Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serail number 18/346,228 filed 7/01/23. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Figures 1-6 and 16 in the reply filed on 12/18/25 is acknowledged. Applicant states claims 1-20 read thereon.
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 electronic component of claims 11-13 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is an inadequate written description of how the apparatus comprises an electronic component such as a photo component, a video component or an internet component or a wireless connection.
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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the electronic component is not related to the apparatus in any way. The claims and specification [0077] only recite that the apparatus further comprises and electronic component. It is not clear how or where.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,078,496 to Vasilatos et al.
Vasilatos provides an apparatus for adapted the leg of walker (col. 2, ln. 13) to a plurality of different land surfaces such as sand or gravel (col. 1, lines 35-40 and 54).
The apparatus comprising a concave circular (or any suitable shape (ocl.2 ln. 27) discal component 20 with outer rim or “edge component” 42 and a releasable connecting component provide as shaft 30 with a bore 60. If desired set screws or other suitable locking mechanisms may be used (col.2 lns32-34) which meets the “fastener” of claim 10.
Claims 1-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 779,402 to Abrams.
Abrams provides an apparatus for adapted a leg A to a surface comprised of an adapting component provide as a block in the shape of a circular disc G with a concave cavity I or “receiving space” for reception of a wheel or roller E and a marginal edge component H. The bottom of the block is provided with a smooth finish so that it may slide over a carpet or other surface with minimum friction (lines 54-62). A releasable connecting/securing component provided as a retaining band or keeper M is provided to clamp to the edges of the block so the device may be quickly attached (page 2, lines 3-9). The band is considered to meet “a fastener”, “a clamp” and a “strap”. The “other surface” is considered to encompass a “land surface”.
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 11-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,078,496 to Vasilatos et al. in view of U.S. 2016/0095397 to Crowhurst.
Vasilatos provides each of the elements of the claim as noted above except for provide an electronic component including a wireless connection/internet component.
Crowhurst teaches that at the time of the effective filing date of the invention it was known to provide a walking aid with a wireless communication device 532 for determining location of the walking aid.
Device 532 is considered to meet the “electronic component” of claim 11, the “internet component” of claim 12 and the “wireless connection” of claim 13.
As the claims and description fail to provide any structural relationships of the claimed electronic device(s) and the apparatus and Crowhurst teaches that providing wireless communication devices on walking aids was known at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Vasilatos with a wireless communion device as taught by Crowhurst at 532 to allow for wirelessly determining the location of the device.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of providing means for wirelessly determining the location of the device of Vasilatos.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Most of the cited references read on many of the ridiculously broad claims but have not been applied to avoid undue multiple rejections. Note in particular:
U.S. Patent 1,221,225 to Schauermann teaches securing a discal component 1 to the wheel of leg C of furniture P with a clamping plates 5.
U.S. Patent 2,915,850 to Goodfellow releasably secures a discal component “a” to the wheel of furniture with screw fasteners “c”.
U.S. Patent 3,623,184 to Mazur provides an elliptical shaped discal component 15 with a releasable attaching/securing components 30/40 for adapting the legs of furniture to land surfaces such as grass or sand.
U.S. Patent 6,824,148 provides an apparatus 12 for adapting stroller wheels from a sidewalk to snow 31.
The strap 4 for attaching a discal foot component 2 to a wheel in U.S. Patent 1,066,381 to Daniel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636