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, see Remarks (page 16), filed 5/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 41 under 103 in view of Jarvis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jarvis in view of the state of the prior art, USPC class 384, as well as 112a rejections.
Regarding the specification: the specification amendment on 2/18/2025 included new matter, and therefore is not entered. Applicant states “it is not clear…what specific subject matter is deemed to be new matter”. Examiner was quite clear. Applicant’s original specification of 7/14/2023 states “bearings selected from any known in the art”, and OMITS any structural detail regarding the “bearings selected from any known in the art”. Therefore, any additional language in the specification or claims that regards “bearings” which are more specific than “any known in the art” now in claim 41, previously in claim 49 (added on 2/18/2025, which is after the original filing of 7/14/2023), is considered new matter, and therefore, unable to be entered.
Regarding the drawings:
Applicant asserts that mounting plate 106 is the flat “plate like portion of this monolithic structure” of mounting base 102. Examiner removes this drawing objection.
Examiner thanks applicant for including indicators 104 and 102a when those parts are shown.
Examiner thanks applicant for amending claim 52 regarding the gap 119/ support arm 118b.
The drawing amendments of 5/30/2025 are entered, however they are objected to for including new matter, previously described in the nonfinal of 3/3/2025 and above in the specification.
Regarding 112f:
Applicant agrees that the language in claim 60 utilizes new matter. Applicant disagrees that the utilization of 112f language is new matter when the original disclosure did not utilize 112f language. Examiner notes that 112f language that is added after original disclosure does not clearly identify the scope of the means disclosed by applicant to perform the function; also, this terminology broadens the original scope in a manner that is not originally disclosed. Therefore, this 112f terminology, which is utilized after original disclosure, not only is indefinite, but is new matter. Further, applicant is attempting to include a linking claim by applying a new matter term to the subject matter that was already restricted in 2/6/2025 and elected on 2/18/2025. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner has considered the structure of the intended language of claim 60, since the 112f language of claim 60 is both indefinite and new matter, because examiner has found and examined the elected embodiment, based on applicant’s election on 2/18/2025. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 112a:
Regarding claim 41, Applicant agrees the drawings do not “clearly show two races”, applicant asserts they are shown in figure 2. Examiner disagrees. Since applicant discloses a bearing “any known in the art”, and bearings have an entire USPC class 384, the device shown in figure 2 could by any of the 85,000 plus references that are classified in class 384. It is clear from applicant’s disclosure [0054] and figure 7 (without detail, showing just a box for the cross section of the bearing), that applicant did not originally disclose any details of the bearing. Therefore, any details of the bearing filed after original disclosure (7/14/2023) are considered new matter. For claim language that is supported by figure 2, applicant may claim that it is a circular bearing with a through hole, but applicant cannot include any of previous claim 49 (added after original disclosure), since claim 49 is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Examiner cannot allow any claims with the details of previous claim 49, current claim 41, based on MPEP 608.04.
Regarding claim 50, the standoff 125 does not extend through mounting plate 106, which is part of the entirety of the mounting base 102, as previously argued by applicant. Therefore, the standoff 125 is not shown and cannot extend “through the mounting base”, since it does not extend all the way through the part considered “mounting base”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 60, the new matter here is the attempt to broaden the scope of the disclosure by adding a new matter 112f term to try to cover each individual embodiment that was previously restricted. Please see discussion above.
Regarding 112b:
Applicant asserts that “notch” does refer to part 114 called “holes or cutouts”, and then asserts [0041] states that “notch” is equivalent to “holes or cutouts”. Examiner notes that “hole” is also equivalent to “slot” which is clearly described as part 102a, which is significantly different than holes or cutouts 114. Therefore, applicant is suggested not to use “equivalent” terms when multiple terms are claimed from applicant’s “equivalency” list in [0041]. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Examiner suggests claiming the term “hole or cutout”.
Regarding claim 44, examiner thanks applicant, however this causes a 112b rejection of claim 45.
Examiner thanks applicant for clarifications regarding claim 52.
Regarding claim 53, applicant states that the difference in scope regarding the sliding member in the notch “restricts” in claim 52, but “prevents” in claim 53. Examiner notes that applicant is still claiming identical structure with a slight difference in function. Examiner notes that the structure is known in the prior art, and therefore performs both functions. Examiner notes that claim 53 is not further limiting the structure, and therefore is rejected under 112d.
Regarding the prior art:
Claim 60, applicant asserts “office fails to identify what structure disclosed…performs the recited function”. Examiner notes that claim 60 clearly states that the structure in the parenthesis after the italicized 112f terms, is the structure that meets that 112f limitation. Applicant seems to argue that “plunger assembly 21 of Jarvis” cannot be an equivalent to applicant’s claimed 112f limitation (which is also new matter). Applicant cannot clearly and definitively state what is and is not met by applicant’s own 112f limitation, since it is new matter. Therefore, this is a mere allegation patentability, which is not persuasive.
Claim 41, Applicant asserts that the prior art does not disclose the new matter bearing structure claimed by applicant. Examiner cannot allow any claim language that includes new matter, and applicant has not supported this claim language based on the original disclosure. However, applicant is correct that the specific bearing claimed, but not disclosed by applicant, was not shown in the prior art. Examiner has included a myriad of references for applicant’s consideration, of what the prior art considers the cross sectional drawings of bearings that are NOT “any known in the art” but are specific bearings. Since applicant has not shown these very common views in the original disclosure, AND originally discloses that the bearing is “any known in the art”, any of these bearings used in casters is a known alternative to other bearings in casters. The action must be non-final for this reason, however, applicant cannot forward prosecution without removal of the new matter.
Specification
The amendment filed 2/18/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant’s original specification discloses the bearings are “selected from any known in the art” [0048] and therefore any inclusion of any extra structure of the bearings is considered new matter. Further, the amendment includes functionality of parts which were not originally listed in the drawings or specification. Examiner does not object to the inclusion of new part numbers and names for the part numbers in the specification, which are clearly shown in the original drawings, but applicant has added functionality to the specification which is not immediately obvious from the original drawings. Specification amendment is not entered.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
New drawings were submitted on 5/30/2025. Examiner enters the drawing amendments of 5/30/2025.
The drawings of 5/30/2025 are objected to because of the following:
Bearing “inner race” and “outer race” are included in the 2/18/2025 drawings, and are new matter, as noted above in the specification objection. Examiner notes that what is indicated in figure 2 is not shown in the cross section as expected in figures 7 and 8. Examiner suggests removal of parts 113a and 113b in order to comply with applicant’s original disclosure of “bearings selected from any known in the art” from [0048].
“Standoff” 125 is not shown to “extend through” the entirety of the mounting base 102 as claimed, since it does not extend through the mounting plate 106 as well.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 60, applicant claims the 112f term “means for restricting the pivoting of the wheel assembly”. Examiner notes that applicant does not originally disclose the possible manners which are encompassed in this 112f term, and therefore, the use of a 112f limitation after the original filing is considered new matter, and is not definite. Further, if applicant is referring to the two different manners of restricting swivel of a caster, applicant has disclosed two different “means” for this, which have already been restricted, and applicant has elected the “means” of figures 1-8. Examiner notes that all references in the 892 meet claim 60, and examiner suggests cancellation of claim 60.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 49-50, 60 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.
Regarding claim 41, applicant further limits the bearing, which has been disclosed as being “selected from any known in the art”. Examiner also notes that the bearing is not clearly showing two races in figure 7; applicant merely shows a solid box for the bearing 113.
Regarding claim 50, applicant claims the standoff 125 “extending through the mounting base”. Applicant argues the “mounting base” 102 includes the “mounting plate” 106, please see arguments, 5/30/2025. The “standoff 125” does not extend through the mounting plate 106 in figures 7 and 8. Therefore, it is not possible for “standoff 125” to “extending through the mounting base”, because it does not extend through the mounting plate as well. Should applicant desire to
Regarding claim 60, applicant claims the 112f term “means for restricting the pivoting of the wheel assembly”. Examiner notes that applicant does not originally disclose the use of a 112f term, meaning, applicant has not previously disclosed what the “Means” are of this term. Further, if applicant is referring to the two different manners of restricting swivel of a caster, applicant has disclosed two different “means” for this, which have already been restricted, and applicant has elected the “means” of figures 1-8.
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 41-53, 60 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.
Regarding claim 41, applicant claims “notch” but does not disclose a part number for the notch. Examiner assumes that applicant means “holes or cut outs 114” are equivalent to applicant’s claimed notch. Examiner suggests changing the name so that the specification and the claims use the same term for the same part.
Regarding claim 45, applicant claims the use of a locking mechanism AND a ball detent mechanism. Examiner notes that the ball detent mechanism is disclosed to be the specific locking mechanism from claim 44. Applicant does not disclose the use of a locking mechanism AND ball detent mechanism.
Regarding claim 49, applicant further limits the bearing, which has been disclosed as being “selected from any known in the art”. Examiner also notes that the bearing is not clearly showing two races in figure 7; applicant merely shows a solid box for the bearing 113.
Regarding claim 50, applicant claims the standoff 125 “extending through the mounting base”. Examiner notes that “mounting base” 102 is not clearly shown in the drawings (please see indefiniteness rejection below), so it cannot be clearly shown that the standoff 125 “extending through” the base. Further, if applicant intends “mounting base” is equivalent with “mounting plate”, examiner notes that the claim language intends that the standoff is greater than the width of the entire mounting plate 106, which the standoff 125 is certainly not long enough to be greater than the width of the entire mounting plate 106. If applicant means that the standoff is greater in width that the width of the slot 102a, as suggested in figure 7, applicant may claim that in particular.
Regarding claim 53, applicant claims “sliding member prevents pivoting of the cam” in the second position, which is already claimed by claim 41’s “sliding member extends into the notch and restricts pivoting of the cam” in the second position. Therefore, by rejecting claim 41, claim 53 is also met. Examiner suggests cancellation of claim 53.
Regarding claim 60, applicant has not originally disclosed the scope of the 112f term “means for restricting the pivoting”. There are no meets and bounds for this term since this term was not originally utilized by applicant. Examiner assumes that this refers to the two manners of swivel restriction, which examiner has already restricted, and applicant has elected that of figures 1-8. Examiner notes that all cited references meet claim 60. Examiner suggests cancellation of claim 60.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 44, 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 44, applicant claims “configured to be selectively inhibited…”, but does not positively limit the caster assembly of claim 41. Examiner assumes that applicant means to positively claim a mechanism to inhibit translation, and the mechanism is a ball detent in claim 45.
Regarding claim 53, applicant claims “sliding member prevents pivoting of the cam” in the second position, which is already claimed by claim 41’s “sliding member extends into the notch and restricts pivoting of the cam” in the second position. Claim 53 does not change the structural limitations of claim 41, applicant merely further limits the function of the position of claim 41. This does not further limit he structure of claim 41, and therefore, by rejecting claim 41, claim 53 is also met. Examiner suggests cancellation of claim 53.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 4336629 Jarvis.
Regarding claim 60, Jarvis discloses a caster assembly (figure 1) comprising: a mounting base 10 configured to be attached to a movable device (on the upper surface of mounting base 10); a wheel assembly (wheel 17 and yoke 11) operably coupled to the mounting base 10 to pivot about a swivel axis (axle 12); and means for restricting the pivoting of the wheel assembly about the swivel axis (this is a new matter 112f term; examiner contends the means is the plunger assembly 21 meets this limitation).
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.
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) 41-44, 47, 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis, in view of 3213482 Butsch.
Regarding claim 41, Jarvis discloses a caster assembly comprising:
a mounting base 10 configured to be attached to a movable device (on the top surface);
a swivel assembly comprising: a cam 18 positioned within the mounting base 10, wherein the cam 18 has a notch 19 and is configured to selectively pivot about a swivel axis relative to the mounting base (by bearings 13);
a sliding member 22 positioned within the mounting base 10 and configured to be selectively translated transverse to the swivel axis (reciprocal movement is perpendicular to swivel axle 12) between a first position (retracted, figures 2 and 5), in which the sliding member 22 is withdrawn from the notch 19 and does not restrict pivoting of the cam about the swivel axis (by being located outside the notch), and a second position (extended, figures 1 and 4), in which the sliding member 22 extends into the notch 19 and restricts pivoting of the cam about the swivel axis (by being present within the notch 19); and
a wheel assembly operably coupled to the cam 18 to pivot with the cam about the swivel axis 12;
a bearing assembly 14 positioned within the mounting base 10 and operably coupled to the mounting base (as shown in figure 1) and the wheel assembly to permit pivoting of the wheel assembly about the swivel axis (as shown in figure 1);
the cam comprises: a cylindrical body 18 extending through and fixed relative to the [bearing] and operably coupled to the wheel assembly; and a flange 19 extending from the cylindrical body, wherein the flange defines the notch (space between the flange 19, best shown in figure 2).
Jarvis discloses the use of a bearing having an outer race (ball slot) fixed with the mounting base and an inner race integral with the wheel assembly.
Butsch discloses a caster having two types of bearings allowing devices to rotate within a caster; bearing 52 with two races 51/54 and balls 53, as well as bearing 61 having races 62/64 and balls 63, best shown in figure 1. Butsch also discloses the cross sectional view of the bearing clearly in figure 1 (which applicant does not do in figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the bearing 52 OR the bearing 61 of Butsch in the location of the bearing 14 of Jarvis, as both are old and well known to allow rotation of caster parts oriented along the same axis are well known in the art. Examiner contends that either bearing 52 or 61 can perform the bearing function required in Jarvis, with either upper/lower races, OR with inner/outer races. Examiner contends that it is old and well known in the art to utilize bearings with races in the art of casters, as old and well known in Butsch, in either orientation as taught by Butsch, as an old and well known equivalent for the integrated races as taught in Jarvis. The use of different ball bearings (of either taught by Butsch) in the location known to have ball bearings (as taught by Jarvis) are known equivalents. 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 42, Jarvis as modified discloses the caster assembly of claim 41, wherein the wheel assembly comprises: a yoke 11 coupled to the cam 18, wherein the yoke comprises a central section and two arms 15 extending from opposite ends of the central section; and a wheel 17 mounted between the two arms 15 of the yoke 11.
Regarding claim 43, Jarvis as modified discloses the caster assembly of claim 41, wherein the sliding member 22 comprises a main body (right of the flange 27) and a support arm 20 integrally connected to and extending from the main body (as shown in figure 2), wherein the support arm 20 extends into the notch 19 when the sliding member is in the second position (as shown in figures 1 and 4) and is withdrawn from the notch when the sliding member is in the first position (figures 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 44, Jarvis as modified discloses the caster assembly of claim 41, the swivel assembly comprises a locking mechanism configured to selectively inhibit the sliding member from translating between the first position and the second position (by having the cam lever 29 and spring 26).
Regarding claim 47, Jarvis as modified discloses the caster assembly of claim 41, wherein the mounting base 10 defines a slot (through hole in flange 24) ; and wherein the sliding member 22 comprises a protrusion 20 extending through the slot (as shown in figures 2 and 5) and positioned to be engaged by a user for manual translation of the sliding member between the first position and the second position (the user manually moves the pivoting cam lever 29).
Regarding claim 51, Jarvis as modified discloses the caster assembly of claim 41, further comprising a retainer ring (nut of bolt 12) positioned within and coupled to the mounting base 10 to retain the bearing assembly in the mounting base.
Regarding claim 52, Jarvis as modified discloses the caster assembly of claim 51, wherein the retainer ring (nut of bolt 12) defines a gap (through hole in the nut that holds bolt 12). Since the following term is new matter, examiner contends that Jarvis also discloses the sliding member 22 engages the gap of the nut when the sliding member 22 is in the unlocked position, by way of the base 10 and cam 18.
Regarding claim 53, Jarvis discloses the caster assembly of claim 41, wherein when the sliding member 22 is in the second position (locked position, figures 1 and 4), the sliding member prevents pivoting of the cam about the swivel axis (as is previously discussed in claim 41).
Claim(s) 41, 44, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 7213818 Chang in view of 3213482 Butsch.
Regarding claim 41, Chang discloses a caster assembly comprising:
a mounting base 20 configured to be attached to a movable device (having through holes 201);
a swivel assembly comprising: a cam 23 positioned within the mounting base 20, wherein the cam 23 has a notch 234 and is configured to selectively pivot about a swivel axis relative to the mounting base (by using the bearings);
a sliding member 22 positioned within the mounting base 20 and configured to be selectively translated transverse to the swivel axis (linear movement of member 22 is perpendicular to the rotation axis) between a first position (figure 8), in which the sliding member 22 is withdrawn from the notch 234 and does not restrict pivoting of the cam about the swivel axis (because the member is removed from the notch), and a second position (figure 6), in which the sliding member 22 extends into the notch 234 and restricts pivoting of the cam about the swivel axis (as is shown in figure 6); and
a wheel assembly operably coupled to the cam to pivot with the cam about the swivel axis (as shown in figure 1).
a bearing assembly positioned within the mounting base 20 and operably coupled to the mounting base (as shown in figure 2) and the wheel assembly to permit pivoting of the wheel assembly about the swivel axis (as shown in figure 2)
the cam 23 comprises: a cylindrical body 231 extending through and fixed relative to the [bearing] and operably coupled to the wheel assembly; and a flange 235 extending from the cylindrical body, wherein the flange defines the notch (234, best shown in figures 5 and 6).
Chang discloses the use of ball bearings between plates with integrated race features, like the grooves shown in figure 2. Chang does not disclose that the bearing has distinct races in the manner claimed.
Butsch discloses a caster having two types of bearings allowing devices to rotate within a caster; bearing 52 with two races 51/54 and balls 53, as well as bearing 61 having races 62/64 and balls 63, best shown in figure 1. Butsch also discloses the cross sectional view of the bearing clearly in figure 1 (which applicant does not do in figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the bearing 52 OR the bearing 61 of Butsch in the location of the bearing of Chang, as both are old and well known to allow rotation of caster parts oriented along the same axis are well known in the art. Examiner contends that either bearing 52 or 61 can perform the bearing function required in Chang, with either upper/lower races, OR with inner/outer races. Examiner contends that it is old and well known in the art to utilize bearings with races in the art of casters, as old and well known in Butsch, in either orientation as taught by Butsch, as an old and well known equivalent for the integrated races as taught in Chang. The use of different ball bearings (of either taught by Butsch) in the location known to have ball bearings (as taught by Chang) are known equivalents. 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 44, Chang discloses the caster assembly of claim 41, wherein the swivel assembly comprises a locking mechanism configured to be selectively inhibited from translating between the first position and the second position (by using wire control device 3, modified by lever 32, figure 1).
Regarding claim 50, Chang discloses the caster assembly of claim 41, further comprising a standoff (24) extending through the mounting base 20 and engaged between the inner race of the bearing assembly 246 and the wheel assembly, wherein the cylindrical body 231 of the cam extends through the standoff (shown in figure 5).
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) 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang modified by Butsch as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of 2505852 Budnick.
Regarding claim 45, Chang as modified discloses the caster assembly of claim 44, using a remote handle 32 which is attached to a cable mechanism 3 for dictating the position of the sliding mechanism 22. Chang does not disclose the sliding mechanism uses a ball detent to dictate the position of the sliding mechanism.
Budnick discloses a caster (figure 1) having two surfaces that rotate with respect to each other (plate 5 and body 9), the body 9 having a spring biased ball 19, the plate 5 having multiple detents 28 and 29. The spring biased ball located in a detent 28/29 holds the two rotating parts into the desired position of the ball in the detent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a different known position maintenance device, such as that taught in Budnick, to the existing device (sliding member 22 of Chang) which requires the use of a position maintenance device. Examiner contends that the spring biased ball in a detent is an old and well known mechanism to retain to moveable parts with respect to each other, well known in the art of casters. Examiner contends that the use of the spring ball and detent on the sliding member 22 of Chang provides the same functionality of the existing handle and cable of Chang. 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 46, Chang as modified discloses the caster assembly of claim 45, further comprising a cover plate 21 that secures the sliding member 22 within the mounting base 20, wherein the cover plate 21 defines a first divot (required by Budnick) facing the sliding member 22 (which has the spring biased ball, since the spring 223 in Chang is between the cover plate 21 and sliding member 22, figure 2)) and a second divot 29 (as required by Budnick) facing the sliding member; wherein the sliding member 22 defines a pocket (as shown in figure 2 facing the cover plate);
wherein the ball detect mechanism comprises: a spring (20 of Budnick, 223 of Chang) positioned within the pocket (as taught in Budnick); and a ball 19 (of Budnick) engaged between the spring and the cover plate (as required in figure 1 of Budnick), wherein the spring urges the ball toward and into engagement with the cover plate; and wherein the spring urges the ball into the first divot 28 when the sliding member is in the first position and into the second divot 29 when the sliding member is in the second position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
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