Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/712,065

Support device for supporting a body part of a user

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 21, 2024
Examiner
SANTOS, ROBERT G
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Co12 GMBH
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
826 granted / 1138 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1160
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1138 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 should be cancelled since the structural limitation of the “one or more openings” in the first support body part and/or the second support body part as recited in claim 6 has been incorporated into independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,082,257 to Strickland. With respect to claims 1, 6 and 11, Strickland shows the claimed limitations of a support device (20) and a method for producing a support device for supporting at least one hand of a user, comprising a support body for supporting the at least one hand of the user, wherein a first support body part (21) comprising a support contour for the at least one hand of the user to be supported, and a second support body part (22) which can be connected or is connected to the first support body part (21), wherein the second support body part (22) is arranged or formed below the first support body part, forming an intermediate space (as shown in Figure 3) extending between the first support body part (21) and the second support body part (22), and wherein the first support body part and the second support body part has an opening structure define by one or more openings (38, 51) (also as shown in Figures 1, 2, 4 & 8 and as described in column 2, lines 66-68; column 3, lines 1-11 & 39-68 and column 4, lines 1-12). With respect to claims 3-5, the reference discloses conditions wherein the distance between the first support body part (21) and the second support body part (22), defined in particular by the intermediate space, is constant in at least one spatial direction (i.e., along a width or transverse direction of support device 20); wherein a free space is formed below the second support body part (22) (i.e., between the respective bottom surfaces of elements 52 and 53 as shown in Figure 2); and wherein a support structure (37, 39) which is arranged or formed extending within the intermediate space between the first support body part (21) and the second support body part (22) and which comprises at least one support element connecting the first support body part (21) to the second support body part (as shown in Figure 3 and as described in column 3, lines 14-18 & 25-27). With respect to claims 7 and 8, the reference further discloses conditions wherein the first support body part (21) and the second support body part (22) each comprise one or more openings (38, 51), wherein at least one opening (38) of the first support body part (21) is arranged offset relative to at least one opening (51) of the second support body part (2) (as shown in Figures 1-4 and as described in column 3, lines 9-11 & 45-49); and wherein a third support body part (53) forming a support surface for placing the support device (20) on a base, which is connected to the first (21) and/or the second support body part (22) (as shown in Figures 2 & 3 and as described in column 3, lines 54-64). With respect to claims 9 and 10, the reference further discloses conditions wherein the support contour comprises a certain number and/or a certain arrangement of predefined configured support contour sections (35), which corresponds to the number and/or arrangement of limb sections of a respective hand of the user to be placed on the support device (20) (as shown in Figures 1, 4 & 8 and as described in column 3, lines 9-11); and wherein in the first support body part (21) and/or in the second support body part (22) a fastening interface (36) is formed for fastening a fixing element (26) for temporarily fixing the hand placed on the support contour (35) (as shown in Figures 1, 4, 4a, 5 & 8 and as described in column 3, lines 11-13 and in column 4, lines 29-55). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland ‘257. Strickland discloses wherein the first support body part (21) has an angled basic shape (37, 39) and the second support body part (22) has an angled basic shape (46) based on the angled basic shape of the first support body part (21) (as shown in Figures 2 & 3 and as described in column 3, lines 46-49 and in column 4, lines 9-12) as opposed to the use of respective curved basic shapes as claimed. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respective angled basic shapes of the first and second support body parts of the support device of Strickland such that they were curved basic shapes as claimed, since such a modification would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-8 of the amendment with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm. 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, Justin C Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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. /ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 21, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 14, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599517
STRETCHER EQUIPPED WITH SYSTEMS FOR ATTACHING REMOVABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599256
LIGHTWEIGHT SLEEPING PAD SYSTEM HAVING SEPARABLE AND DISSIMILAR SEGMENTS, AND METHOD OF USING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593930
POCKETED FOAM FILLED BUCKLING MEMBER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589046
SURGERY POSITIONER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12551391
PATIENT SUPPORT WITH IMPROVED CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.9%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1138 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