Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/765,510

RECEPTACLE FOR A DENTAL BLANK

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 08, 2024
Examiner
REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ivoclar Vivadent AG
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
1113 granted / 1697 resolved
-4.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1747
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1697 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 has been entered. Claim 15 remains withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanco (US 5,839,575). Regarding claim 1, Blanco discloses a receptacle (at 10 in Fig. 2) capable of holding a dental blank, comprising: a recess (recess at 26 in Fig. 2) capable of inserting the blank; and two flexible projecting clamping lugs (See “First lugs” labeled in Fig. 2 below – the lugs project from the side of the recess and are inherently flexible to a degree due to the PVC, polypropylene or polyethylene material they are made from – See column 3, lines 52-55) arranged on one side of the recess and two flexible projecting clamping lugs (See “Second lugs” labeled in Fig. 2 below – the lugs project from the side of the recess and are inherently flexible to a degree due to the PVC, polypropylene or polyethylene material they are made from – See column 3, lines 52-55) arranged on an opposite side of the recess, wherein the four flexible projecting clamping lugs protrude into the recess (as shown in Fig. 2) so as to abut sides of a blank for clamping a blank solely laterally (the recess is capable of holding a blank therein, wherein the blank is just wider than the space between elements 32A/B and 32C/D in Fig. 3, which would result in the four lugs clamping the blank solely in the lateral direction); wherein the recess comprises a portion (e.g. top-right corner of recess 26 in Fig. 2) capable of inserting a retaining portion of a blank; and wherein the four clamping lugs are located in an area where a dental blank has a block-shaped body (depending on the specific type/shape/size of dental blank inserted therein). PNG media_image1.png 812 1196 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, Blanco discloses the recess has a rectangular cross-section (as shown in Fig. 2). Regarding claim 6, Blanco discloses the recess comprises a resilient bottom (the bottom of 26 is inherently resilient to a degree due to the PVC, polypropylene or polyethylene material it is made from – See column 3, lines 52-55). Regarding claim 7, Blanco discloses the receptacle comprises a removable lid (See Fig. 2 labeled above, wherein the lid is considered removable since the open position as shown in Figs. 2-3 can be considered the removed position since the lid is removed from atop the remaining portion of the receptacle). Regarding claim 8, Blanco discloses the clamping lugs are formed by rounded projections (See Fig. 3 at 32A,B and 32C,D). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanco (US 5,839,575) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Adair et al. (US 2011/0132797). As described above, Blanco discloses the claimed invention except for the specific material of the receptacle. However, Adair teaches it is well known in the art for a receptacle (at 101 in Fig. 3) comprising recesses (at 103) for holding items to be formed from plastic material or cardboard material ([0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receptacle of Adair to be formed from a suitable packaging material such as cardboard in order to form the device from a recycled material. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further regarding claims 13-14, the clamping lugs and bottom of Blanco will be formed from cardboard material since the entire receptacle is formed from a cardboard material, as taught by Adair. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanco (US 5,839,575) in view of Adair et al. (US 2011/0132797) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Stumpff et al. (US 5,267,647). As described above, Blanco-Adair discloses the recess portion being formed integrally with the receptacle. Blanco-Adair does not disclose the recess portion being insertable into the receptacle. However, Stumpff teaches a receptacle (at 32/52 in Fig. 1) comprising a recess portion (at 24 in Fig. 1) for containing an item (at 13) therein, wherein the recess portion is insertable into and removable from the receptacle, having spacer portions (at 86/88), for the purpose of allowing promotional material to be placed under the recess portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recess portion of Blanco-Adair to be insertable/removable from the receptacle as taught by Stumpff in order to allow for the items to be placed between the recess portion and the receptacle, if desired. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPO 177, 179. Response to Arguments In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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. /STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 08, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 23, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 23, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 18, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600549
Header Bag for Packaging at Least One Medical Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595092
IMPROVED STATIONERY PAPER PACKAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595955
MODULAR BOX ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583661
CHIP STORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569406
AM/PM MULTI-DAY PILL CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
66%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+23.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1697 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