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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show bearing sleeveas described in ¶0034 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "136" and "138" have both been used to designate the cam (e.g., in Fig. 5, the cam 136 should be --138--).
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 § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Fath et al. (DE 102019121482, see attached machine translation) in view of Nahum et al. (10,640,136).
Regarding claims 1-3, 12, and 19-20, Fath discloses a trolley configured to maneuver an implement on a surface of a floor (that the implement can be a surgical robot moved on an operating room floor is interpreted as merely intended use and the trolley structure of Fath is not altered by its use for that purpose; see MPEP 2111.02), the trolley comprising:
a frame configured to attach to the implement (see e.g., ¶0009 and 0024 describing a transport device having four roller units/wheel assemblies);
four wheel assemblies (1) attached to the frame opposite the implement (implicit), each having a hollow center shaft (8; see Fig. 2);
a stabilizer cartridge (7) inserted into each of the hollow center shafts (8); and
an actuator module (9) attached to the frame (via top 3) and to a respective stabilizer cartridge (7), the actuator module moves the stabilizer cartridge (7) within the hollow center shaft (8) of the wheel assemblies (1);
wherein the stabilizer cartridge is movable from a first raised position, a second position where the foot of the cartridge engages the floor, and a third position where the cartridge raises/stabilizes the trolley (see ¶0035-0036 describing the activation of the foot pedal 18 to move the support foot 7 from a raised position down to the floor and then to an lifting position).
While Fath discloses a trolley that has an actuator module that deploys a caster-encased stabilizer cartridge, it does not disclose that the actuator module moves pairs of the stabilizer cartridges.
Nahum teaches another trolley having a stabilization system having selectively deployable feet (4) that are activated via an activation module (22) coupled to a pair of deployable feet/cartridges (4; see e.g., Fig. 2) where the actuator module (22) moves both stabilizers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the trolley of Fath to have multiple stabilizer units deployed via a common/interconnected actuator module as taught by Nahum to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., linking like deployable structures together via a common actuator) to known devices (e.g., trolley’s having manually activated ground-engaging deployable stabilizer structures) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a trolley having stabilizer feet that are more readily deployed).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Fath further discloses that each of the wheel assemblies further comprises:
a hub (2) surrounding the hollow center shaft (8, see e.g., Fig. 2), the hub attached to the frame of the trolley (via top 3);
a housing (35) connected to the hub (2) and surrounding the hollow center shaft (8), the housing receive an axle (6) that support a wheel (5).
Fath does not disclose that each roller unit has dual wheels.
Nahum teaches the well-known expedient of providing two spaced wheels (3, see Fig. 2) mounted upon a trolley caster, where each wheel is spaced apart from the vertical rotational axis of the caster.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the trolley of Fath to use dual caster wheels as taught by Nahum to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a caster wheel having two wheels) for another (a caster wheel having one wheel) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a caster that distributes its weight across more rolling surfaces).
Claims 5-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fath in view of Nahum as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Hornbach et al. (US 2006/0010643).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 14, Fath further discloses that each of the wheel assemblies (1) include a first bearing assembly (4) between the hub (2) and the hollow center shaft (8; see Fig. 8, wherein the first bearing assembly comprises ball bearings (see Fig. 2).
Fath does not disclose a sleeve baring acting as a second bearing assembly between the rotatable housing and the fixed hollow center shaft.
Hornbach teaches another caster having dual wheels mounted upon a rotatable housing (6). The caster including a first roller bearing (7) mounted between a fixed hollow center shaft (14) and a hub (e.g., the upper end of body 6) and also a sleeve-type second bearing (5; see ¶0014 describing the inner sliding surface 38) between the hollow center shaft (14) and the lower portion of housing (6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the trolley of the Fath combination to use a second lower bearing sleeve as taught by Hornbach to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using multiple bearings in a moving element to provide additional stability) to known devices (e.g., trolley’s having casters that rotate about a fixed tubular shaft) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 and 15-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not appear to disclose or otherwise fairly suggest the following features when included with the other features and limitations recited in the antecedent claims: actuator module comprises a cam pivotally attached to the frame and mechanically connected to an engagement mechanism, the cam having a slot formed therein; a lift bar having a pin configured to mechanically attach the lift bar to the cam such that the pin slides within the slot to move the lift bar as the cam rotates; a linear motion system attached to the trolley frame and mechanically coupled to the lift bar, wherein the linear motion system limits the degrees of freedom of the lift bar such that the lift bar moves toward and away from the trolley frame; and an attachments mechanism mechanically attached to the lift bar and configured to be attached to the stabilizer cartridges to move the cartridges into the three positions based on the positioning of the engagement mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618