Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/019,152

DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CREATING DENTAL PROSTHESIS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 13, 2025
Examiner
RUIZ MARTIN, LUIS MIGUEL
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
47 granted / 103 resolved
-24.4% vs TC avg
Strong +51% interview lift
Without
With
+51.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
133
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 103 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restriction Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the apparatus of Group I is specifically designed to perform the method of Group II, and the method of Group II is uniquely carried out by the special characteristics of the apparatus of Group I. Allegedly, there is no other device that can perform the claimed method, and the device has no practical use other than to perform the claimed method. This is not found persuasive because: The Examiner respectfully maintains the position that the process could be practiced by a materially different apparatus, such as a device lacking a yoke assembly. The dynamic steps of the method of the independent claim 7, such as "navigating a mandibular dental arch" and "capturing... data of the jaw movements" in "real-time", could be practiced using a materially different apparatus comprising a lighter articulating assembly, such as a three-point actuating mechanism, or a spring mechanism that flexibly connects the top and lower tray and does not require a yoke assembly, a housing, or support plates. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koerber (DE 4107458 A1, see translation attached and the PTO 892 form) in view of Remmers (WO 2010141868 A2). Koerber discloses a bite registration device (Figure 1) for creating a dental prosthesis (Abstract), the bite registration device comprising: a fixed housing (3) having a bottom surface and a top surface that defines a cavity (Annotated Figures 4 and 5 below) that houses a yoke assembly (1) and a rotational control assembly (2); a base plate (4) connected to the bottom surface of the fixed housing (3); a lower impression tray (Annotated Figures 1-3 below) to hold a first amount of removable impression putty (said tray has all the necessary structures to be configured to hold a first amount of removable impression putty), attached to the base plate (4), wherein the rotational control assembly controls the movement of the lower impression tray (since the device when worn, controls the movement of the lower jaw, since this is the jaw that has a natural articulation); an upper impression tray (Annotated Figures 1-3 below) to hold a second amount of removable impression putty (said tray has all the necessary structures to be configured to hold a second amount of removable impression putty), attached to the top surface of the fixed housing (3), wherein the yoke assembly controls the movement of the lower impression tray (since the device when worn, controls the movement of the lower jaw). However, Koerber fails to disclose “a bite registration device controller for regulating alignment of the upper impression tray and the lower impression tray”. Remmers discloses a bite registration device (Figure 1), comprising an upper and lower tray (Abstract); wherein the bite registration device comprises a controller for regulating alignment of the upper impression tray and the lower impression tray ([0102]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Koerber’s bite registration device in order to add a controller, as taught by Remmers, since such modification would allow a technician to regulate the device according to the specific position of the mandible of each patient ([0102]). [AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Annotated Figures 1-3. )] PNG media_image1.png 773 878 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 4-5. )] PNG media_image2.png 563 1079 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Koerber and Remmers, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Remmers discloses wherein the controller uses at least one transmitter PCB board to digitally record a spatial relationship of a maxillary and a mandibular dental arch to an anatomic horizontal natural head reference point of a user (since the software in the computer is configured to accept the fully retruded, fully protruded, and "rest" scale readings, and to calculate the position of mandible with these values [0102]). Regarding claim 5, Koerber and Remmers, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Koerber discloses wherein the lower impression tray is comprised of lower tray putty cup wall (as shown in Annotated Figures 1-3), which contains the first amount of removable impression putty within the impression lower tray (said tray has all the necessary structures to be configured to hold a first amount of removable impression putty). Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 2310360 A) in view of Remmers. Fischer discloses a bite registration device (Figure 1) for creating a dental prosthesis (col 1, lines 1-5), the bite registration device comprising: a fixed housing (fixed housing between plates 52 and 58) having a bottom surface (plate 52) and a top surface (58) that defines a cavity (space between plates 52 and 58) that houses a yoke assembly (yoke assembly shown in Figure 2) and a rotational control assembly (64); a base plate (28) connected to the bottom surface of the fixed housing (connected to plate 52); a lower impression tray (20) to hold a first amount of removable impression putty (said tray has all the necessary structures to be configured to hold a first amount of removable impression putty), attached to the base plate (28; see Figure 2 and col 2, lines 25-45), wherein the rotational control assembly (64) controls the movement of the lower impression tray (since the device when worn, controls the movement/adjustment of the lower jaw, since this is the jaw that has a natural articulation); an upper impression tray (18) to hold a second amount of removable impression putty (said tray has all the necessary structures to be configured to hold a second amount of removable impression putty), attached to the top surface of the fixed housing (connected to plate 58), wherein the yoke assembly controls the movement of the lower impression tray (since the device when worn, controls the movement of the lower jaw). However, Fischer fails to disclose “a bite registration device controller for regulating alignment of the upper impression tray and the lower impression tray”. Remmers discloses a bite registration device (Figure 1), comprising an upper and lower tray (Abstract); wherein the bite registration device comprises a controller for regulating alignment of the upper impression tray and the lower impression tray ([0102]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Fischer’s bite registration device in order to add a controller, as taught by Remmers, since such modification would allow a technician to regulate the device according to the specific position of the mandible of each patient ([0102]). Regarding claim 2, Fischer and Remmers, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Fischer discloses wherein the yoke assembly is comprised of a front yoke, a back yoke and a pair of scissor jack arms (Annotated Figure 2, below). [AltContent: textbox (Figure 3. Annotated Figure 2. )] PNG media_image3.png 747 1269 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koerber in view of Remmers, further in view of Kang (KR 200279183 Y1, see translation attached and the PTO 892 form). Regarding claim 6, Koerber and Remmers, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Koerber discloses wherein the upper impression tray is comprised of an upper tray putty cup wall (as shown in Annotated Figures 1-3), which contains the second amount of removable impression putty within the impression upper tray (said tray has all the necessary structures to be configured to hold a second amount of removable impression putty). However, Koerber and Remmers fail to disclose “wherein the upper impression tray is comprised of a tongue guard”. Kang discloses a dental impression tray during a patient's prosthetic treatment ([0015]), comprising an upper impression tray (Figure 4) wherein the upper impression tray comprises a tongue guard (13, [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Koerber/Remmers upper tray to make it comprising a tongue guard, since such modification would create a structure that allows the patient to anchor the tongue during the impression taking step; being this a case of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The art of record does not teach or render obvious “wherein the rotational control assembly is comprised of a drive cable, a universal joint and a rotating gear, wherein the rotating gear communicates with a rack gear attached to the lower tray to move the lower tray.”, in combination with the elements set forth in the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST). 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, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. 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. /LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 13, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599465
TOOTH ROOT CANAL IRRIGATION ASSEMBLY FOR CLEANING TOOTH ROOT CANALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12551321
DENTAL INTRAORAL DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544191
MICRO-MAGNETIC INVISIBLE ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12520894
GESTURE AND ARTICULATION OF A COSMETIC APPLICATOR WITH A SPRING OR COMPRESSED CLAMPING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12507782
PERSONAL DEFENSE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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
46%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+51.1%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 103 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