Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/632,010

Cheek Retractor

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 10, 2024
Examiner
LEWIS, RALPH A
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tesoro Ip Holding LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
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 §103 §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 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 22, 2025 has been entered. 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. Claims 26-28, 30, 35, 39-40, 43-46 and 48-49 are 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 26, lines 7-11, the limitation that “said pair of tubular support arms configured to correspondingly slidably engage an inner surface of said first lip holder and said second lip holder opposite an outer lip engaging surface of said first lip holder” is unclear because the second tubular support arm that engages the second lip holder is not opposite an outer lip engaging surface of said first lip holder as specified in the claim. More accurately, the second tubular support arm that engages the second lip holder is opposite an outer lip engaging surface of the second lip holder. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 26-28, 30, 45, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parke et al (US 2022/0183807). In Figure 1 Parke et al disclose a method of making a dental appliance comprised of disposing a bridge 100 between first and second lip holders, forming an open ended tongue receiver for receiving a patient’s tongue and coupling a tongue receiver support comprising a pair of arcuate support members each having an arcuate portion, a support member first arm connected to the respective lip holder on the surface opposite the lip engaging surface, and a support member second arm coupled to the tongue receiver as illustrated in annotated Figure 1 below. In regard to the limitation that “said pair of tubular support arms configured to correspondingly slidably engage an inner surface of said first lip holder and said second lip holder opposite an outer lip engaging surface of said first lip holder,” Parke et al disclose that element 50, 60 (Figure 4) identified herein as one of the pair of the claimed “tubular support member arms” is received in connector 200 which is located on the inner lip holder surface that is opposite the lip engaging surface (note Figure 8; paragraph [0054]). Parke et al further indicates that connector 200 on the inner surfaces of the lip engaging members may have a recessed opening 214 (Figure 10) for receiving element 50, 60 (the “tubular support arm”). The recessed opening 214, clearly receives the tubular support arm 50, 60 in a slidable engaging manner. In regard to claim 27, for purposes of this rejection the connector 200 having a recess therein is considered to be part of the first (and second) lip holder. In regard to claims 28 and 30, the connectors 200 having a recess are illustrated as conventional prior art snap fit connectors. PNG media_image1.png 505 543 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 371 488 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 307 664 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 732 606 media_image4.png Greyscale 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. Claims 26-28, 30, 35, 39, 40, 43-46, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parke et al (US 2022/0183807). In regard to claim 26, Parke et al does not appear to explicitly state that the tubular support arms 50, 60 are “slidably” received in a “snap-fit” relationship connectors 200, however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized such a connection in view of the Parke et al Figure 10 and the disclosure in paragraph [0054] that indicate that the “connectors 200 200 allow quick and easy attachment to the arms 50, 55.” In regard to claims 35 and 40, it’s unclear where in the Figure 1, 4 embodiments of Parke et al that the vacuum inlet openings are located, however, Parke et al teach the inclusion of suction inlets 62 in Figure 6 proximate the tongue receiver and the arcuate support members. To have included such suction inlet opening in the Figure 5 embodiment of Parke et al in order to aid in the suction of the patient’s oral cavity would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In regard to claim 39, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the tongue receiver and tongue receiver support as a single piece as a matter of routine practice. In regard to claim 46, to have constructed the Parke et al device within the range of dimensions claimed in order to fit a typical sized patient would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Response to Applicant’s Amendment/Remarks In response to the rejection based on Parke et al, applicant amended independent claim 26 to require that the support arms are “tubular” and “slidably engage” the inner surface of the first and second lip holders and argues that “Parke et al teaches the connector 200 allow quick and easy attachment to arms 50, 55, but does not teach that the arms are slidably engaged to the connector 200.” The examiner is not persuaded. Initially it is noted that for purposes of the present rejection the “tubular support arms” are interpreted as including elements 50, 55 and 60 (the tubing). Moreover, the contention the tubular support arms 50, 55, 60 are not “slidably engaged” with the illustrated C-shaped connectors 200 that are formed to receive the tubular support arms in a quick and easy slidable manner is not found persuasive. In regard to claim 27 applicant argues that the connectors 200 are attached to the inner surface of the lip retractors and do not form the claimed recess. The examiner is not persuaded, for purposes of the rejection the connectors 200 are interpreted as being part of the lip retractors. The claims give no detail regarding the shape or construction of the claimed element and are subject to a broad interpretation as to what those structures are comprised of. 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, Eric Rosen, at (571) 272-4964. 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 10, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Nov 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
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