Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/423,192

ELASTIC ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Jan 25, 2024
Examiner
WEBB LYTTLE, ADRIENA JONIQUE
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
25%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
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

§101 §103
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 . Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)). Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: Reinforcing materials are disclosed as fiber material or metallic alloys (refer to Paragraphs [0057]-[0058] of disclosure in applications 62624281 and 15914932), but particulate material is not disclosed. For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-14 is 01/25/2024. Claim Objections Claims 1, 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: - Claim 1, line 2 states, "...the appliance exerting a continuous aligning force on a tooth or teeth...". This line should be corrected to, "…the orthodontic appliance configured for exerting a continuous aligning force on a tooth or teeth..." for consistency and to clarify the language as functional. - Claim 1, lines 5-9 should be corrected to have line breaks at each “;” for readability. - Claim 1, lines 7 and 8, should be corrected to include “the orthodontic appliance…” at the beginning of each limitation for clarity. - Claim 1, line 9, “palatial surface” should be corrected to “palatal surface”. - Claim 8, line 19, “palatial surface” should be corrected to “palatal surface”. - Claim 9, line 10, “palatial surface” should be corrected to “palatal surface”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1, line 6 states, "the orthodontic appliance covering the entire surface of each tooth of the dental arch", which positively recites the body (surface of each tooth). This line should be modified to state, "configured for covering". Similarly, lines 7 and 8 should be modified to explicitly state "configured for covering...the gum surface" and "configured for covering...the entire sublingual surface". Claim 9, line 7 states, "the orthodontic appliance covering the entire surface of each tooth of the dental arch", which positively recites the body (surface of each tooth). This line should be modified to state, "configured for covering". Similarly, lines 8 and 9 should be modified to explicitly state "configured for covering...the gum surface" and "configured for covering...the entire sublingual surface". 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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20190231481 A1) in view of Hammar et al. (EP 0498558 A1); refer to the provided translation for Hammar et al. Regarding claim 1, Moon et al. discloses an orthodontic appliance (Fig. 1) formed of a homogeneous composition comprising an elastic material and a reinforcing material (refer to Paragraphs [0060], [0069]; an orthodontic appliance formed of an elastic material, which further comprises a reinforcing material is disclosed), the appliance (Fig. 1) exerting a continuous aligning force on a tooth or teeth along a dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0060]; the appliance exerts a continuous aligning force on a tooth or teeth), wherein the orthodontic appliance (Fig. 1) comprises tooth sockets that correspond to and enclose each tooth on the dental arch, the orthodontic appliance (Fig. 1) covering the entire surface of each tooth of the dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0078], annotated Fig. 2 below; the appliance covers individual teeth of the dental arch); covering and being configured for being in direct contact with the gum surface of each tooth (refer to annotated Fig. 2 below); and covering and being configured for being in direct contact with the entire palatial surface or the entire sublingual surface of oral cavity (refer to annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the elastic material has an elasticity such that it is capable of being stretched at least 300% of its original length (refer to Paragraph [0070]; the elastic material can be stretched at least 300% of the original length). PNG media_image1.png 461 856 media_image1.png Greyscale Moon et al. does not disclose wherein the reinforcing material is a particulate material. Hammar et al. discloses an elastomeric orthodontic device in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0001]), wherein a suitable material for the elastomeric orthodontic device is a homogeneous composition comprising an elastic material and a reinforcing material(refer to Paragraphs [0022], [0028], [0104], [0105]; the fluorosilicone elastomer comprises 10-90 parts per hundred resin (phr) methyl trifluoropropyl silicone, and 10-90 phr silica based filler, where the formulations are thoroughly mixed together, thereby forming a homogenous composition; the silica reinforces the molded device, acting as a reinforcing material), wherein the reinforcing material is a particulate material (refer to Paragraphs [0022], [0028]; a particulate material is defined as minute, separate particles (dictionary.com); hydrated, fumed, and precipitated silica are inherently particulate materials, existing as a powdery or granulated white material). 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 material composition of the reinforcing material as taught by Moon et al. with silica particles as taught by Hammer et al., as this particulate material is taught as a suitable material to reinforce a molded elastic device (refer to Paragraph [0028]). Regarding claims 2-6, the combination of Moon et al. and Hammer et al. discloses the orthodontic appliance according to claim 1, with Moon et al. further disclosing wherein the elastic material comprises at least 20 wt%/50 wt% /80 wt%/90 wt%/95 wt% of the combination of the elastic and reinforcing materials forming the appliance (refer to Paragraphs [0062]-[0066]). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Moon et al. and Hammer et al. discloses the orthodontic appliance according to claim 1, with Moon et al. further disclosing wherein the elastic material is a silicone rubber (refer to Paragraph [0071]). Regarding claim 8, Moon et al. discloses a method of aligning a tooth or teeth of target of a patient (refer to Paragraph [0111]), comprising: forming an appliance (refer to Paragraph [0112], Fig. 1), and applying the appliance (Fig. 1) to the patient to move the tooth or teeth of target from an original position(s) to a prescribed position(s) according to a prescription by a treating doctor (refer to Paragraph [0113])), wherein forming the appliance (Fig. 1) comprises: creating a dental model of a patient tooth and bite (refer to Paragraph [0088]), constructing individual teeth from the dental model (refer to Paragraph [0089]), moving a tooth or teeth of target of alignment according to a prescription by a treating doctor to create an aligned dental model of the patient (refer to Paragraph [0090]), and forming at least one appliance (Fig. 1) from the aligned dental model of the patient (refer to Paragraph [0091]), wherein the appliance (Fig. 1) is formed of a homogeneous composition comprising an elastic material and a reinforcing material (refer to Paragraphs [0060], [0069]; an orthodontic appliance formed of an elastic material, which further comprises a reinforcing material is disclosed), the appliance (Fig. 1) exerting a continuous aligning force on a tooth or teeth along a dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0060]; the appliance exerts a continuous aligning force on a tooth or teeth), wherein the orthodontic appliance (Fig. 1) comprises tooth sockets that correspond to and enclose each tooth on the dental arch, the orthodontic appliance (Fig. 1) covering the entire surface of each tooth of the dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0078], annotated Fig. 2 below; the appliance covers individual teeth of the dental arch); covering and being configured for being in direct contact with the gum surface of each tooth (refer to annotated Fig. 2 below); and covering and being configured for being in direct contact with the entire palatial surface or the entire sublingual surface of oral cavity (refer to annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the elastic material has an elasticity such that it is capable of being stretched at least 300% of its original length (refer to Paragraph [0070]; the elastic material can be stretched at least 300% of the original length). PNG media_image1.png 461 856 media_image1.png Greyscale Moon et al. does not disclose wherein the reinforcing material is a particulate material. Hammar et al. discloses an elastomeric orthodontic device in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0001]), wherein a suitable material for the elastomeric orthodontic device is a homogeneous composition comprising an elastic material and a reinforcing material(refer to Paragraphs [0022], [0028], [0104], [0105]; the fluorosilicone elastomer comprises 10-90 parts per hundred resin (phr) methyl trifluoropropyl silicone, and 10-90 phr silica based filler, where the formulations are thoroughly mixed together, thereby forming a homogenous composition; the silica reinforces the molded device, acting as a reinforcing material), wherein the reinforcing material is a particulate material (refer to Paragraphs [0022], [0028]; a particulate material is defined as minute, separate particles (dictionary.com); hydrated, fumed, and precipitated silica are inherently particulate materials, existing as a powdery or granulated white material). 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 material composition of the reinforcing material as taught by Moon et al. with silica particles as taught by Hammer et al., as this particulate material is taught as a suitable material to reinforce a molded elastic device (refer to Paragraph [0028]). Regarding claim 9, Moon et al. discloses an orthodontic aligner kit (refer to Paragraph [0084]), comprising a plurality of appliances (refer to Paragraph [0085], Fig. 1), the plurality of appliances (Fig. 1) being formed of a homogeneous composition comprising an elastic material and a reinforcing material (refer to Paragraphs [0060], [0069], [0085]; an orthodontic appliance formed of an elastic material, which further comprises a reinforcing material is disclosed), the appliance (Fig. 1) exerting a continuous aligning force on a tooth or teeth along a dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0060]; the appliance exerts a continuous aligning force on a tooth or teeth), wherein the orthodontic appliance (Fig. 1) comprises tooth sockets that correspond to and enclose each tooth on the dental arch, the orthodontic appliance (Fig. 1) covering the entire surface of each tooth of the dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0078], annotated Fig. 2 below; the appliance covers individual teeth of the dental arch); covering and being configured for being in direct contact with the gum surface of each tooth (refer to annotated Fig. 2 below); and covering and being configured for being in direct contact with the entire palatial surface or the entire sublingual surface of oral cavity (refer to annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the elastic material has an elasticity such that it is capable of being stretched at least 300% of its original length (refer to Paragraph [0070]; the elastic material can be stretched at least 300% of the original length). PNG media_image1.png 461 856 media_image1.png Greyscale Moon et al. does not disclose wherein the reinforcing material is a particulate material. Hammar et al. discloses an elastomeric orthodontic device in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0001]), wherein a suitable material for the elastomeric orthodontic device is a homogeneous composition comprising an elastic material and a reinforcing material(refer to Paragraphs [0022], [0028], [0104], [0105]; the fluorosilicone elastomer comprises 10-90 parts per hundred resin (phr) methyl trifluoropropyl silicone, and 10-90 phr silica based filler, where the formulations are thoroughly mixed together, thereby forming a homogenous composition; the silica reinforces the molded device, acting as a reinforcing material), wherein the reinforcing material is a particulate material (refer to Paragraphs [0022], [0028]; a particulate material is defined as minute, separate particles (dictionary.com); hydrated, fumed, and precipitated silica are inherently particulate materials, existing as a powdery or granulated white material). 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 material composition of the reinforcing material as taught by Moon et al. with silica particles as taught by Hammer et al., as this particulate material is taught as a suitable material to reinforce a molded elastic device (refer to Paragraph [0028]). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Moon et al. and Hammer et al. discloses the orthodontic aligner kit of claim 9, with Moon et al. further disclosing wherein the elastic material is a silicone rubber (refer to Paragraph [0071]). Regarding claims 11-13, the combination of Moon et al. and Hammer et al. discloses the orthodontic aligner kit of claim 9, with Moon et al. further disclosing wherein the elastic material comprises at least 20 wt%/50 wt% /80 wt% of the combination of the elastic and reinforcing materials forming the appliance (refer to Paragraphs [0062]-[0064]). Regarding claim 14, the combination of Moon et al. and Hammer et al. discloses the orthodontic aligner kit of claim 9, with Moon et al. further disclosing wherein the plurality of appliances has up to three appliances (refer to Paragraph [0086]). Conclusion 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

Jan 25, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
25%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+100.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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