Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/990,697

CHAIRSIDE-CUSTOMIZABLE, FULL-ARCH SHELL TEMPORARIES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 20, 2022
Examiner
WEBB LYTTLE, ADRIENA JONIQUE
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
25%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 25% of cases
25%
Career Allow Rate
2 granted / 8 resolved
-45.0% vs TC avg
Strong +100% interview lift
Without
With
+100.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
55
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 8 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: L. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-3, 5, 9, 12-15,17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 5320527 A) in view of Madden et al. (US 20230270530 A1). Regarding claim 1, Schwartz discloses an article of manufacture (pre-fabricated dental arch form; refer to col. 1, lines 6-7) comprising: an upper arch of prosthetic teeth (100) comprising a first end and a second end (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below); a first extending from the first end (refer to figure below) and configured to engage and a second and the upper arch (100) configured to pivot with respect to the first (106) and second hamular notches (106) until the upper arch achieves an anatomically correct angle within a mouth of the patient (refer to col. 3, lines 32-40; the temporary saddles (106) are part of the orientation system for rotating arch-shaped element (102) of the dental arch form (100)). PNG media_image1.png 417 533 media_image1.png Greyscale Schwartz does not disclose the saddles (106) as being Y-shaped. Madden et al. discloses a removable partial denture with a clasp retainer in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0026]). The clasp retainer (1420) is a Y-shaped saddle (refer to annotated Fig. 14 below), engaging the gingiva (refer to Paragraph [0099]; the I bar clasp is of the class of infrabulge retainers that approach the undercut from below). As this clasp is a retainer, Madden et al. demonstrates that this Y-shaped saddle is a known shape for engaging the gum surface and removably securing the denture to the patient (refer to Paragraph [0026]), further this shape is capable of engaging hamular notches, a part of the gingiva which can be engaged by approaching from below. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the saddles (106) as taught by Shwartz with the Y-shaped saddle (1420) as taught by Madden et al, as Madden et al. teaches this shape for removably securing a denture to the gingiva of a patient (refer to Paragraphs [0026], [0099]). PNG media_image2.png 508 545 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 1, with Schwartz further disclosing a reference member (108) incorporated into the upper arch (100) to assist in achieving the correct angle (refer to col. 3, lines 40-44, col. 4, lines 2-10, Fig. 4; the member (108) is adapted for engaging representations of the incisal papilla to create the desired angle between the representation and the arch (100); it is noted that this structure (108) fits in the model formed of the patient and is thereby capable of fitting in actual patient’s anatomy, engaging the patient’s incisal papilla). Regarding claim 3, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 2, with Schwartz further disclosing wherein the reference member (108) comprises at least one tab (122) that extends upward from a front face of the upper arch (100) to align with a mucogingival junction of the patient and thereby achieve the anatomically correct angle (refer to col. 3, lines 40-44, col. 4, lines 2-10, annotated Fig. 4 below; the tube (122) of the member (108) is adapted for engaging representations of the incisal papilla to create the desired angle between the representation and the arch (100)). PNG media_image3.png 555 769 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 1, wherein the upper arch (100) further comprises a gum-adjacent surface to reside adjacent to gums of the patient, and a biting surface opposite the gum-adjacent surface (refer to col. 3, lines 40-44, annotated Fig. 1 below; the arch form (100) is adapted for engaging representations of the incisal papilla and hamular notches; it is noted that this structure (100) fits in the model formed of the patient and is thereby capable of fitting in actual patient’s anatomy, engaging the patient’s incisal papilla). PNG media_image4.png 438 641 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 1, with Shwartz further disclosing wherein the upper arch (126; an alternative embodiment of 100) is selected from a plurality of different pre-determined sizes of upper arches of prosthetic teeth (refer to col. 5, lines 3-5; a pre-fabricated maxillary dental arch form (126) is selected to match the patient's anatomy). Regarding claim 12, , Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 1, with Schwartz further disclosing a lower arch (152) of prosthetic teeth that is configured to form a proper bite with the upper arch (refer to col. 6, lines 6-10; the interconnected maxillary (126) and mandibular (152) dental arches have a predetermined maxillary occlusal relationship). Regarding claim 13, Schwartz discloses a method comprising: providing an upper arch of prosthetic teeth (100) comprising a first end, a second end (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below), a first resting the first pivoting the upper arch (100) relative to the first hamular notch and the second hamular notch until the upper arch PNG media_image1.png 417 533 media_image1.png Greyscale Schwartz does not disclose the saddles (106) as being Y-shaped. Madden et al. discloses a removable partial denture with a clasp retainer in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0026]). The clasp retainer (1420) is a Y-shaped saddle (refer to annotated Fig. 14 below), engaging the gingiva (refer to Paragraph [0099]; the I bar clasp is of the class of infrabulge retainers that approach the undercut from below). As this clasp is a retainer, Madden et al. demonstrates that this Y-shaped saddle is a known shape for engaging the gum surface and removably securing the denture to the patient (refer to Paragraph [0026]), further this shape is capable of engaging hamular notches, a part of the gingiva which can be engaged by approaching from below. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the saddles (106) as taught by Shwartz with the Y-shaped saddle (1420) as taught by Madden et al, as Madden et al. teaches this shape for removably securing a denture to the gingiva of a patient (refer to Paragraphs [0026], [0099]). PNG media_image2.png 508 545 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 14, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the method of claim 13, with Schwartz further disclosing wherein pivoting the upper arch comprises using a reference member (108) incorporated into the upper arch (100) to assist in achieving the correct angle (refer to col. 4, lines 2-10, col. 5, lines 15-20, Fig. 4; the incisal papilla engagement member (108) is received within the opening of the representation of the incisal papilla, which is adapted for engaging representations of the incisal papilla to create the desired angle between the representation and the arch (100); it is noted that this structure (108) fits in the model formed of the patient and is thereby capable of fitting in actual patient’s anatomy, engaging the patient’s incisal papilla ). Regarding claim 15, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the method of claim 14, with Schwartz further disclosing wherein using the reference member (108) comprises using at least one tab (122) that extends upward from a front face of the upper arch (100) to align with a mucogingival junction of the patient and thereby achieve the anatomically correct angle (refer to col. 3, lines 40-44, col. 4, lines 2-10, annotated Fig. 4 below; the tube (122) of the member (108) is adapted for engaging representations of the incisal papilla to create the desired angle between the representation and the arch (100)). PNG media_image3.png 555 769 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 17 ,Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the method of claim 13, with Shwartz further disclosing wherein providing the upper arch (100) comprises selecting the upper arch (100) from a plurality of different pre-determined sizes of upper arches of prosthetic teeth (refer to col. 5, lines 3-5; a pre-fabricated maxillary dental arch form (126), an alternative embodiment of 100, is selected to match the patient's anatomy). Regarding claim 20, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the method of claim 13, with Schwartz further disclosing providing a lower arch (152) of prosthetic teeth that is configured to form a proper bite with the upper arch (refer to col. 6, lines 6-10; the interconnected maxillary (126) and mandibular (152) dental arches have a predetermined maxillary occlusal relationship). Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 5320527 A) in view of Madden et al. (US 20230270530 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of Martz et al. (US 20190321136 A1). Regarding claims 4 and 16, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 2 and the method of claim 14; however, neither reference discloses the reference member (108) comprising a Y-shaped saddle configured to rest against a nasal spine of the patient to achieve the anatomically correct angle. Martz et al. discloses an aligner in the analogous art of orthodontic appliances (refer to Paragraph [0014]), wherein the aligner comprises a Y-shaped saddle (17) configured to rest against a nasal spine of the patient to achieve the anatomically correct angle (refer to Paragraphs [0078], [0082], annotated Fig. 33 below; the interconnecting elements (17) go over the gum tissue, where the gum tissue shown is the nasal spine; the interconnecting elements (17) are flexible and therefore capable of being adjusted to the shape of the patient’s upper arch to achieve an anatomically correct angle). The flexible, Y-shaped saddle (17) allows the device to adjust to the patient’s anatomy while remaining firmly in place (refer to Paragraph [0015]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference member (108) of Schwartz and Madden et al. with the Y-shaped saddle (17), configured to fit against the patient’s nasal spine as taught by Martz et al. in order to provide a means of adjusting the denture to the patient’s anatomy, while retaining the device on the patient’s dentition (refer to Paragraph [0015] of Martz et al.). PNG media_image5.png 385 617 media_image5.png Greyscale Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 5320527 A) in view of Madden et al. (US 20230270530 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bullis et al. (US 20170348076 A1). Regarding claim 6, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 5, wherein the gum-adjacent surface is configured to fit over protrusions extending from the patient's gums(refer to col. 3, line 68, col. 4, line 1, annotated Fig. 4 above; the tube (122) of the incisal papilla engagement member (108) is constructed to receive an elongated pin from the cast model) but is silent to the gum-adjacent surface being hollowed out. Bullis et al. discloses an implant supported denture in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of temporary fixation (refer to Paragraph [0037]; a try-in denture (209) is attached to implants). In forming the try-in denture (209), Bullis et al. discloses forming a mating cavity (1003) to receive a physical substructure (1004) so that the denture can fit over implant protrusions from the patient's gums (refer to Paragraphs [0074] and [0088]). The mating cavity is advantageous for positioning the teeth relative to the protrusions, implants or abutments (refer to Paragraph [0046]; Bullis et al. discloses the patient has implants or abutments), for proper occlusion (refer to Paragraph [0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the gum adjacent surface of Schwartz and Madden et al. with the hollowed out mating cavity of Bullis et al. for positioning the denture relative to the abutment protrusions of the patient. Regarding claim 7 Schwartz , Madden et al., and Bullis et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 6, with Bullis et al. disclosing the protrusions as abutments based on the modification argument of claim 6 (refer to Paragraph [0046]; the patient has implants or abutments). Claim(s) 8, 10-11, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 5320527 A) in view of Madden et al. (US 20230270530 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Morales et al. (US 20160135931 A1). Regarding claim 8, Schwartz and Madden et al. disclose the article of manufacture of claim 5, wherein the gum surface comprises a hole (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below), but are silent to a hole extending from the gum surface to the biting surface. PNG media_image6.png 439 559 media_image6.png Greyscale Morales et al. discloses an implant supported denture device in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of temporary fixation (refer to Paragraph [0016]; the fitting replica denture is a temporary or try-in denture). The implant supported arch (220) comprises a gum-adjacent surface (refer to figure below) and biting surface opposite the gum adjacent surface (refer to figure below), wherein a hole (165; refer to figure below) is formed extending from the gum-adjacent surface to the biting surface (refer to Paragraph [0116]; the holes (165) extend through the physical model (161)) for alignment with an incisive papilla of the patient (refer to figure below; the incisive papilla is the region behind the central incisors). The holes (165) are advantageous for testing placement of the implant supported try-in denture (refer to Paragraph [0115]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the upper arch gum and biting surface of Schwartz and Madden et al. with the screw holes of Morales et al. for testing placement of the implant supported try-in denture. PNG media_image7.png 245 543 media_image7.png Greyscale Regarding claims 10-11, 18-19, Schwartz and Madden et al disclose the articles of manufacture of claim 9 and method of claim 17, but are both silent to the plurality of different pre-determined sizes including different distances between the first (160) and second temporary saddles (160) and between the front face (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below) and the first (106) and second (106) saddle. PNG media_image8.png 474 657 media_image8.png Greyscale Morales et al. discloses a method of designing an implant supported denture device in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of temporary fixation (refer to Abstract and Paragraph [0016]; the fitting replica denture is a temporary or try-in denture). The method as disclosed by Morales et al. includes making a plurality of virtual upper arch teeth designs (31) in a variety of arch shapes and sizes (refer to Paragraph [0057]) and forming the pre-designed virtual denture teeth (refer to Paragraph [0063]). Morales et al. further discloses customization of the pre-made denture set-ups to incorporate patient specific gingival date (refer to Paragraph [0060]), wherein the plurality of different pre-determined sizes comprises upper arches with different distances between the location of the first and second saddles (refer to Paragraph [0069] of Morales et al.; the multiplicity of sizes includes differences in molar-molar distances, which is the location of the saddles), and different distances between a front face of the upper arch and the locations of the first and second saddles (refer to Paragraph [0069] of Morales et al.; the multiplicity of sizes includes differences in front to back distances).The advantage of using pre-designed upper arches (31) accommodates of a majority of patients without time-consuming adjustments. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include selection of plurality of pre-determined sizes of upper arches of prosthetic teeth as taught by Morales et al. in the method of providing the upper arch as taught by Schwartz and Madden et al. to reduce the time required to form the upper arch. Schwartz does not disclose the saddles (106) as being Y-shaped; however, based on the modification from claim 1, the shape of the saddles as taught by Schwartz are modified to with the Y-shaped saddle (1420) as taught by Madden et al, as Madden et al. teaches this shape for removably securing a denture to the gingiva of a patient (refer to Paragraphs [0026], [0099]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that Schwartz's blades (120) cannot be constrained laterally, the blades (120) can be rotated about a vertical axis and are therefore capable of laterally constraining the arch (100) (refer to col. 3, lines 54-57). Applicant’s with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching of the Y-shape of the first and second saddles. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bruce (US 20080108020 A1) discloses a cosmetic prosthesis with attachment wires (18) capable of engaging hamular notches (refer to Paragraph [0029], Fig. 1). Dietrich (DE 845238 C) discloses guide elements (6,7) for dental prostheses located at the hamular notches (refer to Fig. 3, Paragraph [0006] of translation). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST. 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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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. /ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 27, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 01, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 09, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582506
REMOVABLE DENTAL APPLIANCE WITH INTERPROXIMAL REINFORCEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12465460
MOUTHPIECE TYPE REMOVABLE ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12336873
Dental Flossing Pick with Attached Dental Floss Bands
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 24, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 3 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
25%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+100.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 8 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