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 7/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the amendments distinguish claims 3 and 17. Examiner thanks applicant.
Examiner thanks applicant for clarifying amendments; 112 rejections are mooted.
Applicant now positively includes a “sidewall” of both caps, and a “closed end wall” of both caps. Applicant contends these are disclosed; these terms have not been included in the specification, not in the [0031]-[0034] cited by applicant, and these terms do not have part numbers. Applicant’s only disclosed “walls” are “wall 74” and “wall 78”, which, based on figure 4 (which includes only part 74, not 78), and figure 6 (which includes only part 78, which seems to point to the end of the stem, not a wall as indicated in figure 4), is indefinite. 78 in figure 7 seems to indicate the spring. Examiner notes that the “wall” 74/78 does not seem to be either the newly claimed “sidewall” or “closed end wall”. Examiner has included a 112a rejection and drawing objections below. Examiner assumes that the “sidewall” is that which is shown as part 74 in figure 4, and that the “closed end wall” might be the wall that abuts the spring 72. If this is correct, applicant is directed to include appropriate indications in the drawings, and include these part numbers AND names in the specification.
Applicant asserts the use of sidewall and closed end wall is not shown in any of the cited references. Examiner has included a screenshot of Chang’s cap having sidewalls and closed end walls, as assumed, as well as Golding, which shows end caps 27/28 on either side of a spring 26, all of which are threaded on a spindle 23 of a caster, shown in figure 4. These end caps have the structure of a side wall and an end wall, which create the receiver, as clearly shown in figure 2. Applicant’s mere statement of patentability is not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sidewalls and “closed end wall” of the independent claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Applicant claims the caps have “sidewalls” and “closed end walls”, which are not terms in the specification. Examiner notes that the caps do have a structure that could be related to these terms, however the applicant has only disclosed the use of “wall 74/78”, which are not accurately shown in the drawings, as discussed in the arguments above. Examiner has assumed that these parts are shown, however, they are not positively indicated by applicant in a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand. Examiner has included a screenshot of figure 6 with examiner’s assumed parts “sidewalls” and “closed end walls”.
Applicant claims the “closed end wall abutting the stop”. Examiner notes that the stop is part 60, which according to figure 6, only abuts the assumed sidewall. Examiner assumes that applicant intends to claim that the stop abuts the sidewall as shown in figure 6. Examiner notes that since applicant claims the spring abuts the “closed end walls”, that it is impossible for the stop to also engage the closed end wall, according to applicant’s drawings.
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) 1-4, 6-10, 12-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2017/0087043 Chang in view of 3334230 Golding.
Examiner notes that all claims will be treated from broadest to narrowest.
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses an anti-oscillation (applicant has not associated any particular feature of the mechanism with “oscillation”, therefore, “anti-oscillation” is an intended function of the structure claimed. Examiner contends that the structure below meets the claimed structure, and therefore meets the claimed intended function) mechanism (detailed in figure 2) for a caster wheel assembly 2 of a vehicle, the anti-oscillating mechanism comprising:
a stop 33 within (extends into the hollow area 12 of frame 11) a frame 11 of the vehicle (assumed to be wheeled device, which is the walking aid);
a first cap 32 having a sidewall (circumferential wall, as assumed, please see annotated figure 4) connected to a closed end wall (see annotated figure 4), the closed end wall (examiner assumes the sidewall, as shown in applicant’s figure 6) abutting the stop 33 (at the threaded hole)
a bias member 13 having a first end (top of figure 2) and a second end (bottom), the first end engaging the sidewall of the first cap 32 and the second end engaging the caster stem 221, the bias member exerting a force on the caster stem 221 to push the caster wheel assembly toward a ground to help prevent a wheel of the caster wheel assembly from oscillating (spring 13 is a compression spring configured to “lift the hat portion 32” [0029], meaning it is configured to expand to push the hat portion 32 up, and the caster stem 221 down).
PNG
media_image2.png
465
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chang discloses that the spring 13 directly abuts the caster stem 221, as best shown in figures 3 and 4; and Chang discloses the spring engages the sidewall, not the closed end wall. Chang does not disclose an intermediary “second cap” between the stem 221 and the spring 13. Chang does not disclose that the spring engages the closed end wall of the first/upper cap.
PNG
media_image3.png
733
445
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Golding discloses a caster assembly having a stem 23, a “vehicle” (baby walker, figure 1) having legs 15, the combination also including “an anti-oscillation mechanism” comprising a stop 24, first cap 27 with a sidewall and closed end wall creating a first receiver (hollow interior, figure 2) aligned along the stem 23, a second cap 28 having a sidewall and closed end wall creating a second receiver (hollow interior, figure 2) aligned along the stem 23, and a bias member 26, with ends within the receivers of the first and second caps (as shown in figure 2), the bias member is biased to separate the first 27 and second 28 caps. Caps are called “concentric spring seat cups” column 3 line 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a second cap, like that taught in Golding, to a similar caster with a compression spring abutting a caster assembly, such as that taught in Chang, in order to “seat” the spring of Chang into a “cup”, and ensure that the spring would not misalign with the hollow caster stem 221 of Chang. Examiner contends that the bottom end of Chang
PNG
media_image4.png
343
435
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
333
395
media_image5.png
Greyscale
applies a spring force to the upper edge of the caster stem 221 with or without the second cap of Golding. Therefore, since the second cap of Golding is considered optional, and is known in the art to be included in caster assemblies, that the use or absence of the second cap is an obvious variation of Chang, and does not affect the form, function, or use, of Chang. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts (abutting surface of the caster stem or the cup/second cap abutting the caster stem) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
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 7, Chang as modified discloses the anti-oscillation mechanism of claim 6, wherein the sidewall and the closed end wall of the first cap 32 defines a first receiver (hollow interior shown in Golding) and wherein the first end (upper end) of the bias 13 member is positioned within the first receiver (as shown in Golding).
Regarding claim 8, Chang as modified discloses the anti-oscillation mechanism of claim 6, wherein sidewall and the closed end wall of the second cap (not included in Chang, but is taught to be included by Golding) defines a second receiver (hollow area as shown in Golding figure 2) and wherein the second end of the bias member (13 in Chang, 26 in Golding) is positioned within the second receiver (as shown in figure 2 of Golding).
Regarding claim 9, Chang as modified discloses the anti-oscillation mechanism of claim 6, wherein the first cap (32 of Chang), second cap (28 of Golding) and bias member (13 of Chang) are all located within the opening in the frame 11 of the ride-on vehicle (all parts are interior of leg/frame 11).
Regarding claim 10, Chang as modified discloses the anti-oscillation mechanism of claim 6, wherein the bias member 13 is a compression spring (as shown in figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Chang as modified discloses the anti-oscillation mechanism of claim 6, wherein a hole (figure 2) is provided in the frame 11, and wherein the stop 33 is positioned within the hole in the frame (as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Chang as modified discloses the anti-oscillation mechanism of claim 6, wherein the stop 33 provides an upper limit for the anti-oscillation mechanism within the opening in the frame (as shown between figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, applicant’s claim preamble language, as well as the language regarding the first cap, second cap, and bias member are identical. Examiner notes that instead of claims 6’s “a stop within a frame of the vehicle”, claim 14 states “a stop extending through a hole in a frame of the vehicle and extending within an opening in the frame”. Examiner contends that Chang discloses stop 33 extending through a hole (figure 2) in the frame 11 of the “ride on vehicle” and extending within an opening 12 in the frame. Examiner notes that the end of the fixing screw 33 extends through a hole in the frame 11, and into the hollow core 12 of the frame 11, so that it can engage the first cap 32 in the manner shown in figure 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected in the same manner as claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, please see claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, please see claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, please see claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, please see claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, please see claim 13.
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an anti-oscillation (applicant has not associated any particular feature of the mechanism with “oscillation”, therefore, “anti-oscillation” is an intended function of the structure claimed. Examiner contends that the structure below meets the claimed structure, and therefore meets the claimed intended function) mechanism (detailed in figure 2) for a caster wheel assembly 2 of a vehicle, the anti-oscillating mechanism comprising:
a stop 33 provided within (extends into the hollow area 12 of frame 11) an opening in a frame 11 of the vehicle (assumed to be wheeled device, which is the walking aid);
a first cap 32 having a sidewall (circumferential wall, as assumed, please see annotated figure 4) connected to a closed end wall to define a first receiver (which receives the spindle, see annotated figure 4), the closed end wall (examiner assumes the sidewall, as shown in applicant’s figure 6) abutting the stop 33 (at the threaded hole), the first cap being located within the opening in the frame 11 (as shown in Chang figure 4);
a bias member 13 having a first end (top of figure 2) and a second end (bottom), the bias member being located within the opening in the frame 11 (as shown in figure 4), the first end engaging the sidewall of the first cap 32 and the second end engaging the caster stem 221, the bias member exerting a force on the caster stem 221 to push the caster wheel assembly toward a ground to help prevent a wheel of the caster wheel assembly from oscillating (spring 13 is a compression spring configured to “lift the hat portion 32” [0029], meaning it is configured to expand to push the hat portion 32 up, and the caster stem 221 down).
Chang discloses that the spring 13 directly abuts the caster stem 221, as best shown in figures 3 and 4; and Chang discloses the spring engages the sidewall, not the closed end wall. Chang does not disclose an intermediary “second cap” between the stem 221 and the spring 13. Chang does not disclose that the spring engages the closed end wall of the first/upper cap.
Golding discloses a caster assembly having a stem 23, a “vehicle” (baby walker, figure 1) having legs 15, the combination also including “an anti-oscillation mechanism” comprising a stop 24, first cap 27 with a sidewall and closed end wall creating a first receiver (hollow interior, figure 2) aligned along the stem 23, a second cap 28 having a sidewall and closed end wall creating a second receiver (hollow interior, figure 2) aligned along the stem 23, and a bias member 26, with ends within the receivers of the first and second caps (as shown in figure 2), the bias member is biased to separate the first 27 and second 28 caps. Caps are called “concentric spring seat cups” column 3 line 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a second cap, like that taught in Golding, to a similar caster with a compression spring abutting a caster assembly, such as that taught in Chang, in order to “seat” the spring of Chang into a “cup”, and ensure that the spring would not misalign with the hollow caster stem 221 of Chang. Examiner contends that the bottom end of Chang applies a spring force to the upper edge of the caster stem 221 with or without the second cap of Golding. Therefore, since the second cap of Golding is considered optional, and is known in the art to be included in caster assemblies, that the use or absence of the second cap is an obvious variation of Chang, and does not affect the form, function, or use, of Chang. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts (abutting surface of the caster stem or the cup/second cap abutting the caster stem) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 2, Chang as modified discloses the mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first cap 32 is positioned against the stop 33, the second cap (of Golding) is positioned against the stem 221 of the caster wheel assembly 2, and the spring 13 is positioned between the first cap 32 and the second cap (of Golding, as shown in Golding figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Chang as modified discloses the mechanism of claim 1, wherein the stop 33 is positioned within a hole in the frame 11.
Regarding claim 4, please see claim 10.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as modified by Golding as applied to claims 1, 6, 14 above, and further in view of 808866 Oedbauer.
Regarding claims 5, 11, 19, Chang as modified discloses the mechanisms of claims 1, 6, 14, but showing that the stop 33 of Chang is a screw, not a rivet.
Oedbauer discloses a caster assembly 13 with stem 10 that abuts a spring 14, the other end of the spring abutting upper cap 16, which is held to the leg/frame 5 of the “ride on vehicle” (bed) by a rivet 17 (line 83, best shown in figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a rivet such as that taught by Oedbauer instead of the screw shown by Chang, as a rivet is a known alternative, and is old and well known in the art to attach a cap to a hollow leg/frame, as is shown in Oedbauer. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Conclusion
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