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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this submission of the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 05/11/2026 has been entered. Currently, claims 1, 3-12, and 14-23 remain pending in the application. Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 were amended by the Applicant to include further narrowing limitations without the addition of new matter. Additionally, claim 9, 19, 20-22were amended and claim 24 canceled to correct previous drawing objections and 35 USC 112(B) rejections that were set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/11/2026.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1, 9, and 16 is sufficient to overcome the previous 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/11/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks on Page 8 to Page 12, filed 05/11/202, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amended claims have changed the scope of the claims and upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of new grounds of rejection based on the current prior art of the record: Fischer (US Patent No. 5785057), Williams (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200275783), Baker (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150108292), Patel (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20050101895 ), Wyrozub (U.S. Patent No. 8745790), Gentile (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150061342), and Ericson (US Patent No. 2782427).
4. Overall, Examiner notes that Applicant may overcome the prior art by amending the claims, such as by reciting positive structural limitations. For example, a positive recitation of claim 17 with Applicant’s Paragraphs 37-38 describing the length 56 of the rigid section with given criticality for stabilizing, and then may also recite length 88 as well a ratio of that length 88:56. Also, Applicant’s Figures 4A-4C angle of bend which is constant throughout the entire length. Also plurality of contours of 62 with explained criticality of contours to allow placement of a patient's arm in a plurality of positions based on patient comfort, arm mobility, orthopedic limitations, anatomy, and size of the patient's arm. Also, Paragraph 47, wherein the width is greater than the length. Also, Applicant’s Figure 6 angle of bend range 72. Moreover, Applicant may recite negative limitations such as –not—or –without—to teach away from the prior art. Lastly, Applicant may recite transitional phrases such as –consisting—or –consisting essentially of—in the preamble or body of the claim to prevent prior art combinations.
Claim Interpretation
5. The term “substantially”, such as in claim 23, is defined as largely but not necessarily wholly what is specified and includes what is specified (Specification, Paragraph 17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-11, 15-16, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US Patent No. 5785057) in view of Williams (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200275783).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer (embodiment of Figure 1) discloses an arm support 10,24 (Col. 3, lines 13-66, Col. 4, lines 1-33 and Figures 1-2: single layer thick-arm support 10 for a patient’s arm, such as in a pronated position during an IV surgical procedure ) for supporting a patient's arm during a cardiac catheterization procedure (Col. 5, line 28), the arm support 24 comprising: a unitary body (Col. 3, lines 13-66, Col. 4, lines 1-33 and annotated Figure 1 below: single layer thick unitary body of lower base portion 38,42, upper portion 28, a second end 34,36, a first end opposite the second end 34,36, a proximal side to contact the user’s arm, and a distal side) defining: a lower portion 38,42 an upper portion 28, a first end , a second end 34,36, a proximal side, and a distal side; where the lower portion38,42 of the unitary body defines a mount 38,42 (Col. 3, lines 13-66, Col. 4, lines 1-33 and Figures 1-2: mount 38 with distal side surface contacting/coupled to a surgical table 14 and proximal side surface of mount 38 has a mattress 16 thereon) configured to be coupled to a patient support 14,16 such that the upper portion 28,42 of the unitary body is supported above at least a part of the patient support 14,16 (Figure 2); and where the upper portion 28 of the unitary body defines a support surface 28 (Figures 1-2: proximal side of sleeve support 28 forms contacting arm support surface) extending between the first and second ends 34,36, the support surface 28 shaped to support a patient's forearm (Col. 3, lines 31-40 and Figures 1-3, sleeve-like member 28 for fitting around at least a portion of the upper appendage 12 of the patient. The sleeve-like member 28 can include an elongated housing 30, thereby receiving patient’s hand, forearm, elbow) with the patient's corresponding wrist in either a supinated (Figures 1-2: arm support 24 receives wrist in pronated position as shown, and is inherently capable of receiving arm in supinated position as well) or pronated position.
PNG
media_image1.png
562
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Fischer fails to explicitly disclose the support surface at the second end above the support surface at the first end.
Williams teaches an analogous arm support (Paragraphs 17, 19 and Figures 2, 17, 29, and 32: arm support 100 with lower portion 165 and upper portion 120,145,130 ) where the analogous support surface (Figure 32, shoulder first end portion is lower height than hand second end portion when user is resting arm therein) at the analogous second end is above the analogous support surface at the analogous first end.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a height of the first and second end of Fischer, so that the support surface at the second end above the support surface at the first end, as taught by Williams, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced upper portion that is sized to comfortably receive the user’s upper arm, elbow, forearm, and hand with varying height contoured inclining from the user’s shoulder to arm for desirable blood flow and am pressure (Williams, Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer (embodiment of Figure 4) discloses an arm support 24 (Col. 5, lines 5-34 and Figure 4: single layer thick-arm support 24 for a patient’s arm, such as in a pronated position during an IV surgical procedure) for supporting a patient's arm during a cardiac catheterization procedure (Col. 5, line 28), the arm support 24 comprising: a unitary body (Col. 4, lines 10-12, Col. 5, lines 5-34 and see annotated Figure 4 below: single layer thick unitary body of lower base portion 38,42, upper portion 28, a second end 34,36, a first proximal end opposite the second end 34,36, a proximal side, and a distal side)defining: a lower portion 38,42, an upper portion 28, a first end, a second end 34,36, a proximal side, and a distal side; where the lower portion 38,42 of the unitary body defines a mount 38,42 (Col. 3, lines 13-66, Col. 4, lines 1-33 and Figures 2 and 4: mount 38 with distal side surface contacting/coupled to a surgical table 14 and proximal side surface of mount 38 has a mattress 16 thereon) configured to be coupled to a patient support 14,16 such that the upper portion 28 of the unitary body is supported above at least a part of the patient support 14,16; and where the upper portion 28 of the unitary body defines a support surface 28 extending between the first and second ends 34,36, the support surface 28 shaped to support a patient's forearm (Col. 3, lines 31-40 and Figures 3-4, sleeve-like member 28 for fitting around at least a portion of the upper appendage 12 of the patient. The sleeve-like member 28 can include an elongated housing 30, thereby receiving patient’s hand, forearm, elbow, and upper arm) with the patient's corresponding wrist in either a supinated (Figure 4: arm support 24 receives wrist in pronated position as shown, and is inherently capable of receiving arm in supinated position as well) or pronated position.
PNG
media_image2.png
618
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Fischer fails to explicitly disclose the support surface at the second end above the support surface at the first end.
Williams teaches an analogous arm support (Paragraphs 17, 19 and Figures 2, 17, 29, and 32: arm support 100 with lower portion 165 and upper portion 120,145,130 ) where the analogous support surface (Figure 32, shoulder first end portion is lower height than hand second end portion when user is resting arm therein) at the analogous second end is above the analogous support surface at the analogous first end.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a height of the first and second end of Fischer, so that the support surface at the second end above the support surface at the first end, as taught by Williams, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced upper portion that is sized to comfortably receive the user’s upper arm, elbow, forearm, and hand with varying height contoured inclining from the user’s shoulder to arm for desirable blood flow and am pressure (Williams, Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer (embodiment of Figure 1) further discloses where the support surface 28 is defined by the proximal side (see annotated Figure 1 above) of the unitary body.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer (embodiment of Figure 1) further discloses where the mount 38,42 includes an upright portion 42 and a lateral portion 38, the proximal side (see annotated Figure 1 above) of the upright portion 42 faces in a first direction and the lateral portion 38 extending away from the upright portion 42 in the first direction.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer (embodiment of Figure 4) further discloses where the unitary body comprises a single layer (Col. 5, lines 5-34 and Figure 4: single layer thick-material spanning arm support 24) of material spanning the upper 28 and lower portions 38,42.
Regarding claim 9, Fischer discloses an arm support 24 (Col. 5, lines 5-34 and Figure 4: single layer thick-arm support 24 for a patient’s arm, such as in a pronated position during an IV surgical procedure) for supporting a patient's arm during a cardiac catheterization procedure (Col. 5, line 28), the arm support 24 comprising: a unitary body (Col. 4, lines 10-12, Col. 5, lines 5-34 and see annotated Figure 4 below: single layer thick unitary body of lower base portion 38,42, upper portion 28, a second end 34,36, a first proximal end opposite the second end 34,36, a proximal side, and a distal side) defining: a lower portion 38,42, an upper portion 28, a first end, and a second end 34,36; where the lower portion 38,42 of the unitary body defines a mount 38,42 (Col. 3, lines 13-66, Col. 4, lines 1-33 and Figures 2 and 4: mount 38 with distal side surface contacting/coupled to a surgical table 14 and proximal side surface of mount 38 has a mattress 16 thereon) configured to be coupled to a patient support 14,16 such that the upper portion 28,42 of the unitary body is supported above at least a part of the patient support 14,16; and the upper portion 28,42 defining a support surface 28 , the support surface 28 (Col. 3, lines 31-40 and Figures 3-4, sleeve-like member 28 for fitting around at least a portion of the upper appendage 12 of the patient. The sleeve-like member 28 can include an elongated housing 30, thereby receiving patient’s hand, forearm, elbow, and upper arm) including: an elbow support portion (see annotated Figure 4 below); an upper support portion (see annotated Figure 4 below) extending from the elbow support portion toward the first end of the unitary body; and a forearm support portion (see annotated Figure 4 below) extending from the elbow support portion toward the second end 34,36 of the unitary body; where, when the lower portion 38,42 is coupled to a patient support 14,16 the forearm support portion of the support surface 28 extends upward (Figure 4: upward extending end 34 of forearm support portion at second end 34 furthest away from elbow support portion) from at least part of the patient support as the distance from the elbow support portion increases.
PNG
media_image2.png
618
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Fischer fails to explicitly disclose the support surface at the second end above the support surface at the first end.
Williams teaches an analogous arm support (Paragraphs 17, 19 and Figures 2, 17, 29, and 32: arm support 100 with lower portion 165 and upper portion 120,145,130 ) where the analogous support surface (Figure 32, shoulder first end portion is lower height than hand second end portion when user is resting arm therein) at the analogous second end is above the analogous support surface at the analogous first end.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a height of the first and second end of Fischer, so that the support surface at the second end above the support surface at the first end, as taught by Williams, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced upper portion that is sized to comfortably receive the user’s upper arm, elbow, forearm, and hand with varying height contoured inclining from the user’s shoulder to arm for desirable blood flow and am pressure (Williams, Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses where the forearm support portion (see annotated Figure 4 above) of the surface support 28 has a greater length than the upper support portion.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses where the unitary body (Col. 5, lines 5-34 and see annotated Figure 4 above) further defines :a distal side; and a proximal side; where at least a portion of the proximal side (Col. 5, lines 5-34 and see annotated Figure 4 above, proximal side mounts with bed mattress 16, such that when a user is configured to lay on bed mattress adjacent to the arm support 24, the proximal side thereby faces the patient ) is configured to face the patient and at least a portion of the distal side is configured to face away from the patient.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses where the support surface 28 includes a wrist support portion (see annotated Figure 4 below) extending from the forearm support portion in a direction toward the second end 34,36 and configured to support a patient's wrist in a supinated or pronated position.
PNG
media_image3.png
618
733
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Fischer discloses an arm support 24 (Col. 5, lines 5-34 and Figure 4: single layer thick-arm support 24 for a patient’s arm, such as in a pronated position during an IV surgical procedure) for supporting a patient's arm during a cardiac catheterization procedure (Col. 5, line 28), the arm support 24 comprising: a unitary body (Col. 4, lines 10-12, Col. 5, lines 5-34 and see annotated Figure 4 below: single layer thick unitary body of lower base portion 38,42, upper portion 28, a second end 34,36, a first proximal end opposite the second end 34,36, a proximal side, and a distal side to contact the user’s arm thereon) defining: a lower portion 38, an upper portion 28,42, a first end, a second end 34,36, a proximal side, and a distal side; where the lower portion 38,42 of the unitary body defines a mount 38,42 (Col. 3, lines 13-66, Col. 4, lines 1-33 and Figures 2 and 4: mount 38 with distal side surface contacting/coupled to a surgical table 14 and proximal side surface of mount 38 has a mattress 16 thereon) configured to be coupled to a patient support 14,16 such that the upper portion 28,42 of the unitary body is supported above at least a portion of the patient support 14,16 ; and where the upper portion 28,42 of the unitary body defines a support surface 28 (Figure 4: distal side of sleeve support 28 forms contacting arm support surface) extending between the first and second ends 34,36, the support surface28 shaped to extend over a portion of the patient such that the distal side of the unitary body is oriented upward to define the support surface 28 to support the patient's arm in either a supinated (Figure 4: arm support 24 receives wrist in pronated position as shown, and is inherently capable of receiving arm in supinated position as well) or pronated position.
PNG
media_image4.png
618
733
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Fischer fails to explicitly disclose the support surface at the second end above the support surface at the first end.
Williams teaches an analogous arm support (Paragraphs 17, 19 and Figures 2, 17, 29, and 32: arm support 100 with lower portion 165 and upper portion 120,145,130 ) where the analogous support surface (Figure 32, shoulder first end portion is lower height than hand second end portion when user is resting arm therein) at the analogous second end is above the analogous support surface at the analogous first end.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a height of the first and second end of Fischer, so that the support surface at the second end above the support surface at the first end, as taught by Williams, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced upper portion that is sized to comfortably receive the user’s upper arm, elbow, forearm, and hand with varying height contoured inclining from the user’s shoulder to arm for desirable blood flow and am pressure (Williams, Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses a first cross-sectional plane (see annotated Figure 4 above); a second cross-sectional plane (see annotated Figure 4 above), closer to the second end 34,36 than the first cross-sectional plane; and a third cross-sectional plane (see annotated Figure 4 above) between the first cross-sectional plane and the second cross-sectional plane.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose where the upper portion has a greater width at the third cross-sectional plane than at the first or second cross- sectional plane.
Williams further teaches an analogous arm support (Paragraphs 17, 19 and Figures 2, 17, 29, and 32: arm support 100 with lower portion 165 and upper portion 120,145,130 ) where the analogous upper portion 120,145,130 has a greater width (Paragraph 19 and Figures 2, 17, 29, and 32: width of 9.5 inches at third cross section, which is greater than width of 7.5 in at second cross section and width of 4in at first cross section) at the analogous third cross-sectional plane (see annotated Figure 17 below) than at the first or second cross- sectional plane (see annotated Figures 19 and 32 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
618
1353
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a width at the at the first, second, and third cross-sectional planes of Fischer in view of Williams, so that the upper portion has a greater width at the third cross-sectional plane than at the first or second cross- sectional plane, as taught by Williams, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced upper portion that is sized to comfortably receive the user’s upper arm, elbow, forearm, and hand with desirable width allowing for greatest freedom near center/third cross sectional plane and tapering towards ends therefrom for increased stability of the upper arm and lower arm of the patient (Williams, Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses where the upper portion 28 of the unitary body has an inflection point (see annotated Figure 4 above, inflection point at third cross sectional plane due to a curved inflection lip that curves to secure the medial/lateral side of the user’s arm in the pronated/supinated position) at the third cross sectional plane.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fischer further discloses where a portion of the upper portion 28 extends in substantially the same direction (Figure 4, portions of upper portion 28 and lower portion 38 extend in same horizontal directions) as a portion of the lower portion 38,42.
8. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US Patent No. 5785057) in view of Williams (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200275783), as applied to claim 1 and 9, respectively in view of Ericson (US Patent No. 2782427).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fischer (embodiment of Figure 4) in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above and further discloses where; the support surface 28 includes an elbow support portion (Col. 3, lines 31-40 and see annotated Figure 4 below); where, when the unitary body is coupled to the patient support 14,16; and where the elbow support portion is closer to a first part (Col. 3, lines 31-40 and Figure 4, upper arm support) of the support surface 28 between the elbow support portion and the first end than to the second part (Col. 3, lines 31-40 and Figures 1-3, forearm support)of the support surface 28 between the elbow support portion and the second end 34,36.
PNG
media_image2.png
618
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams fails to explicitly disclose the elbow support portion of the support surface being lower than the first part and the second part.
Ericson teaches an analogous arm support 1 (Col. 1, line 48-54 and Figures 1-3, arm support 1 with elbow support portion 4, forearm support portion 5, and upper arm support portion 3, wherein the elbow support portion 4 is inferior to the upper arm support portion 3 and forearm support portion 5) wherein the analogous elbow support portion 4 of the analogous support surface 3,4,5 being lower than the analogous first part 5 and the analogous second part 3.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a superior-inferior height of the elbow support surface of the support surface of Fischer in view of Williams, so that the elbow support portion of the support surface being lower than the first part and the second part, as taught by Ericson, in order to provide an improved arm support that is recessed lower/inferior relative to the forearm first part and upper arm second part allowing for reduced pressure at the elbow and increased comfortability for the patient (Ericson, Col. 1, line 54).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose (1) where the upper support portion of the support surface extends downward toward at least part of the patient support and towards the elbow support portion; (2) extending downward with decreasing distance from the elbow support portion.
Ericson teaches an analogous arm support 1 (Col. 1, line 48-54 and Figures 1-3, arm support 1 with elbow support portion 4, forearm support portion 5, and upper arm support portion 3, wherein the elbow support portion 4 is inferior to the upper arm support portion 3 and forearm support portion 5) wherein where the analogous upper support portion 3 of the analogous support surface 3,4,5 extends downward toward at least part of the analogous patient support (Col. 1, line 48-54 and Figures 1-3, arm support 1 pillow with user laying on a patient support bed) and towards the analogous elbow support portion 4.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a superior-inferior height of the elbow support surface relative to the upper support portion of the support surface of Fischer, so that the upper support portion of the support surface extends downward toward at least part of the patient support and towards the elbow support portion, as taught by Ericson, in order to provide an improved arm support that is recessed lower/inferior relative to the forearm first part and upper arm second part allowing for reduced pressure at the elbow and increased comfortability for the patient (Ericson, Col. 1, line 54).
However, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams Ericson fails to explicitly disclose (2) extending downward with decreasing distance from the elbow support portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify shape steepness of the downward extension of the upper support portion to the elbow support of Fischer in view of Ericson, so that there is downward extension with decreasing distance from the elbow support portion, since there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the shape steepness of the upper support portion-elbow support portion would result in a difference in function of the device of Fischer in view of Williams in view of Ericson. In the instant case, the device of Fischer in view of Ericson would not operate differently with the claimed steepness and since the elbow support portion is intended to be recessed relative to the upper support portion, as taught by Ericson, the device would continue to function appropriately having the claimed steepness of the recess. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed steepness solves any stated problem, merely indicating in Paragraph 35 that the height “may” increase, while offering other acceptable alternative embodiments (Paragraphs 13 and 43 reciting “in some embodiments” and “in other configurations upper support portion is parallel to patient support” thereby indicating that no downward extension or curvature is also acceptable) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) changes in shape design choice; In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US Patent No. 5785057) in view of Williams (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200275783), as applied to claim 9, in view of Gentile (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150061342).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above and further discloses where the upper portion 28 of the unitary body, from bottom to top, sequentially: extends in a proximal direction (see annotated Figure 4 above, surface 28 extends in proximal direction over and towards table 14/mattress 16) over at least a portion of the patient support 14,16.
However, Fischer fails to explicitly disclose after extending a proximal direction over at least the portion of the patient support, bending toward a distal direction; and extends in a distal direction such that the support surface is defined by the proximal side of upper portion of the unitary body.
Gentile teaches an analogous arm support (Paragraphs 27, 29 and Figure 1 and 3-4, arm support with lower portion 10,15,16 for coupling with patient support mattress 30 and upper portion 12,13,14 for supporting user’s arm) where analogous the upper portion 12,13,14, from bottom to top, sequentially: extends in the analogous proximal direction (Figures 3-4, upper portion 12,13,14 extends in proximal direction over and towards mattress pad 30) over at least a portion of the analogous patient support 30; bends (Figure 4, bending towards distal direction away from mattress pad 30 formed between surfaces 13 and 14) toward a distal direction; and extends in a distal direction such that the analogous support surface 14 is defined by the analogous proximal side of analogous upper portion 12,13,14.
PNG
media_image6.png
573
670
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper portion of the unitary body of Fischer in view of Williams, so that after extending a proximal direction over at least the portion of the patient support, bending toward a distal direction; and extends in a distal direction such that the support surface is defined by the proximal side of upper portion, as taught by Gentile, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced proximal and distal configuration wherein the upper portion forms an S-shape for desirably extending from the lower portion and providing a proximal side surface for the user’s arm to be supported, increasing strength and stability (Gentile, Paragraphs 27 and 29).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US Patent No. 5785057) in view of Williams (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200275783), as applied to claim 16, in view of Wyrozub (U.S. Patent No. 8745790).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above. Fisher further discloses where the lower portion 38,42 of the unitary body is rigid (Col. 4, lines 12-15, rigid integral unitary body 22,24).
However, the combination of Fischer in view of Williams fails to explicitly disclose wherein the upper portion of the unitary body is flexible.
Wyrozub teaches an analogous arm support (Col. 2, lines 23-42 and Figure 3, one-piece integral arm support 10 formed of mount portion 14,18 and arm support portion 20) wherein the analogous arm support portion 20 of the analogous unitary body is flexible (Col. 2, lines 23-42, arm support portion cradle 20 made of fiber glass which is construed as a flexible material), with a different material forming the analogous mount portion 14,18 (Col. 2, lines 23-42, mount portion 14,18 made of different material, such as plastic) .
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material of the arm support/upper portion of the unitary body of Fischer in view of Williams, so that the material of the arm support portion is different than the material of the mount portion and the wherein the arm support portion of the unitary body is flexible, as taught by Wyrozub, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced arm support/upper portion that is formed of a different material than the mount portion and is flexible for desirable use during X-ray without interference (Wyrozub, Col. 2, lines 23-42), as well as for comfortably conforming to user’s arm.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US Patent No. 5785057) in view of Williams (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200275783), as applied to claim 16, in view of Patel (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20050101895 ).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Fisher in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose where the upper portion comprises flexible carbon fiber sheets, ballistic nylon or vinyl reinforced with vinyl mesh.
Patel teaches an analogous arm support 100 (Paragraph 21 and Figure 1, arm support 100 formed with arm support portion 110,120) wherein the analogous arm support portion 110,120 comprises flexible carbon fiber sheets (Paragraph 23, arm support portion cradle 110,120 made of flexible carbon fiber).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material of the arm-support/upper portion of the unitary body of Fisher in view of Williams, so that the material of the arm support portion is flexible carbon fiber, as taught by Patel, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced arm support/upper portion that is formed as flexible carbon fiber for desirable material properties that comfortably conforms with user’s arm (Patel, Paragraph 23).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US Patent No. 5785057) in view of Williams (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200275783), as applied to claim 16, in view of Baker (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150108292 ).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Fisher in view of Williams discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose where: a radius of curvature of the unitary body at the third cross-sectional plane is smaller than a radius of curvature of the unitary body at the second cross-sectional plane; and the radius of curvature of the unitary body at the third cross-sectional plane is greater than a radius of curvature of the unitary body at the first cross-sectional plane.
Baker teaches an analogous arm support 10 (Paragraph 29 and Figure 5, arm support 10) where: a radius of curvature (Paragraph 29 and see annotated Figure 5 below, the width Wd of cradle 18 closer to second end 22 at second cross section plane is smaller than width Wp, such that the shoulder 16 forms a larger radius of curvature relative to vertical upright 12 at this second cross sectional plane. Then the middle third cross sectional plane has shoulder 16 radius of curvature relative to upright 12 that is smaller than that of the second cross-sectional plane but larger than that of the first cross-sectional plane) of the analogous unitary body at the analogous third cross-sectional plane (see annotated Figure 5 below) is smaller than a radius of curvature of the analogous unitary body at the analogous second cross-sectional plane (see annotated Figure 5 below); and the radius of curvature of the analogous unitary body at the analogous third cross-sectional plane is greater than a radius of curvature of the analogous unitary body at the analogous first cross-sectional plane (see annotated Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
332
438
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a radius of curvature of the upper portion with an upright portion of the lower portion at the first, second, and third cross-sectional planes of Fisher in view of Williams, so that the a radius of curvature of the unitary body at the third cross-sectional plane is smaller than a radius of curvature of the unitary body at the second cross-sectional plane; and the radius of curvature of the unitary body at the third cross-sectional plane is greater than a radius of curvature of the unitary body at the first cross-sectional plane, as taught by Baker, in order to provide an improved arm support with an enhanced upper portion having desirable radius of curvature relative to upright portion of the lower portion with increasing radius of curvature towards the second end for desirable securement and freedom of the user’s arm (Baker, Paragraph 29).
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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Milo whose telephone number is (571)272-6476. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00-5:00.
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 on +1(571) 270-3076. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MILO/
Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights