Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/341,067

DENTAL ALIGNER

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 26, 2023
Priority
Aug 11, 2020 — provisional 63/064,158 +2 more
Examiner
WALTERS JR, ROBERT S
Art Unit
1717
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BIXBY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
575 granted / 1115 resolved
-13.4% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
1205
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
§112
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1115 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 . Status of Application Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/26/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments 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 any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure recites polysulfone, polyether sulfone and polyphenylene sulfone polymers, then recites these polymers prepared from repeating structural units which are not consistent with the accepted repeating units for these polymers (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below). Additionally, the disclosure recites specific compounds that are used in the examples, such as PSU: Solvay Udel P-1700. However, this compound is consistent with the accepted meaning of what the repeating structural unit is and is not consistent with what the disclosure recites as the repeated structural unit. This inconsistency must be addressed. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 1. Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1 and 7 recite the material/polymer consists of polysulfone (PSU) and also recites the polysulfone having a repeating unit of PNG media_image1.png 158 582 media_image1.png Greyscale . However, this is inconsistent. Polysulfone is known to have a repeating unit PNG media_image2.png 122 502 media_image2.png Greyscale . Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant is claiming polysulfone or rather a different polymer formed of the repeating unit as claimed. Thus, claims 1 and 7 are indefinite. Claims 2-6 and 13-20 depend from claim 1 or 7 and are indefinite for the same reasons. Claim 7 recites polyether sulfone (PES) and also recites the polyether sulfone having a repeating group PNG media_image3.png 122 612 media_image3.png Greyscale . However, this is inconsistent as polyether sulfone is known to having a repeating unit PNG media_image4.png 86 192 media_image4.png Greyscale . Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant is claiming polyether sulfone or rather a different polymer formed of the repeating unit as claimed. Additionally, claim 7 recites polyphenylene sulfone (PPSU) and also recites the polyphenylene sulfone (PPSU) having a repeating unit of PNG media_image5.png 102 622 media_image5.png Greyscale . However, this is inconsistent as polyphenylene sulfone is known to have a repeating unit PNG media_image6.png 96 358 media_image6.png Greyscale . Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant is claiming polyphenylene sulfone or rather a different polymer formed of the repeating unit as claimed. Thus, claim 7 is indefinite. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 7 and are indefinite for the same reasons. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “polysulfone”, “polyether sulfone” and “polyphenylene sulfone” in claim 8 are used by the claim to mean polymers having the repeated structural units as identified in Applicant’s disclosure, while the accepted meaning is polymers having different repeating units (see also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above). The terms are indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the terms and it is unclear exactly what structural formulas the terms are intended to refer to. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite. Claims 9-12 depend from claim 8 and are indefinite for the same reasons. Conclusion Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5. 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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. /ROBERT S WALTERS JR/ September 16, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Apr 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 23, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 25, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12767773
EPOXY RESIN COMPOSITION FOR FIBER-REINFORCED COMPOSITE MATERIAL, FIBER-REINFORCED COMPOSITE MATERIAL, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING FIBER-REINFORCED COMPOSITE MATERIAL
3y 2m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12761549
GENERATING WHOLE SUBSTRATE DROP PATTERNS WITH REPEATING EVALUATION REGIONS
3y 9m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12753294
FLAME-RETARDANT VIBRATION ISOLATION RUBBER COMPOSITION AND FLAME-RETARDANT VIBRATION ISOLATION RUBBER MEMBER
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12734470
PREPARATION METHOD OF BISMUTH ION FILTER MEMBRANE AND APPLICATION THEREOF
1y 7m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12723172
COATING METHOD OF LONG-CHAIN ENTANGLED PDMS GEL WITH SUSTAINABLE SELF-REPLENISHMENT OF LUBRICATING LAYER
1y 4m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.4%)
3y 6m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1115 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