Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/883,441

MASKING COMPOSITIONS FOR MILLED LITHIUM-SILICATE GLASS-CERAMIC DENTAL RESTORATIONS AND METHOD FOR MAKING SAME

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 12, 2024
Examiner
LEONG, NATHAN T
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Jensen Industries
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
527 granted / 745 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
49.6%
+9.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 745 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 28-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,698. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 18-26 of ‘698 teach all of the limitations of the instant claims, including a method for making a lithium-silicate glass-ceramic dental restoration comprising a composition of at least one glaze powder, an opacifier, a colorant, which is designed to disappear during a crystallization cycle, and coating said paste onto the glass ceramic. Reasons for Allowance Claims 28-47 contain allowable subject matter. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Yilmaz US 2009/0074945 and EP 1245548 are considered the closest prior art of record. Yilmaz teaches a glaze for annealing surfaces comprising components such as silica, alumina, etc., obtained by melting or sintering the components (abstract). EP ‘548 teaches a dental coating composition comprising at least one glaze powder, one opacifier, and at least one colorant (abstract), [0010]-[0018]. However, none of the prior art teach that the colorants and opacifiers disappear when heated as claimed. There would have been no apparent reason or motivation to have modified the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. /NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590461
ADHESIVE COMPOSITION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584234
CASING STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582778
SURFACE COATING LAYER FORMATION METHOD AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING GASKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576416
INTELLIGENT MARKING PAINT APPLICATOR SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565706
ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIER COATING AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
71%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 745 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