pages 5-6 of npl ) in the direction of the first holding element (see Nishiwaki 2011, figures 6a-7 ). Claim(s) 5-9,11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki (WO2021157709A1) in view of Steger (US20220192802A1) in view of Kuo (US20030072249A1) cited in the IDS Regarding claim 5, modified Nishiwaki teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach the protruding guide sections each comprise a spring portion for generating a clamping force on the blank in the direction of the first holding element. Kuo teaches a clamp device (abstract) that has guide section that comprise a spring portion for generating a clamping force on the blank in the direction of the first holding element. (see 31 and 33; para 0021-0023) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Nishiwaki to have the protruding guide sections each comprise a spring portion for generating a clamping force on the blank in the direction of the first holding element based on teachings of Kuo. This modification would help improve the clamping device by providing better elasticity. (see para 0021 of Kuo) Regarding claim 6, modified Nishiwaki teaches wherein the first or second holding element (Nishiwaki’s 2012) comprises a stop element (see pages 5-6 of npl of Nishiwaki) for limiting the rotational movement (see pages 5-6 of npl of Nishiwaki). Regarding claim 7, modified Nishiwaki teaches all limitation stated above, but fails to teach wherein the first holding element comprises at least one spring element for exerting a clamping force on a guide section of the second holding element, or the second holding element comprises at least one spring element for exerting a clamping force on at least one of the projecting guide sections of the first holding element. Kuo teaches a clamp device (abstract) that has a guide section on a holding element (30, figures 1-4) that comprise a spring portion for generating a clamping force on the blank in the direction of the first holding element. (see 31 and 33; para 0021-0023) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Nishiwaki to have wherein the first holding element comprises at least one spring element for exerting a clamping force on a guide section of the second holding element, or the second holding element comprises at least one spring element for exerting a clamping force on at least one of the projecting guide sections of the first holding element based on teachings of Kuo. This modification would help improve the clamping device by providing better elasticity. (see para 0021 of Kuo) Regarding claim 8, Nishiwaki as modified in claim 7 teaches wherein the spring element is formed by a leaf spring (see Kuo 31 33, figures 1-4; pages 5-6 of npl). Regarding claim 9, Nishiwaki as modified in claim 7 teaches wherein the first or second holding element (see pages 5-6 of npl of NIshiwaki) comprises at least one recess (2015b; see pages 5-6 of npl of NIshiwaki) for passing at least one of the projecting guide sections (see pages 5-6 of npl of NIshiwaki) therethrough. Regarding claim 11, modified Nishiwaki teaches wherein the spring elements (see 31 and 33, figures 2-4; para 0021-0023 of Kuo) are arranged on a side of the first holding element facing away from the second holding element. Regarding claim 15, Nishiwaki as modified in claim 13 teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein spring portions of the second holding element are supported on undercuts of the first holding element or the radially inwardly or outwardly projecting guide sections of the first or second holding element are supported on spring elements of the first or second holding element. Kuo teaches a clamp device (abstract) that has a guide section (see 31 and 33,; para 0021-0023) on a holding element (30, figures 1-4) that comprise a spring portion on undercuts (see figures 1-4) for generating a clamping force on the blank in the direction of the first holding element. (see 31 and 33; para 0021-0023) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Nishiwaki to have wherein spring portions of the second holding element are supported on undercuts of the first holding element or the radially inwardly or outwardly projecting guide sections of the first or second holding element are supported on spring elements of the first or second holding element based on teachings of Kuo. This modification would help improve the clamping device by providing better elasticity. (see para 0021 of Kuo) Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki (WO2021157709A1) in view of Steger (US20220192802A1) in view of Kuo (US20030072249A1) as applied to claim 7 further in view Liao (CN203517452U) cited in the IDS. Regarding claim 10, Nishiwaki as modified in claim 7 teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach one side of a v-shaped leaf spring abuts the first holding element. Liao teaches a clamping device that has v-shaped leaf spring (13, figure 3) that abuts the first holding element (11, figure 3) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Nishiwaki to have a v-shaped leaf spring based on the teachings of Liao, since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. This modification would help with providing a clamping force. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 11-21-2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13, and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (as necessitated by amendment) relies on a different combination of prior art references, not applied in the prior rejection of record to teach the amendments. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm. 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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. /SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 25, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 23, 2024
Interview Requested
Nov 05, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 05, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 18, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 21, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12520976
SURFACE CLEANING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12515293
Vibratory Grinding Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12454020
CIRCULAR SAW APPARATUS WITH INTEGRATED MULTISTAGE FILTRATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Patent 12419475
VACUUM CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12419473
HANDHELD EXTRACTION CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+30.9%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 132 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