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 4/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant arguments appear to be more limiting that the claim limitations. As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the limitations “fixing base” and “fixing tube” are not understood to be terms of art and are therefore open to the broadest reasonable interpretation. The fixing bolt defines the axis around which the wheel base pivots. And, as Applicant noted, the locking member is secured on the fixing bolt and can prevent rotation. Therefore, element 32a of Yang can either permit or prevent rotation. This is interpreted to meet the limitation “pivotally connecting”. Examiner acknowledges that there may be differences between the prior art and Applicant’s device, however, the claim as currently written do not adequately set forth these differences. Indeed, the entire assembly of Yang can be considered “connected” or “connecting” the difference elements because the assembly must be considered as a whole to accomplish all the functions of its design.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Claim 6 are considered to be addressed by the logic of the arguments set forth above because the limitations at issue are essentially identical.
Applicant’s arguments directed toward Claim 14 are traversed. The resilient member 78 is sleeved on rotating shaft 38 and transmits force between locking element 76 and wheel base 34. This is interpreted to meet the limitation “disposed between”. The kinematics and forces are transmitted through the resilient member, so the element is clearly “disposed between” a wheel base and rotating shaft.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, U.S. Patent 7,950,108 in view of Lu, U.S. Patent 10,155,415.
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches:
a fixing base (36);
a wheel base (see below);
a wheel (41) pivotally connected to the wheel base;
a fixing tube (32a) pivotally connecting the wheel base to the fixing base;
Yang does not teach:
an upper gasket disposed between the fixing base and the wheel base.
Lu teaches:
an upper gasket (27) disposed between a base element and wheel element (21, 23):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the upper gasket of Lu between the fixing base and wheel base of Yang because the gasket would increase the level of ingress protection which would increase the performance of useful life of the caster.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Yang teaches a fixing tube suitable for sleeving a gasket upon.
Yang does not teach the upper gasket sleeved on the fixing tube.
Lu teaches the upper gasket and Yang teaches a fixing tube suitable for sleeving this gasket upon.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the upper gasket sleeved on the fixing tube because that would be the obvious location between relatively rotatable elements which would require ingress protection.
Regarding Claim 3, Yang does not teach a lower gasket.
Lu clearly teaches a lower gasket (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the lower gasket between the wheel base and fixing tube because the joining location between those elements also comprises an area of relative rotation which would benefit from increased ingress protection.
Regarding Claim 4, Yang fails to teach the lower gasket disposed on a lower edge of the fixing tube.
In the Yang-Lu combination set forth in the rejection of Claim 3, Lu further teaches a lower gasket (28) sleeved on an element (23)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lower gasket on a lower edge of the fixing tube because a lower gasket would further increase the ingress protection and Yang already teaches retaining element (35) at this location with what appears to be a sealing element that is not explicitly disclosed (see fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 6, see rejections of Claims 1 and 3-4 above.
Regarding Claim 7, see rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 11, in the Yang-Lu combination, Yang teaches:
the fixing tube (32a) is fixed to the fixing base (36, see fig. 9), the fixing tube has a through hole (see fig. 9), the wheel base has a rotating shaft (31a), and the rotating shaft is rotatably disposed in the through hole, such that the fixing tube pivotally connects the wheel base to the fixing base (fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 12, in the Yang-Lu combination, Yang teaches:
wherein a top of the rotating shaft (31a) abuts against the fixing tube (32a, see rejection of Claim 11 above and see fig. 9 in Yang which clearly shows a top of the rotating shaft abuts against the fixing tube).
Regarding Claim 13, Yang, in the Yang-Lu combination, teaches:
wherein the wheel base (see rejection of Claim 1) has a directional plate (see below) fixed on the rotating shaft and the lower gasket is disposed on the directional plate (see rejection of Claim 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
242
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang-Lu as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11-13 above, and further in view of Mulhern, U.S. Patent 11,707,946.
Regarding Claim 14, the fixing base, wheel base, wheel and rotating shaft, see rejections of Claims 1, 6 and 11 above.
Yang-Lu does not teach at least one resilient member disposed between at least two of the fixing base, wheel base and the rotating shaft.
Mulhern clearly teaches a caster device with a resilient member (78) disposed between a wheel base and a rotating shaft (see fig. 4, see 34, 40)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Yang-Lu combination with the features taught by Mulhern because the resilient member would provide tension to keep the assembly joined together and also provide some level of cushioning to the caster.
Regarding Claim 15, the Yang-Lu combination does not teach the resilient member disposed between the fixing base and the wheel base and around the rotating shaft.
Mulhern teaches these elements because element 76 of Mulhern can be interpreted as the “fixing base” and the resilient member is disposed around the rotating shaft (see fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the teachings of Mulhern in the Yang-Lu combination because the rotating shaft would retain the resilient member in the proper location while also providing cushioning between the fixing base and wheel base.
Regarding Claim 16, the Yang-Lu combination does not teach the resilient member being ring-shaped and sleeved on the rotating shaft.
Mulhern teach does these limitations. See element 78 of Mulhern in fig. 4 which teaches a ring-shaped resilient element sleeved around the rotating shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the teachings of Mulhern in the Yang-Lu combination because the rotating shaft would retain the resilient member in the proper location while also providing cushioning between the fixing base and wheel base.
Regarding Claim 18, see rejections of Claims 11 and 14 above which teach the through hole and resilient member. Yang-Lu fails to teach the remaining limitations of the claim.
Mulhern teaches the resilient member 78 disposed in one section of a through hole with a rotating shaft rotatably disposed in the through hole and the resilient member disposed between the fixing base (76) and the rotating shaft (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the teachings of Mulhern into the Yang-Lu combination because that would ensure the tension of the resilient member keeps the assembly joined together and also provides the cushioning effect around the components which would benefit from cushioning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights