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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1, 5-7 are pending.
Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5-7 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5800023 to Hartenstine (“Hartenstine”), and further in view of WO02/24472-A1 to Roberts (“Roberts”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hartenstine discloses a releasable wheel mount system (Abstract lines 13, Col 1 lines 45-47), for a rollator comprising (intended use, not limiting, “a device used to support or transport a person”, Col 1 lines 5-8): a wheel axel (18) fastened to a frame (12) of the rollator comprising a groove (902, 904 “circular slot”, Col 3 lines 7, Fig 9) near an outer end of the wheel axel (left end of 18, Fig 9) and characterized by a circular sloped gliding surface (grooves 902 and 904 each have conical tapering circular gliding surfaces, Fig 9) at the outer end, a release trigger (202/204 “moving members”, Col 3 lines 64-Col 4, lines 11-29, line s61-67, Col 5 lines 1-4 Fig 2-7, ) comprising: a circular locking shape (circular locking shape 302 in Fig 3; which is circular to the same extent that locking shape 5 is circular of release trigger 4 Fig 2a of instant application); with a locking surface (302 “wheel locks”, Col 4 lines 41-49, Col 5 lines 4-9, see comparison at end of this paragraph of Fig 3 and Fig 2a) for engaging the groove of the wheel axel in a locked state (Fig 7, Col 4 lines 41-49, Col 5 lines 4-9), thus locking the release trigger and wheel axel to each other, a circular release hole (hole formed by an upper circular arc opposite 302 in Fig 3 and 302 a lower semicircular arc which is circular to the same extent that the hole formed by 5 and 6 of release trigger 4 Fig 2a of instant application is circular (see comparison of Fig 3 and 2a at end of this paragraph, Col 4 lines 65-Col 5 lines 1-4), a circular releasing shape (an upper circular arc opposite 302 in Fig 3 which is circular to the same extent that the hole formed by 6 of release trigger 4 Fig 2a of instant application is circular (see comparison of Fig 3 and 2a at end of this paragraph, Col 4 lines 65-67, Col 5 lines 1-4) that is a circular hole (formed by adjacent moving members Fig 3, 4,7) bigger than the axel (implicit since the axle can be installed and removed from the hole between releasing Col 4 lines 65-67 Col 5 lines 1-4) for releasing the release trigger from the wheel axel in a releasing state (Col 4 lines 65-67, Col 5 lines 1-4, Fig 6) wherein: the circular locking shape is a semi-circular indent (302 Fig 3 ), at an a lower end of the circular releasing shape; and semi-circular indent has a radius bigger than a radius of a circular circumferential groove of the axle (implicit in that 302 surrounds groove 904 of axle, Col 4 lines 47-49, Fig 7);a push plate (306 “finger plates”, Col 4, lines 57-60, Fig 3) at a top of the release trigger, a housing (two pieces: 200 “lock mount” and 206 “cover”, Col 3, lines 58-65, Fig 2, 5) comprising: a central cylinder (212 of 200, Fig 2) with a cavity (508 central aperture, Fig 5) accommodating the wheel axel with a clearance (as axle is slidably installed therein claim 13), and a trigger cavity (formed between 214 and cover 206:in 214 “nest” 500 between 506 “cam surfaces” and 502 “alignment flanges”, and in 206: between sides thereof, Col 3, lines 62-65, Col 4, lines 24-40 Fig 2, 5) accommodating the release trigger, such that the release trigger and housing can be locked to each other, wherein the release trigger is biased towards the locked state ( Fig 7 Col 5 lines 4-9) by use of biasing means (304 “spring members”), which is activated when the release trigger is inserted into the trigger cavity (Col 5 lines 4-9) and is operable to be pushed or pulled into the releasing state by a user (Fig 6, Col 4 lines 61-67, Col 5 lines 1-4).
Hartenstine does not disclose an outer rim stopper, an inner rim stopper including at least two separate resilient stopper arms, wherein: an outer end of each resilient stopper arm of the at least two separate resilient stopper arms includes at least one stopper protrusion; and the at least one stopper protrusion extends radially more than the clearance between the wheel axle and the central cylinder.
Roberts discloses an insert (10 i.e. housing, “insert formed of plastic” having flexible parts 18 [i.e. resilient plastic] , Page 5, Para 17 Fig 1 ) for retaining a wheel (40), having a cylindrical sleeve (16 “split sleeve” i.e. central cylinder), surrounding axle (30) the axially inner end of sleeve having an inner rim stopper (18 “flexible retention means with shoulder at inner end, having flexible fingers on a split sleeve (16) [i.e. at least two separate resilient stopper arms], Page 5, Para 17 Fig 1 Fig 4) that are formed by splitting the sleeve each having a “tapered outer edge” [i.e. at least one stopper protrusion]), that extends radially more than the clearance between (Fig 4) the wheel axle and the sleeve outer surface [ i.e. central cylinder] shown Fig 1, in order to prevent the wheel from moving inward “, Page 3, lines 7-11, Fig 1); and the axially outer end of sleeve having an outer rim stopper (15, “for preventing a wheel form moving outward towards the closed end [of 16]”), Page 3 Para 19, lines 1-2 Fig 1)
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the releasable wheel mount system and the outer rim stopper, an inner rim stopper including at least two separate resilient stopper arms, wherein: an outer end of each resilient stopper arm of the at least two separate resilient stopper arms includes at least one stopper protrusion; and the at least one stopper protrusion extends radially more than the clearance between the wheel axle and the central cylinder, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the releasable wheel mount system of Hartenstine and the teaching of disclose an outer rim stopper, an inner rim stopper including at least two separate resilient stopper arms, wherein: an outer end of each resilient stopper arm of the at least two separate resilient stopper arms includes at least one stopper protrusion; and the at least one stopper protrusion extends radially more than the clearance between the wheel axle and the central cylinder of Roberts, to modify the releasable wheel mount system of Hartenstine, specifically the housing (of Hartenstine) such that it includes an outer rim stopper and an inner rim stopper (like Roberts) with the motivation prevent the wheel from moving axially outward and inward, (Page 3, Para 19, lines 1-2), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hartenstine and Roberts discloses the releasable wheel mount system according to claim 1 wherein the biasing means comprises: a resilient trigger arm (304 “spring member”, Fig 3) extending from each side of the release trigger at an angle to a central line (Fig 3) of the release trigger and pointing upwards (upwards is down in Fig 3), a constriction side (506 “cam surfaces” of 500 “nest” 500, Col 4 lines 24-40, annotated Fig 5) on opposite sides of the trigger cavity working together (i.e. trigger “finger plates 306 with the resilient trigger arms, wherein the constriction sides define a first distance dc (annotated Fig 5 following) therebetween that is considerably shorter than a second distance da (annotated Fig 3 following) between tops of the resilient trigger arms when the resilient trigger arms are unbiased; and a corresponding triangular indent (triangular space formed by inclined top portion of 506, and inclined boundary of 504, annotated Fig 5, Col 4 lines 28-34) on each constriction side (vertically below and above 506) with a mainly horizontal top surface (outer horizontal edge of 504) into which the resilient trigger arms will fit when the release trigger is inserted, and wherein the constriction sides continue below the triangular indents (annotated Fig 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
521
345
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hartenstine and Roberts, specifically Hartenstine further discloses a method for mounting and demounting a wheel using the releasable wheel mount system for the rollator according to claim 1 characterized by comprising the following steps:
inserting the release trigger into the trigger cavity of the housing (Col 4 lines 24-43);
fitting the housing into a center of a rim (Col 4, lines 43-46);
pushing the rim and the housing onto the wheel axel until the circular locking shape of the release trigger clicks into the groove, thus having mounted the wheel (Col 4, lines 41-45);
pushing the a push plate (306 “finger plates”, Col 4 lines 50-53, 61-67, Col 5 lines 1-4 ) of the release trigger; and
pulling the rim and housing off the wheel axel, thus having demounted the wheel (Col 5 lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hartenstine and Roberts, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-6375274-A to Morris (“Morris”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hartenstine and Roberts discloses the releasable system according to claim 1, wherein the release trigger (as described in paragraph 10 of this document) is a resilient, but does not disclose wherein the housing is resilient, nor that the housing and release trigger is casted in a resilient plastic material. Morris discloses a wheel and wheel mounting sleeve (Abstract lines 1-3, including a 27 “mounting sleeve”, [i.e. housing], Col 4 lines 16-19, 29-51, Col 7 lines 54-59, Fig 2) and a release trigger (46, 47 “cantilevered sliding fingers”, Col 4 lines 30-39), the housing and release trigger is casted in (method limit in product claim not limiting, MPEP 2113) of a resilient plastic material (“injection molded acetyl-based plastic”, Page 15, Col 7 lines 54-59, Page 16, Col 10, claim 6.)
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel mount system having resilient housing and release trigger and the housing and release trigger casted in of a resilient plastic material, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel mount system having resilient housing and release trigger of the combination of Hartenstine and Roberts, and the teaching of the housing and release trigger casted in of a resilient plastic material of Morris, to modify the housing and release trigger (of the combination of Hartenstine and Roberts), such that they are of a resilient plastic material (like Morris) with the motivation to ensure are impact resistant (Col 7, lines 54-59) having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 09/02/2025, with respect to Drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive, and rejections of Claim 5 and 7 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of amendments to claims 5 and 7. The Drawing objections, and rejections of Claim 5 and 7 under 35 USC § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the Drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Arguments with respect to rejections to claim 5-7, under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to claim 1, and 5. The drawing objection, and rejections to claim 5-7, under 35 USC § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025, with respect to rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 6 and 7, relying on the teachings of Hartenstine of claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant states on page 6 and 7, that Hartenstine does not teach or suggest:
a dual function release trigger.
with integrated biasing means.
translational movement between locked and release positions.
a single trigger mechanism.
No additional of steps mounting
easier to assemble
does not require a cover
In response to applicant's arguments a -g above, Examiner notes that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dual function release trigger, integrated biasing means and translational movement between locked and release positions, a single trigger mechanism, no additional of steps mounting, easier to assemble, does not require a cover)
are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5, 6 and 7 have been considered and are moot in light of amendments to claims 1, 5-7, to which a Final rejection in contained herein.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zeng (CN-201816629-U) discloses a release trigger having a key hole shaped aperture having a larger radius upper circular segment and a smaller radius lower semicircular segment.
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 EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615