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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 7/6/2026 has been considered by the office.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitation, “the lower arm assembly of the upper arm assembly”. Examiner suggests amending this limitation to recite, “the lower arm assembly . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 20120318278 A1) in view of Brenner (US 20190201258 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Scott discloses an assistive positioning device for supporting an arm of a patient during an imaging process (See Fig. 1-2, positioning system 100, “upper or lower extremity”; [0017]), comprising: a base configured to releasably secure the positioning device to a support surface (See Fig. 1-2, table clamp 110 assists in mounting system 100 to table 002); a base riser assembly comprising a first portion (See Fig. 2, base 115) and a second portion (See Fig. 2, rotary joint 125), wherein the first portion and the second portion are selectively rotatable with respect to each other (See Fig. 2, joint 125 is rotatable with respect to base 115), and wherein the first portion of the base riser assembly is mounted to the base (See Fig. 2, base 115 mounted to clamp 110); an upper arm assembly having a first end and a second end, the first end being mounted to the second portion of the base riser assembly (See Fig. 2, proximal hinge 130 connected to rotary joint 125 representing first end and inner proximal tube 165 connected to ring 170 representing second end); an elbow assembly comprising a first portion and a second portion (See Fig. 2, intermediate hinge 180 and lever 175) wherein the first portion of the elbow assembly is secured to the second end of the upper arm assembly (See Fig. 2, intermediate hinge 180 secured to tube 165), and the first portion and the second portion of the elbow assembly are selectively rotatable with respect to each other (See Fig. 2, “extremity can be flexed/extended at the intermediate joint through the intermediate hinge 180”; [0078]); a lower arm assembly having a first end and a second end (See Fig. 2, outer distal limb tube 210 and inner distal limb tube 220), the first end being mounted to the second portion of the elbow assembly (See Fig. 2, tube 210 mounted to hinge 180); wherein an entirety of the assistive positioning device is free of magnetic metal (See [0079], materials used in X-ray environments implies free of magnetic material).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Scott fails to explicitly disclose a handle portion secured to a second end of the lower arm assembly.
However, Brenner teaches a handle portion secured to a second end of the lower arm assembly (See Fig. 1, handle 20).
PNG
media_image3.png
672
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Scott by adding the handle taught by Brenner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “keeping the anterior side of the patient's forearm 67 stabilized”; (Scott, [0109]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 1, wherein the upper arm assembly further comprises: an outer rod including a first end and a second end, the first end of the outer rod being mounted to the second portion of the base riser assembly; and an inner rod including a first end and a second end, wherein the inner rod is slidably received within the outer rod and the second end of the inner rod is secured to the first portion of the elbow assembly (See Fig. 2, inner proximal tube 165 within outer proximal tube 140 both connected at opposing ends or joints of system 100).
Regarding Claim 11, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 1.
Scott fails to explicitly teach wherein the handle portion is rotatable with respect to the lower arm assembly.
However, Brenner teaches wherein the handle portion is rotatable with respect to the lower arm assembly (See Fig. 13A-13C, rotating handle 123).
PNG
media_image4.png
563
812
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Scott by adding the rotatable handle taught by Brenner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to rotate the patients hand relative to their elbow to allow for antecubital or hand access”; (Scott, [0007]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 11.
Scott fails to explicitly teach wherein the handle portion comprises a base portion secured to the second end of the lower arm assembly, and a handle for grasping that is formed by an elongated bar that is transverse to a longitudinal center axis of the lower arm assembly.
However, Brenner teaches wherein the handle portion comprises a base portion secured to the second end of the lower arm assembly (See Fig. 13A-13C, cuff linkage 125), and a handle for grasping that is formed by an elongated bar that is transverse to a longitudinal center axis of the lower arm assembly (See Fig. 13C, rotating handle 123 transverse to the longitudinal center axis of apparatus 15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Scott by adding the transverse handle taught by Brenner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to establish proper limb support and stabilization”; (Scott, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, Scott discloses an assistive positioning device for supporting an arm of a patient during an imaging process (See Fig. 1-2, positioning system 100, “upper or lower extremity”; [0017]), comprising: a base configured to releasably secure the positioning device to a support surface (See Fig. 1-2, table clamp 110 assists in mounting system 100 to table 002); a base riser assembly comprising a first portion (See Fig. 2, base 115) and a second portion (See Fig. 2, rotary joint 125), wherein the first portion and the second portion are selectively rotatable with respect to each other (See Fig. 2, joint 125 is rotatable with respect to base 115), and the first portion of the base riser assembly is mounted to the base (See Fig. 2, base 115 mounted to clamp 110); an upper arm assembly comprising: an outer rod including a first end and a second end, the first end of the outer rod being mounted to the second portion of the base riser assembly; an inner rod including a first end and a second end, wherein the inner rod is slidably received within the outer rod (See Fig. 2, inner proximal tube 165 within outer proximal tube 140 both connected at opposing ends or joints of system 100); and a cam lock that is configured to non-slidably fix the inner rod with respect to the outer rod (“The length of the outer proximal limb tube 140, and inner proximal limb tube 165, are adjustable to provide for specific patient limb length. “; [0074] and “Internal/external rotation is controlled through pivoting of the outer proximal limb tube 140, and inner proximal limb tube 165, and lockable from the outer proximal limb tube cam-lock 145”; [0077]); an elbow assembly comprising a first portion and a second portion (See Fig. 2, intermediate hinge 180 and lever 175), wherein the first portion of the elbow assembly is secured to the second end of the inner rod of the upper arm assembly (See Fig. 2, intermediate hinge 180 secured to tube 165), and the first portion and the second portion of the elbow assembly are selectively rotatable with respect to each other (See Fig. 2, “extremity can be flexed/extended at the intermediate joint through the intermediate hinge 180”; [0078]); a lower arm assembly having a first end and a second end (See Fig. 2, outer distal limb tube 210 and inner distal limb tube 220), the first end being mounted to the second portion of the elbow assembly (See Fig. 2, tube 210 mounted to hinge 180).
Scott fails to explicitly disclose a handle portion secured to a second end of the lower arm assembly.
However, Brenner teaches a handle portion secured to a second end of the lower arm assembly (See Fig. 1, handle 20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Scott by adding the handle taught by Brenner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “keeping the anterior side of the patient's forearm 67 stabilized”; (Scott, [0109]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 13, wherein an entirety of the assistive positioning device is free of magnetic metal (See [0079], materials used in X-ray environments implies free of magnetic material).
Regarding Claim 16, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 14, wherein the cam lock further comprises a first portion secured to the second end of the outer rod of the upper arm assembly and a second portion rotatably secured to the first portion of the cam lock, and wherein the second portion of the cam lock is rotatable between a first position in which the inner rod is slidable with respect to the outer rod, and a second position in which the inner rod is non-slidably fixed with respect to the outer rod (See Fig. 2, “The length of the outer proximal limb tube 140, and inner proximal limb tube 165, are adjustable to provide for specific patient limb length. “; [0074] and “Internal/external rotation is controlled through pivoting of the outer proximal limb tube 140, and inner proximal limb tube 165, and lockable from the outer proximal limb tube cam-lock 145”; [0077], lever of cam-lock 145 is rotatable with respect to the cam-lock).
Regarding Claim 17, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 16, wherein the first portion of the cam lock includes a cam portion that is movable between a first outer position that is spaced from an outer surface of the inner rod when the second portion of the cam lock is in the first position, and a second inner position abutting the outer surface of the inner rod when the second portion of the cam lock is in the second position (See Fig. 2, the applicant claims inherent features of a cam lock assembly wherein cam-lock 145 would have both a first portion and a second portion in order to lock the outer proximal tube 140 and inner proximal tube 165)..
Regarding Claim 18, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 13.
Scott fails to explicitly teach wherein the handle portion is rotatable with respect to the lower arm assembly.
However, Brenner teaches wherein the handle portion is rotatable with respect to the lower arm assembly (See Fig. 13A-13C, rotating handle 123).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Scott by adding the rotatable handle taught by Brenner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to rotate the patients hand relative to their elbow to allow for antecubital or hand access”; (Scott, [0007]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 19, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 18.
Scott fails to explicitly teach wherein the handle portion comprises a base portion secured to the second end of the lower arm assembly, and a handle for grasping that is formed by an elongated bar that is transverse to a longitudinal center axis of the lower arm assembly.
However, Brenner teaches wherein the handle portion comprises a base portion secured to the second end of the lower arm assembly (See Fig. 13A-13C, cuff linkage 125), and a handle for grasping that is formed by an elongated bar that is transverse to a longitudinal center axis of the lower arm assembly (See Fig. 13C, rotating handle 123 transverse to the longitudinal center axis of apparatus 15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Scott by adding the transverse handle taught by Brenner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to establish proper limb support and stabilization”; (Scott, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 3-8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 20120318278 A1) in view of Brenner (US 20190201258 A1), further in view of Forsberg (US 20020043597 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 2.
Scott in view of Brenner fails to explicitly teach wherein the inner rod is non-rotatably secured to the outer rod.
However, Forsberg teaches wherein the inner rod is non-rotatably secured to the outer rod (See Fig. 3, “profiled tube 17 is non-rotationally mounted on both the innermost of the outer tubes 8 of the leg assembly”; [0037]).
PNG
media_image5.png
524
525
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Scott in view of Brenner (directed to an assistive positioning device with slidable tubes) and Forsberg (directed to a non-rotational slidable leg assembly for tables) and arrived at an assistive positioning device with non-rotational slidable tubes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (adding the grooves and projections to the tubes) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions (tubes would still slide) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the tubes would still slide, however would not rotate relative to each other).
Regarding Claim 4, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 3.
Scott in view of Brenner fails to explicitly teach wherein the upper arm assembly further comprises: at least one pair of guide tracks defining an elongated groove, the at least one pair of guide tracks extending along an inner surface of the outer rod parallel to a longitudinal center axis of the outer rod; and at least one projection extending outwardly from an outer surface of the inner rod, the at least one projection being slidably received in the elongated groove so that the inner rod is non-rotatable with respect to the outer rod.
However, Forsberg teaches wherein the upper arm assembly further comprises: at least one pair of guide tracks defining an elongated groove (See Fig. 3, grooves 21 and 22), the at least one pair of guide tracks extending along an inner surface of the outer rod parallel to a longitudinal center axis of the outer rod (See Fig. 2 and 3, grooves 21 and 22 extending along the inner surface parallel to the center axis); and at least one projection extending outwardly from an outer surface of the inner rod (See Fig. 3, projections 24), the at least one projection being slidably received in the elongated groove so that the inner rod is non-rotatable with respect to the outer rod (See Fig. 3, projections 24 received by grooves 22).
PNG
media_image6.png
718
403
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Scott in view of Brenner (directed to an assistive positioning device with slidable tubes) and Forsberg (directed to a non-rotational slidable leg assembly for tables) and arrived at an assistive positioning device with non-rotational slidable tubes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (adding the grooves and projections to the tubes) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions (tubes would still slide) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the tubes would still slide, however would not rotate relative to each other).
Regarding Claim 5, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 3, wherein the upper arm assembly further comprises a cam lock that is configured to non-slidably fix the inner rod with respect to the outer rod (“The length of the outer proximal limb tube 140, and inner proximal limb tube 165, are adjustable to provide for specific patient limb length. “; [0074] and “Internal/external rotation is controlled through pivoting of the outer proximal limb tube 140, and inner proximal limb tube 165, and lockable from the outer proximal limb tube cam-lock 145”; [0077]).
Regarding Claim 6, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 5, wherein the cam lock further comprises a first portion secured to the second end of the outer rod of the upper arm assembly and a second portion rotatably secured to the first portion of the cam lock, and wherein the second portion of the cam lock is rotatable between a first position in which the inner rod is slidable with respect to the outer rod, and a second position in which the inner rod is non-slidably fixed with respect to the outer rod (See Fig. 2, “The length of the outer proximal limb tube 140, and inner proximal limb tube 165, are adjustable to provide for specific patient limb length. “; [0074] and “Internal/external rotation is controlled through pivoting of the outer proximal limb tube 140, and inner proximal limb tube 165, and lockable from the outer proximal limb tube cam-lock 145”; [0077], lever of cam-lock 145 is rotatable with respect to the cam-lock).
Regarding Claim 7, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 6, wherein the first portion of the cam lock includes a cam portion that is movable between a first outer position that is spaced from an outer surface of the inner rod when the second portion of the cam lock is in the first position, and a second inner position abutting the outer surface of the inner rod when the second portion of the cam lock is in the second position (See Fig. 2, the applicant claims inherent features of a cam lock assembly wherein cam-lock 145 would have both a first portion and a second portion in order to lock the outer proximal tube 140 and inner proximal tube 165).
Regarding Claim 8, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 6, wherein the lower arm assembly further comprises: an outer rod including a first end and a second end (outer distal limb tube 210), the first end of the outer rod being mounted to the second portion of the elbow assembly (See Fig. 2, tube 210 connected to hinge 185); and an inner rod including a first end and a second end (inner distal limb tube 220), wherein the inner rod is slidably received within the outer rod of the lower arm assembly and the second end of the inner rod is secured to the {handle portion} (See Fig. 2, “The length of the outer distal limb tube 210, and inner distal limb tube 220, are adjustable to provide for specific patient limb length”; [0074]).
Regarding Claim 15, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 14.
Scott in view of Brenner fails to explicitly teach wherein the inner rod is non-rotatably secured to the outer rod.
However, Forsberg teaches wherein the inner rod is non-rotatably secured to the outer rod (See Fig. 3, “profiled tube 17 is non-rotationally mounted on both the innermost of the outer tubes 8 of the leg assembly”; [0037]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Scott in view of Brenner (directed to an assistive positioning device with slidable tubes) and Forsberg (directed to a non-rotational slidable leg assembly for tables) and arrived at an assistive positioning device with non-rotational slidable tubes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (adding the grooves and projections to the tubes) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions (tubes would still slide) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the tubes would still slide, however would not rotate relative to each other).
Regarding Claim 20, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 13.
Scott in view of Brenner fails to explicitly teach wherein the upper arm assembly further comprises: at least one pair of guide tracks defining an elongated groove, the at least one pair of guide tracks extending along an inner surface of the outer rod parallel to a longitudinal center axis of the outer rod; and at least one projection extending outwardly from an outer surface of the inner rod, the at least one projection being slidably received in the elongated groove so that the inner rod is non-rotatable with respect to the outer rod.
However, Forsberg teaches wherein the upper arm assembly further comprises: at least one pair of guide tracks defining an elongated groove (See Fig. 3, grooves 21 and 22), the at least one pair of guide tracks extending along an inner surface of the outer rod parallel to a longitudinal center axis of the outer rod (See Fig. 2 and 3, grooves 21 and 22 extending along the inner surface parallel to the center axis); and at least one projection extending outwardly from an outer surface of the inner rod (See Fig. 3, projections 24), the at least one projection being slidably received in the elongated groove so that the inner rod is non-rotatable with respect to the outer rod (See Fig. 3, projections 24 received by grooves 22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Scott in view of Brenner (directed to an assistive positioning device with slidable tubes) and Forsberg (directed to a non-rotational slidable leg assembly for tables) and arrived at an assistive positioning device with non-rotational slidable tubes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (adding the grooves and projections to the tubes) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions (tubes would still slide) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the tubes would still slide, however would not rotate relative to each other).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 20120318278 A1) in view of Brenner (US 20190201258 A1), in view of Forsberg (US 20020043597 A1), further in view of Di Lauro (US 201000192302 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 8.
Scott in view of Brenner in view of Forsberg fails to explicitly teach wherein the lower arm assembly further comprises a cam lock that is configured to non-slidably fix the inner rod with respect to the outer rod.
However, Di Lauro teaches wherein the lower arm assembly further comprises a cam lock that is configured to non-slidably fix the inner rod with respect to the outer rod (See Fig. 1, locking means 58 extends through a collar 52 fixing tubes 50 and 51).
PNG
media_image7.png
482
639
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Scott in view of Brenner in view of Forsberg by adding the locking means taught by Di Lauro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to secure the extension pole”; (Di Lauro, [0076]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Scott, as modified, teaches the assistive positioning device (positioning system 100) of claim 9.
Scott in view of Brenner in view of Forsberg fails to explicitly teach wherein the cam lock further comprises a first portion secured to the second end of the outer rod of the lower arm assembly of the upper arm assembly and a second portion rotatably secured to the first portion of the cam lock, and wherein the second portion of the cam lock is rotatable between a first position in which the inner rod is slidable with respect to the outer rod, and a second position in which the inner rod is non-slidably fixed with respect to the outer rod.
However, Di Lauro teaches wherein the cam lock further comprises a first portion secured to the second end of the outer rod of the lower arm assembly of the upper arm assembly and a second portion rotatably secured to the first portion of the cam lock, and wherein the second portion of the cam lock is rotatable between a first position in which the inner rod is slidable with respect to the outer rod, and a second position in which the inner rod is non-slidably fixed with respect to the outer rod (See Fig. 1, applicant claims the inherent features of a cam-lock assembly, rotation of locking means 58 would tighten the collar 52 around tube 51 rendering the tube non-slidably fixed with respect to tube 50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Scott in view of Brenner in view of Forsberg by adding the locking means taught by Di Lauro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to secure the extension pole”; (Di Lauro, [0076]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200121536 A1: Senska discloses a limb positioning system comprising an adjustable length inner rod within an outer rod, lockable by a lever.
US 20150059097 A1: Weaver discloses a surgical table arm support assembly comprising a rigid support plate slidable onto a mount plate and non-rotatable due to grooves and projections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights