Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/634,834

Preparation tray for improved etching and bonding of a tooth surface prior to the placement of a tooth attachment or a bracket

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Apr 12, 2024
Examiner
LEWIS, RALPH A
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (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

§103 §DP
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. Rejections based on Prior Art 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 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portalupi (US 10,383,706) in view of Phan et al (US 6,309,215). Portalupi discloses a method/system for placing orthodontic attachments on patient’s teeth that includes a separate preparation tray having an opening corresponding to a tooth preparation tray/etching stencil (Fig 1, step 110; “the etching stencil is fabricated in form of a tray, which is similar in shape to convention teeth aligners” (column 14, lines 54-56) wherein the etching stencil includes multiple openings to facilitate accurate etchant application to a patient’s teeth (column 14, lines 60-62)). The Portalupi etching/preparation stencil/tray further includes a molded dam (equivalent to applicant’s claimed “gasket”) to facilitate tight adherence of the etching stencil to teeth during etching (column 14, line 56). Portalupi further discloses an attachment delivery tray 106 for the delivery of prefabricated attachments to the prepared teeth 120. The Portalupi system/method differs from applicant’s claimed invention in that prefabricated attachments are delivered in a tray, rather than formed directly on the patient’s teeth. Phan et al, however, for a similar system/method teaches that an alternative to delivering prefabricated attachments to the teeth (Figures 1-13) that the attachments 400 may be formed directly on the patient’s teeth with an attachment forming tray 105 wherein the attachment is cured with a light source 402 (note particularly Figure 14D). Merely substituting an attachment forming tray/method for the prefabricated attachment delivery tray disclosed in Portalupi as taught by Phan et al to be an alternative method for forming attachments would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, it is noted that Phan et al teach the use of a series of multiple alignment trays/appliances for successively repositioning the patient’s teeth with the attachment (column 2, lines 14-16; column 3, lines 21-25). Double Patenting Rejection Withdrawn The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-11 is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed August 21, 2025. Response to Applicant’s Remarks In the response of August 21, 2025 applicant argues that claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and consequently should be allowed based on the allowability of claim 1. The examiner notes that claims 2 and 6 are independent claims and that claims 3-5 and 7-10 are dependent on claims 2 and 6. The claims do not depend from claim 1 as asserted. Claims 2-10 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and applicant has not addressed the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 11 are allowed. Action Made Final THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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, Cris Rodriguez, 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 12, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Aug 21, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §DP (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
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1220 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