Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/427,684

LEG AND/OR EXTREMITY SUPPORT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
HAWTHORNE, OPHELIA ALTHEA
Art Unit
3786
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
913 granted / 1273 resolved
+1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1322
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1273 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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonardo U.S. Patent No. (4,848,326) in view of Cadichon U.S. Publication No. (2008/0200856 A1). With respect to claim 1, Lonardo substantially discloses a device (as shown in figs.1-2) for supporting an extremity [Abstract, a knee contracture correction device for straightening a contracted knee is provided. The device includes a pair of rod assemblies each having opposite upper and lower ends and a pivotal joint between the ends. The upper end of the rod assemblies is pivotally secured to the patient's thigh while the lower end is pivotally secured adjacent the patient's ankle] within an external fixation frame or pair of elongated rod assemblies 14 (fig.2, each including an upper rod section 16 and a lower rod section 18) and ([Col.2], lines 34-50), comprising: a central body (64, fig.2) comprising a flexible material ([Col.3], lines 37-40, elasticized material 64], and flexible straps (58, fig.2) may be interconnected by an elasticized material 64) and ([Col.3], lines 37-38), the flexible strap (58) including a first side having a hook-type connection surface and an opposing second side have a loop type connection surface ([Col.3], lines 32-34, straps (58) have opposite ends 60 each of which are extends around one of the rod assemblies 14 and are secured by Velcro], the flexible strap (58) having a first end and an opposing second end (as shown in fig.2), wherein the first end of the flexible strap is secured to a first location (right side of rod 14) on the external fixation frame or rod assembly (14) and the second end of the flexible strap is secured to a second location (left side of rod 14) on the external fixation frame or rod assembly (14), wherein the first and second ends support the central body that is in intimate contact with the extremity (as shown in fig.2). Lonardo substantially discloses the invention as claimed except (1) the central body having at least two openings formed therethrough and (2) the flexible strap extending through the at least two openings in the central body. Cadichon however, teaches a knee brace (as shown in fig.1) comprising a central body (12) comprising at least two openings formed therethrough (as shown in fig.1) and a flexible strap (32, fig.1) extending through the at least two openings in the central body (12, as shown in fig.1). In view of the teachings of Cadichon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the central body of Lonardo by incorporating at least two openings such that the strap extends through the at least two openings for retaining and stabilizing the leg of the user to the external fixation frame or rod assembly. With respect to claim 2, the combination of Lonardo/Cadichon substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Lonardo further discloses the extremity within the external fixation frame is a leg of a patient (as shown in fig.1). With respect to claim 4, the combination of Lonardo/Cadichon substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Lonardo further discloses the flexible strap does not directly contact the extremity (as shown in fig.1 the strap is attach to the central body). With respect to claim 5, the combination of Lonardo/Cadichon substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Lonardo further discloses the extremity does not come into direct contact with the fixation frame (as shown in fig.1) ([Col.3], lines 51-55, upper end 32 of upper rod section 16 is pivotally attached to a thigh pad 34 by means of a screw 35, or the like] and ([Col.3], lines 65-66, lower end 42 of lower rod section 18 is slidably received within a tube 44]. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonardo/Cadichon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Santosus U.S. Patent No. (3,419,002). With respect to claim 3, the combination of Lonardo/Cadichon substantially discloses the invention as claimed except the extremity within the external fixation frame is an arm of a patient. Santosus however, teaches in an analogous art a device for supporting an extremity for mending broken bones in arms and legs (figs.1-2) and ([Col.1], lines 21-23). In view of the teachings of Santosus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the external fixation frame of Lonardo/Cadichon to be utilized with an arm of a patient in order for mending broken bones or limbs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 5712703076. 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. /OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599494
FORCE REDISTRIBUTION HINDFOOT SHOE INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594385
Medical Vaporizer with Precision Controlled Vapor Composition
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594184
PACKAGED LUBRICATED CONDOM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589182
OCCLUSIVE IMPLANT COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589180
MEDICAL DEVICE HAVING A POLYMERIC NANOCOMPOSITE ACTIVELY CONTROLLED FOR RAPID HEALING OF FRACTURES AND SOFT TISSUE INJURY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1273 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