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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 21-24, 36-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 23, applicant requires “spindle is rotatable connected to the other one of the connecting base and the wheel base by the mounting component”. Claim 1 already requires “spindle… rotatably connected to the other one of the connecting base and the wheel base” as well as “mounting component contacting a side surface of the damping block”. Examiner notes that claim 23 does not further limit the structure of the device of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 , 21-24, 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2004/0107534 Hsiao, in view of KR102178480 Yoo Yen, in further view of 137728 Sheldon.
Regarding claim 1:
Hsiao discloses an anti-shimmy device (figure 3) comprising:
a connecting base 1connected to a frame of a child carrier (as a patient in a hospital, [0004]);
a wheel base 51 connected to a wheel 5 of the child carrier;
a spindle 4 fixedly connected to the connecting base 1 (using the chamfered section of the spindle of figure 1) and rotatably connected to the wheel base;
PNG
media_image1.png
438
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
350
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a restraining mechanism 54 disposed between the spindle 4 and the wheel base 51 to contact the spindle (as shown in figure 3) to restrain a lateral shimmy movement of the wheel base relative to the connecting base (by providing a rotating bearing feature), the restraining mechanism comprising:
a damping block 522 disposed on a side of the spindle 4 to push the spindle along the lateral direction of the spindle (by compression); and
a mounting component 55 removably coupled (using threading, “screw nut 55” [0055]) through at least one fastening component (threaded end 421) to the wheel base 51, the damping block 522 being disposed inside a space defined between the mounting component 55 and the wheel base 51, and the mounting component 55 contacting a side surface of the damping block 522 (figure 3).
Hsiao does not disclose the use of a recess on the spindle, with the damping block being movable with a “concave arc-shaped protrusion” configured to engage that recess.
Yoo Yen discloses a caster having a wheel base 100 and a spindle 210, a recess 211 on the spindle, a restraining mechanism (spring 110 and damping block 120) disposed between spindle 210 and
PNG
media_image3.png
269
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wheel base 100 to contact the spindle 211 to restrain a lateral shimmy movement of the wheel base relative to the connecting base (“so that stable close contact can be achieved without mutual slip”… “serves to suppress the flow in the transverse direction”), comprising a damping block 120 disposed on a side of the spindle 210 and movable relative to the spindle along a lateral direction of the spindle to push the spindle along the lateral direction of the spindle (“suppress the flow in the transverse direction”), the damping block comprising a concave arc-shaped protrusion configured to engage the recess on the spindle (as shown in figure 7 of Yoo Yen).
Sheldon teaches a caster wheel with a vertical spindle e using bearing wheels d and a pin g engaging a groove in the spindle e, in order to “prevent from becoming detached from the socket” (column 2, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the movable damping block with the protrusion and groove in the spindle as taught by Yoo Yen, in place of the lower bearing of Hsiao, as this is an old and well known mechanism (spring biased damping block with protrusion, used in a spindle groove) used to attach the known spindle 4 of Hsiao to attach to the wheel base 51 of Hsiao, in the old and well known manner of Yoo Yen. Examiner contends that applying this to any rotating spindle within a body, such as the vertical rotating spindle of Hsiao, as is old and well known in the art taught by Sheldon in conjunction with a bearing. Examiner contends that applying a an old and well known redundant manner of attachment of the spindle to the wheel base does not affect the form, function, or use, of the Hsiao caster. Hsiao retains the use of one caster, and has a nut 55 as well as the spindle connecting mechanism of Yoo Yen, as suggested by Sheldon.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 21, Hsiao as modified discloses the anti-shimmy device of claim 1, characterized in that the damping block (120 of Yoo Yen) is movably disposed on the wheel base (in the location of the lower bearing of Hsiao, as suggested by Sheldon), and the restraining mechanism further comprises a recovering component (spring 110 of Yoo Yen) disposed between the damping block 120 and the wheel base for driving the damping block to push the spindle along the lateral direction of the spindle to restrain lateral movement of the spindle (as taught in Yoo Yen and Sheldon).
Regarding claim 22, Hsiao as modified discloses the anti-shimmy device of claim 21, characterized in that the restraining mechanism further comprises at least one positioning column (stem on the opposite side of the protrusion 121, as annotated in Yoo Yen fig. 7) fixedly disposed on the damping block, and the recovering component 110 is sleeved on the at least one positioning column (figure 8 of Yoo Yen).
Regarding claim 23, Hsiao as modified discloses the anti-shimmy device of claim 1, wherein the spindle (4 of Hsiao with the groove of Yoo Yen) is rotatably connected to the wheel base 51 (as previously claimed in claim 1) by the mounting component 55 (as mounting component 55 contacts a side of the damping block, and the damping block’s purpose is connecting the two parts). Further, Hsiao also uses the mounting component direction engaging the spindle 4 in figure 3. Please see 112d rejection above. The spindle is already claimed to be rotatably connected to these parts, and abutting the mounting component.
Regarding claim 37, Hsiao as modified discloses the anti-shimmy device of claim 1, wherein the at least one fastening component 421 comprises at least one screw (threaded post 421 of Hsiao).
Regarding claim 38, Hsiao as modified discloses the anti-shimmy device of claim 1, wherein the mounting component 55 is removably coupled to the wheel base 51 adjacent an axial end face of the spindle 4 (as shown in figure 3 of Hsiao).
Regarding claim 39, Hsiao as modified discloses the anti-shimmy device of claim 1, wherein the mounting component 55 extends perpendicular to an axis of the spindle 4 (mounting component 55 has a diameter that extends perpendicular to the axis of the spindle, figure 3 of Hsiao).
Claim(s) 24, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao in view of Yoo Yen, in further view of Sheldon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 8844096 Zhu.
Regarding claim 24, Hsiao as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but does not include a buffering component between the wheel 5 and wheel base 51 of Hsiao.
Zhu discloses a caster device having a rotating spindle 10 allowing rotation of the wheel around a leg of a stroller, further comprises a buffering component (spring, figure 7) disposed between the wheel (biasing against he axle of the wheel) and the wheel base (as shown in figure 7), and the buffering component (spring) and the spindle 10 are arranged in parallel (figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a known buffering mechanism as taught by Zhu to a similar caster of Hsiao, to allow for a smother ride of the of the patient carrying device of Hsiao (column 3 line 51 of Zhu). Examiner notes that the inclusion of the buffering mechanism of Zhu does not affect the stem or the other stem related features of Hsiao as modified, but merely changes how the patient carrying device of Hsiao provides a known device to make the ride of Hsiao smoother.
Regarding claim 36, Hsiao as modified discloses the anti-shimmy device of claim 24, wherein the buffering component is a spring (as shown in figure 7 of Zhu).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677