Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/623,608

ORTHODONTIC DEVICE, PACKAGE, PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING ORTHODONTIC DEVICE, AND PROCESS OF USING ORTHODONTIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Apr 01, 2024
Examiner
LEWIS, RALPH A
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ornge Orthodontics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
817 granted / 1220 resolved
-3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1263
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
59.4%
+19.4% vs TC avg
§102
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
§112
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1220 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
Status under America Invents Act The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. Acknowledgment of Election Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, Claims 1-16 identified in the restriction requirement of September 29, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 directed to a non-elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration at this time. Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 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. Claim 8 is 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. In claim 8, lines 1 and 2, there is no antecedent basis for “the fulcrum surface of the first rocker member” or “the fulcrum surface of the second rocker member.” It appears as though applicant intended for claim 8 to depend upon claim 7. Rejections based on Prior Art The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schueller et al (US 2020/0345459). In regard to independent claims 1 and 10, Schueller et al disclose an orthodontic device 12 comprised of a positioning arm including a tooth (T) receiving structure defining a recess structured to receive at least an occlusal surface (OS) of a patient's tooth (T); and a support arm including a bracket 20 receiving structure 16 defining a cavity structured to detachably retain an orthodontic bracket 20 including a bonding surface, the orthodontic device 12 having been made in one piece by an additive manufacturing process (3D printed, paragraph [0041]) such that an end of the positioning arm is integrally and continuously formed to an end of the support arm (note the continuous connection between the identified positioning arm and the support arm at 40 in annotated Figure 5B below), and the positioning arm and the support arm being structured to align the bonding surface of the orthodontic bracket with a facial or lingual surface of the patient's tooth upon at least the occlusal surface of the tooth being received by the recess and the orthodontic bracket being retained by the cavity. Note annotated Figure 5B of Schueller et al below. Additionally with regard to claim 10, the orthodontic bracket 20 of Schueller et al is not integrally and continuously formed with the positioning member and support member, but is a separate individual element. PNG media_image1.png 405 570 media_image1.png Greyscale In regard to claims 2 and 13, note bracket 20. In regard to claims 3, 4 and 14-16, note Figure 2B of Schueller et al where the member 18 extending between the identified positioning arms of adjacent modules 12 is considered part of the “positioning arm” and the member 18 extending between the identified support arms of adjacent modules 12 is considered to be part of the “support arm.” In regard to claims 5, 6, note Figure 5b above. In regard to claim 9, note the elastic material at 40 (and/or 52 in Figure 6) and actuation means 14. In regard to claim 11, note paragraph [0041]. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the claims from which it depends. Claim 8 if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above (i.e. assuming that it was intended to depend from claim 7) and to include all the limitations of the claims from which it depends would be allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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. /RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594144
METHOD OF DETERMINING AN ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594149
Orthodontic Tube System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588973
REDUCED REGISTRATION BONDING TEMPLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582507
DENTAL IMPLANTS WITH STEPPED THREADS AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582505
ORTHODONTIC ALIGNERS AND METHODS OF DESIGNING AND FABRICATING ORTHODONTIC ALIGNERS BASED ON TOOTH SHAPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1220 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