DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed 4/29/2026. Currently, claims 1-10 are pending in the application. Claims 11-20 are cancelled by Applicant.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes legal phraseology, which is not permitted. The phrase “comprised of” should be removed from the abstract to avoid this error. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a connector,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to correct a typographical error, “a-support assembly” in line 2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---a support assembly---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “a patient’s arm” in line 2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the patient’s arm---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), all recitations of “the tray” (recited twice) should be amended to recite ---the arm tray---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), “the liner” in line 4 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the arm support liner---. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,792,182 (Sanders ‘182). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reason(s):
Claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of Sanders ‘182 claim 1 both disclose an arm tray comprising: a connector for connecting the arm tray to the support assembly, and an opening for securement of an arm support liner to the arm tray; and the arm support liner comprising: a sheet of malleable material with an engagement surface, and a foldout tab aligned with the opening of the arm tray for securing the arm support liner to the arm tray by folding the foldout tab through the opening and thereafter against a bottom side of the arm tray.
Claim 3 of the instant application is substantially identical to claim 4 of Sanders ‘182.
Claim 4 of the instant application and claim 5 of and Sanders ‘182 both disclose the engagement surface comprising a plastic sponge foam.
Claim 5 of the instant application and claim 2 of Sanders ‘182 both disclose a hand grip post extending transversely away from a top side of the tray, wherein the arm support liner comprises a corresponding aperture aligned with the hand grip post for passage of the hand grip post therethrough when the liner is secured to the tray.
Claim 6 of the instant application is substantially identical to claim 3 of Sanders ‘182.
Claim 7 of the instant application is substantially identical to claim 6 of Sanders ‘182.
Claims 2 and 8-10 depend on claim 1 and therefore, are also rejected.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,865,028 (Sanders ‘028). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reason(s):
Claims 1-10 of the instant application are identical to subject matter included in claims 1-10 of Sanders ‘028.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,290,465 (Sanders ‘465). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reason(s):
Claims 1-10 of the instant application are identical to claims 1-10 of Sanders ‘465.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if Applicant files Terminal Disclaimer(s) and/or amends the claims to overcome the double patenting rejections and the claim objection(s), set forth in this Office action. Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach an arm retainer for supporting a patient’s arm at a desired position on a support assembly that includes an arm tray with an opening for securement of an arm support liner to the arm tray; and an arm support lining having a foldout tab aligned with the opening of the arm tray for securing the arm support liner to the arm tray by folding the foldout tab through the opening and thereafter against a bottom side of the arm tray, in combination with the other element(s) of the claim(s). Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and therefore, would also be allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM 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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 5/6/2026
Prosecution Insights