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 filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 35 was not rejected in the non-final rejection of 12/1/2025. The instant action is non-final.
Examiner thanks applicant for cancellation of claim 23.
Regarding the assertion of hindsight rejection of claim 1 as argued on page 13, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant asserts that the replacement of a bearing of Hsiao with the restraining mechanism of Yoo Yen has no motivation. Sheldon discloses the use of a caster having a single bearing on the vertical spindle, with a damper g pushing on the spindle for frictional purposes. Applicant does not argue or mention the teaching of Sheldon. Therefore, examiner contends replacing the lower damper of Hsiao with the damper of Yoo Yen acting on the spindle of the caster of Hsiao, is the same as shown in applicant’s figure 20. Yoo Yen uses the spring and damping block 120 to push the spindle 210 against the bottom of groove 103 “so that a stable close contact can be achieved without mutual slip” “while it does not interfere with the rotation of the wheel shaft 210 it serves to suppress the flow int eh transverse direction”, as well as “configured to be tightly locked to the lower portion of the tension support”. This is identical in function to applicant’s claimed damping block 244d and spring 245d “to push the spindle along the lateral direction of the spindle so as to restrain a rotation of the spindle component along the horizontal direction for restraining a shimmy movement” (bottom of applicant’s specification page 21). Further, examiner has gone so far as to show the old and well known use of a bearing and a perpendicular damping device on a caster is old and well known in Sheldon. Applicant’s argument for “no motivation” is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the removal of Hsiao lower bearing to replace with the Yoo Yen damper creates a gap; examiner notes that the purpose of the Yoo Yen damper is to push a rotating spindle within a gap to abut the other edge; identical to applicant's disclosed function.
Applicant asserts that the removal of one bearing prevents the rotation of the Hsiao spindle; examiner notes that only one bearing is required for allowing rotation of Hsiao spindle, please see applicant’s figure 20.
Applicant argues the spindle of Hsiao is not “fixedly connected to the connecting base” because applicant asserts “there is no direct connection between shaft 4 and leg 1”, which applicant does not claim. Further, Hsiao discloses the spindle of Hsiao is fixed within the connecting base in that it is not removable from the exterior without disassembly. Should applicant intend non-rotatable connection, this is not what applicant has claimed.
Regarding the “recess disposed on the spindle”, this is taught in Yoo Yen, not Hsiao.
Regarding the assertion that “bearing seat 522 in Hsiao cannot be equated to the damping block”, examiner notes that it is not. The lower bearing seat 522 is removed to apply the damping block of Yoo Yen, while retaining upper bearing 521. The function of the known damping block and its purpose for engaging a rotating spindle (to push against another surface) is taught in Yoo Yen.
Regarding the mounting component, Hsiao discloses the use of a nut, instead of the desired plate and screw, which is taught by Yoo Yen. Examiner notes that the use of a threaded connector to retain the lower damper 522 in its location is old and well known in the art; Yoo Yen discloses the damper and mounting component with screw identical to the disclosure. Applicant does not require the mounting component to be a plate until claim 35.
Applicant does not claim the spindle and fastening component are separate.
Hsiao discloses the location of a friction management device (bearing) to abutting the spindle and within a space of the mounting component and held onto by a lower threaded connector. Yoo Yen discloses the use of a friction management device (damper with spring) to abutting the spindle can be located in a similar location.
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 1 connected 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 35, Hsiao as modified discloses the anti-shimmy device of claim 1, wherein the mounting component is a nut 55, and does not comprise a plate. Hsiao does not disclose the use of a plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a plate/washer as is old and well known in the art to separate the nut 55 from the things attached to the spindle, as is old and well known. For example, see Yoo Yen figures 3 and 4. Examiner notes that the inclusion of a plate as like a washer, or replacing the nut with the plate and screws as taught by Yoo Yen, is an obvious variant of the known connector already taught by Hsiao.
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 38, 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 the 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 another 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
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
Prosecution Insights