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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07-Jan-2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07-Jan-2025 are accepted.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallinant (US 1,861,958) in view of Mayer et al. (US 6,269,898).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gallinant discloses a plate assembly (22, 25) for use with a wheel lock system attached to a wheelchair (see page 1, lines 1-5), said wheelchair having a wheel (see FIG. 1, page 2, lines 9-18), said wheel comprising a hub (14) and a plurality of spokes (see page 1, lines 81-83) extending generally radially from said hub (see FIGS. 1, 3), wheel lock system comprising a lock-pin (35) positioned in a body proximate said wheel (see FIGS. 3, 4), said lock-pin positioned and oriented to move between a first position in which said lock- pin extends from said body toward said wheel and a second position in which said lock- pin retracts toward said body from said wheel (note: claim is directed toward a plate assembly and not the wheel lock system – therefore, the lock-pin extending and retracting within a body is not a required element of the claim), said plate assembly comprising: a. a substantially rigid and generally flat first plate (22) (see FIGS. 3, 4), said first plate configured to attach to said wheel about said hub (14) proximate said lock-pin (see FIGS. 3, 4), said first plate comprising a first engagement element (24), said first engagement element engaging said lock-pin when said lock-pin is situated in its said first position (see FIG. 4) and said first plate is positioned about said hub so as to orient said first engagement element with said lock-pin (see FIG. 4); b. a substantially rigid and generally flat second plate (25), said second plate being shaped and sized to mate with and attach to said first plate (see FIG. 3); and c. a plurality of fasteners (26), said fasteners configured to collectively attach said second plate to said first plate (see FIGS. 3, 4).
Gallinant does not disclose that said first and second plates being configured to mate to each other from opposing sides of said wheel and to collectively form a plurality of generally radially-oriented elongated tubular channels therebetween, each of said channels being configured and positioned between said first and second plates to substantially conform to one of a cross-sectional shape of said one of said spokes and a directional orientation relative to said wheel of said one of said spokes so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a generally radial direction at least in part said one of said spokes.
Mayer teaches a plate assembly (203, 236) for use with a spoked wheel (see FIGS. 3, 7-9) comprising a first plate (203) and a second plate (236), said first and second plates being configured to mate to each other from opposing sides of said wheel (see FIGS. 3, 9) and to collectively form a plurality of generally radially-oriented elongated tubular channels (220) therebetween (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9), each of said channels being configured and positioned between said first and second plates to substantially conform to one of a cross-sectional shape of said one of said spokes and a directional orientation relative to said wheel of said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9) so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a generally radial direction at least in part said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9).
It would have been obvious to configure the plate assembly of Gallinant to have a plurality of a generally radially-oriented elongated tubular channels to provide the plate assembly with a rugged construction suitable to receive torque loads imposed upon the plate assembly (see Mayer, col. 13, lines 51-55), thereby preventing slipping between the plate assembly and the wheel.
Regarding claim 3, Mayer teaches that one of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part one of said channels (see col. 10, lines 31-37).
Regarding independent claim 9, Gallinant discloses a plate assembly (22, 25) for use with a wheel lock system attached to a wheelchair (see page 1, lines 1-5), said wheelchair having a wheel (see FIG. 1, page 2, lines 9-18), said wheel comprising a hub (14) and a plurality of spokes (see page 1, lines 81-83) extending generally radially from said hub (see FIGS. 1, 3), wheel lock system comprising a lock-pin (35) positioned in a body proximate said wheel (see FIGS. 3, 4), said lock-pin positioned and oriented to move between a first position in which said lock- pin extends from said body toward said wheel and a second position in which said lock- pin retracts toward said body from said wheel (note: claim is directed toward a plate assembly and not the wheel lock system – therefore, the lock-pin extending and retracting within a body is not a required element of the claim), said plate assembly comprising: a. a substantially rigid and generally flat first plate (22) (see FIGS. 3, 4), said first plate configured to attach to said wheel about said hub (14) proximate said lock-pin (see FIGS. 3, 4), said first plate comprising a first engagement element (24), said first engagement element engaging said lock-pin when said lock-pin is situated in its said first position (see FIG. 4) and said first plate is positioned about said hub so as to orient said first engagement element with said lock-pin (see FIG. 4); b. a substantially rigid and generally flat second plate (25), said second plate being shaped and sized to mate with and attach to said first plate (see FIG. 3); and c. a plurality of fasteners (26), said fasteners configured to collectively attach said second plate to said first plate (see FIGS. 3, 4).
Gallinant does not disclose that said first and second plates being configured to mate to each other from opposing sides of said wheel and to collectively form a plurality of generally radially-oriented elongated tubular channels therebetween, each of said channels being configured and positioned between said first and second plates to substantially conform to one of a cross-sectional shape of said one of said spokes and a directional orientation relative to said wheel of said one of said spokes so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a generally radial direction at least in part said one of said spokes, wherein one of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part one of said channels.
Mayer teaches a plate assembly (203, 236) for use with a spoked wheel (see FIGS. 3, 7-9) comprising a first plate (203) and a second plate (236), said first and second plates being configured to mate to each other from opposing sides of said wheel (see FIGS. 3, 9) and to collectively form a plurality of generally radially-oriented elongated tubular channels (220) therebetween (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9), each of said channels being configured and positioned between said first and second plates to substantially conform to one of a cross-sectional shape of said one of said spokes and a directional orientation relative to said wheel of said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9) so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a generally radial direction at least in part said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9), wherein one of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part one of said channels (see col. 10, lines 31-37).
It would have been obvious to configure the plate assembly of Gallinant to have a plurality of a generally radially-oriented elongated tubular channels to provide the plate assembly with a rugged construction suitable to receive torque loads imposed upon the plate assembly (see Mayer, col. 13, lines 51-55), thereby preventing slipping between the plate assembly and the wheel.
Regarding claim 10, Gallinant discloses that the other of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part said one of said channels (see page 2, lines 14-18; split washer implies a pliable material since the purpose of the split washer is allow insertion inside of the wheel).
Claims 1-3 and 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figures 10-12 of the present application (see page 5, line 19 to page 6, line 6) in view of Mayer et al. (US 6,269,898).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 10-12 of the present application disclose a plate assembly (E10) for use with a wheel lock system attached to a wheelchair (see page 5, line 19 to page 6, line 6), said wheelchair having a wheel comprising a hub (H) and a plurality of spokes (S) extending generally radially from said hub (note: these elements of the preamble are interpreted as not being positively required), said wheel lock system comprising a lock-pin positioned in a body proximate said wheel (note: these elements of the preamble are interpreted as not being positively required), said lock-pin positioned and oriented to move between a first position in which said lock-pin extends from said body toward said wheel and a second position in which said lock-pin retracts toward said body from said wheel (note: these elements of the preamble are interpreted as not being positively required), said plate assembly comprising:
a. a substantially rigid and generally flat first plate (E12), said first plate configured to attach to said wheel about said hub proximate said lock- pin, said first plate comprising a first engagement element (E16), said first engagement element engaging said lock-pin when said lock-pin is situated in its said first position and said first plate is positioned about said hub so as to orient said engagement element with said lock-pin (see FIGS. 10-12);
b. a substantially rigid and generally flat second plate (E14), said second plate being shaped and sized to mate with and attach to said first plate (see FIGS. 10-12); and
c. a plurality of fasteners (E20), said fasteners configured to collectively attach said second plate to said first plate (see FIGS. 10-12);
said first and second plates mating each other on opposing sides of said wheel (see FIGS. 10-12) and to collectively form a plurality of radially-oriented elongated channels (E22) therebetween (see FIG. 10), each of said channels being configured to conform to a directional orientation relative to said wheel of said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 10, 11).
Figures 10-12 of the present application do not disclose that each of said channels being tubular so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a radial direction at least in part said one of said spokes.
Mayer teaches a plate assembly (203, 236) for use with a spoked wheel (see FIGS. 3, 7-9) comprising a first plate (203) and a second plate (236), said first and second plates being configured to mate to each other from opposing sides of said wheel (see FIGS. 3, 9) and to collectively form a plurality of generally radially-oriented elongated tubular channels (220) therebetween (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9), each of said channels being configured and positioned between said first and second plates to substantially conform to one of a cross-sectional shape of said one of said spokes and a directional orientation relative to said wheel of said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9) so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a generally radial direction at least in part said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9), wherein one of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part one of said channels (see col. 10, lines 31-37).
It would have been obvious to configure the channels of Figures 10-12 of the present application to be tubular so as to circumferentially and snugly receive the spokes to provide the plate assembly with a rugged construction suitable to receive torque loads imposed upon the plate assembly (see Mayer, col. 13, lines 51-55), thereby preventing slipping between the plate assembly and the wheel.
Regarding claim 2, Figures 10-12 of the present application disclose that said wheel further has a nipple, said nipple engaging said one of said spokes (see FIG. 11), said one of said channels being further configured to substantially conform at least in part to an orientation of said nipple relative to said wheel so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a radial direction relative to said wheel at least in part said one of said spokes and at least in part said nipple (see FIG. 11).
Neither Figures 10-12 of the present application nor Mayer discloses that the spoke and nipple are received in one of said channels along a collective length greater than one quarter inch. However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A). There is no evidence on the record that a groove receiving a spoke and nipple in the length greater than a quarter of an inch would perform and differently than the prior devices. As such, the claimed length does not provide any patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Mayer teaches that one of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part one of said channels (see col. 10, lines 31-37).
Regarding independent claim 9, Figures 10-12 of the present application disclose a plate assembly (E10) for use with a wheel lock system attached to a wheelchair (see page 5, line 19 to page 6, line 6), said wheelchair having a wheel comprising a hub (H) and a plurality of spokes (S) extending generally radially from said hub (note: these elements of the preamble are interpreted as not being positively required), said wheel lock system comprising a lock-pin positioned in a body proximate said wheel (note: these elements of the preamble are interpreted as not being positively required), said lock-pin positioned and oriented to move between a first position in which said lock-pin extends from said body toward said wheel and a second position in which said lock-pin retracts toward said body from said wheel (note: these elements of the preamble are interpreted as not being positively required), said plate assembly comprising:
a. a substantially rigid and generally flat first plate (E12), said first plate configured to attach to said wheel about said hub proximate said lock- pin, said first plate comprising a first engagement element (E16), said first engagement element engaging said lock-pin when said lock-pin is situated in its said first position and said first plate is positioned about said hub so as to orient said engagement element with said lock-pin (see FIGS. 10-12);
b. a substantially rigid and generally flat second plate (E14), said second plate being shaped and sized to mate with and attach to said first plate (see FIGS. 10-12); and
c. a plurality of fasteners (E20), said fasteners configured to collectively attach said second plate to said first plate (see FIGS. 10-12);
said first and second plates mating each other on opposing sides of said wheel (see FIGS. 10-12) and to collectively form a plurality of radially-oriented elongated channels (E22) therebetween (see FIG. 10), each of said channels being configured to conform to a directional orientation relative to said wheel of said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 10, 11).
Figures 10-12 of the present application do not disclose that each of said channels being tubular so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a radial direction at least in part said one of said spokes or that one of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part one of said channels.
Mayer teaches a plate assembly (203, 236) for use with a spoked wheel (see FIGS. 3, 7-9) comprising a first plate (203) and a second plate (236), said first and second plates being configured to mate to each other from opposing sides of said wheel (see FIGS. 3, 9) and to collectively form a plurality of generally radially-oriented elongated tubular channels (220) therebetween (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9), each of said channels being configured and positioned between said first and second plates to substantially conform to one of a cross-sectional shape of said one of said spokes and a directional orientation relative to said wheel of said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9) so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a generally radial direction at least in part said one of said spokes (see FIGS. 3, 5(c), 9), wherein one of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part one of said channels (see col. 10, lines 31-37) wherein one of said first and second plates comprises a pliant material forming at least in part one of said channels (see col. 10, lines 31-37).
It would have been obvious to configure the channels of Figures 10-12 of the present application to be tubular so as to circumferentially and snugly receive the spokes to provide the plate assembly with a rugged construction suitable to receive torque loads imposed upon the plate assembly (see Mayer, col. 13, lines 51-55), thereby preventing slipping between the plate assembly and the wheel.
Regarding claim 12, Figures 10-12 of the present application disclose that said wheel further has a nipple, said nipple engaging said one of said spokes (see FIG. 11), said one of said channels being further configured to substantially conform at least in part to an orientation of said nipple relative to said wheel so as to circumferentially and snugly receive therein along a radial direction relative to said wheel at least in part said one of said spokes and at least in part said nipple (see FIG. 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 are allowed.
Claims 4-6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached on (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
March 27, 2025
Prosecution Insights