Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/304,725

Oral Treatment Device, System and Method

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 21, 2023
Examiner
BELK, SHANNEL NICOLE
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Colgate-Palmolive Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
196 granted / 333 resolved
-11.1% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+37.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
380
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
§112
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 333 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/13/2026 has been entered. 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. Claim18-24 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 18 recites in lines 14-15 “the second curved support comprises at least one protuberance, configured” and in lines 18-19 “one of the first and second support has at least one protuberance”, it is unclear if the latter at least one protuberance is one of the recited at least one protuberance stated earlier in the claim. For the purpose of examination and in view of the specification, the first at least one protuberance is interpreted as different than the second mentioned at least one protuberance. Claim 19-24 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 18. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demarest (US 2017/0173354) in view of Woo et al (US 2020/0360124) in view of Vermeulen et al (US 2020/0008915). Regarding claim 25, Demarest discloses an oral treatment system (100) comprising: an oral treatment device comprising; a control circuit (200) comprising a power source (201, par 59 and figure 25); an intraoral mouthpiece (101) comprising: a lamp (300 A-B) operably coupled to the power source (par 67), the lamp comprising a flexible sheet body (301 A/B) and a plurality of light emitters (304 A-B) embedded within the sheet body (par 87); a support structure (1000) for the lamp (par 78), the support structure comprising: a first curved support (curved support plate 400/anchor component 500); and a second curved support (lamp retaining component 600/guard component 700) configured to couple to the first curved support and cause the first and second curved supports to collectively surround the lamp (see figure 25); wherein one of the first and second curved supports covers each of an entirety of an upper edge of the lamp (via the first and second frame portion 711 and 712, see figure 25), at least a portion of a front surface of the lamp (see figure 25, via support plate 400 and anchor component 500), and at least a portion of a rear surface of the lamp (closed geometry edges 715/713); and an oral treatment material configured to couple a portion of the intraoral mouthpiece and an oral surface to be treated (par 51 discloses the whitening composition being applied to the teeth whitening teeth and/or teeth) and the flexible sheet body (301 A-B) comprises a lamp lens plate (309 A-B) forming a front surface of the flexible sheet body (see figure 19) and having a refractive index (par 89 discloses the material of the flexible lens plate being transparent PET which has a refractive index) Demarest fails to disclose wherein, upon the lamp being activated, light generated by the plurality of light emitters passes through at least one of the first and second curved supports prior to exiting the oral treatment device; and the second curved support is a cover lens plate overlying the lamp lens plate and having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the lamp lens plate. Woo teaches a curved support (112/114) that is a cover lens plate (114) for a lamp (light source substrate 113), wherein upon the lamp being activated, light generated by the plurality of light emitters passes through the curved supports prior to exiting the oral treatment device (via the protection film 114 see par 104 and figure 6) for the purpose of protecting the light source from the moist environment in the oral cavity (par 74). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Demarest to have the second curved support be a cover lens plate, such that upon the lamp being activated, light generated by the plurality of light emitters passes through at least one of the first and second curved supports prior to exiting the oral treatment device as taught by Woo for the purpose of improving the protection the light source from the moist environment in the oral cavity. Vermeulen teaches a cover lens plate (optically transparent element 101) overlying the front surface of a sheet body of a lamp (light guide 203, see par 52 and figures 2A-B) and the cover lens plate (101) having a refractive index less than the refractive index of the lamp lens plate (par 52 discloses the light guide 203 having a refractive index which is higher than the refractive index of the optically transparent element 101) for the purpose of enable total internal refection of the injected light at the one or more contact locations (par 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Demarest/Woo to have the second curved support is a cover lens plate overlying the lamp lens plate and having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the lamp lens plate as taught by Vermeulen for the purpose of enabling total internal refection of the light at the one or more location. Regarding claim 26, Demarest discloses the first curved support is a curved support plate (400) forming part of a lamp support structure (1000, see figure see figures 25-27), the curved support plate covering a rear surface of the lamp (see figure 25). Regarding claim 27, Demarest further discloses the lamp support structure (1000) is coupled to a handle (102) extending from the lamp support structure (see figure 1), the handle comprising a housing (151) that houses the control circuit (200) for the purpose of facilitating coupling of the control circuit to the lamps (par 104). Regarding claim 28, Woo further teaches a curved support which is a cover lens plate (112/114) covering a front surface of the lamp (the protection film 114 see par 104 and figures 5-6). Regarding claim 29, Demarest discloses the oral treatment material is a tooth whitening gel and the light emitted by the plurality of light emitters has a wavelength in a range of 380 nm to 500 nm (see par 87 which discloses a range of 405-415 nm) Regarding claim 30, Demarest discloses the light emitted by the plurality of light emitters has wavelength in a range of 400 nm to 420 nm (par 87). Regarding claim 31, Demarest discloses the plurality of light emitters are light emitting diodes printed with an electrically conductive ink (par 89). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 18-24 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. Claims 32-35 and 37-38 allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 18, Demarest (US 2017/0173354) discloses an oral treatment system (100) comprising: an oral treatment device comprising; a control circuit (200) comprising a power source (201, par 59 and figure 25);an intraoral mouthpiece (101) comprising: a lamp (300 A-B) operably coupled to the power source (par 67), the lamp comprising a flexible sheet body (301 A/B) and a plurality of light emitters (304 A-B) embedded within the sheet body (par 87); a support structure (1000) for the lamp (par 78), the support structure comprising: a first curved support (curved support plate 400/anchor component 500); and a second curved support (lamp retaining component 600/guard component 700) configured to couple to the first curved support and cause the first and second curved supports to collectively surround the lamp (see figure 25). Demarest discloses wherein the control circuit comprises electrical contacts (50) positioned between the first and second curved supports (figures 7 and 10) and electrically coupled to the power source (par 68), and the second curved support (600/700) comprises at least one protuberance (lamp engagement portion 610) and having the lamp 300 A-B being compressed between the lamp retaining portion, specifically the engagement portion 610 to the anchor component to the electrical component. However, it does not explicitly disclose the compressible electrical contacts being compressed via the flexible sheet body as disclosed in claim 18. Kim (US 2011/0266031) discloses a compressible electrical contacts (abstract), but modifying Demarest to have electrical contacts that are compressible as disclosed by Kim would change the operation of the dielectric electrical components disclosed by Demarest. Claims 19-24 are indicated allowable based on claim dependency. Regarding claim 32, Demarest discloses the plurality of light emitters defining electrically isolated upper and lower illumination zones, because they are two separate sheet bodies (figures 17-19), but fails to disclose the plurality of light emitters define electrically isolated upper and lower illumination zones that are electrically coupled by at least one bus bar extending along the flexible sheet body. Wherein adding a bus bar to the separate sheets would interfere with the attachment to the electrical contact element which attaches to each of the separate sheet bodies changing the operation of the oral treatment system. Claims 33-35 and 37-38 are indicated allowable based on claim dependency. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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. /S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 4/3/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588975
ORTHODONTIC PLIERS WITH FORCE SCALE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12539432
Oral Treatment Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12527650
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING ORAL DEVICES USING AT-HOME DENTAL IMPRESSION KITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12521212
DENTAL PROSTHESIS SYSTEM AND PROSTHETIC STRUCTURE FOR USE WITH A DENTAL IMPLANT INSERTED INTO THE JAW BONE OF A PATIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12446998
METHOD OF PREVENTING SUCKBACK OF DENTAL HANDPIECE BY BYPASS INJECTION OF DRIVING AIR AND DENTAL HANDPIECE SYSTEM HAVING BYPASS INJECTION STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+37.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 333 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