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 the Claims:
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a proximate and distal end” (line 4) should be rewritten as: “a proximate end and a distal end.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “said each” (line 4, 12, & 16) is unclear and should be rewritten. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “to proximate end” (line 10 & 15) should be rewritten as: “to said proximate end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “pivotable” (line 12) should be rewritten as: “pivotably.” Appropriate correction is required
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “at least one sliding joint member” (line 14) should be rewritten as: “at least one of said sliding joint members.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the user” (line 15) should be rewritten as: “a user”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “lock assembly” (line 2) should be rewritten as: “the lock assembly”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the top” (line 2) should be rewritten as: “a top”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “to opposite end” (line 4-5) should be rewritten as: “to an opposite end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “said handles wheel” should most likely be rewritten as: “said handles”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 and 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “attached from” should be rewritten as: “attached to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1/2/3/4/5/6, the claim recites the limitation: "constructed and arranged" (Claim 1, line 6 & 15 & 18; & Claim 2-6), which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 and 3, the claims recites the limitations: "predetermined point" (Claim 1, line 8) & “predetermined edge” (Claim 3), which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation: "said support structures", which is of unclear antecedent basis (Claim 1, line 2, only provides “a support structure”), and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gale (US 7,306,246 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Gale discloses: A foldable rollator assembly (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 10) comprising:
a support structure (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 10) comprised of two spaced apart front support members (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 100+150) each having a proximate end and a distal end and two rear support members (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 400+450) each having a proximate and distal end (See, e.g., Fig.1-19);
said each rear support member proximate ends pivotally attached to said proximate ends of said front support members (See, e.g., Fig.1-19), said front support members each having a sliding joint member (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 113+163+200+250+300) constructed and arranged to slide between said front support members proximate and distal ends (See, e.g., Fig.1-19),
a set of crossbar members (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 500+510+560) pivotally connected at a predetermined point each having a proximate end and a distal end (See, e.g., Fig.1-19), said proximate end of said set of crossbar members pivotally connected to proximate end of said front support members (See, e.g., Fig.1-19) and said distal ends of said crossbar members pivotally attached to said sliding joint members (See, e.g., Fig.1-19), pivotally attached to said each sliding joint member (See, e.g., Fig.1-19) and pivotable attached to said two rear support members are two stabilizing support members (See, e.g., Fig.1-19),
at least one sliding joint member is comprised of a locking mechanism (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 300) constructed and arranged to be operated by the user (See, e.g., Fig.1-19), attached to proximate end of said front support members are handles (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 730+780), attached to said distal end of said each front support are at least one wheel (See, e.g., Fig.1-19, 710+760),
wherein said support structure is constructed and arranged to be pivotably operable between an open locked position and a closed storage position (See, e.g., Fig.1-19).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Gale discloses: wherein said support structures are constructed and arranged to be stored in a compact configuration (See, e.g., Fig.1-19).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Gale discloses: wherein said locking mechanism is constructed and arranged to lock said foldable rollator assembly in the operational position and the storage position (See, e.g., Fig.1-19).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Gale discloses: wherein said front support members are hollow tubular structures (See, e.g., Fig.1-19).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Gale discloses: wherein said handles wheel are removably attached from said front support members, thereby allowing a more compact storage profile (See, e.g., Fig.1-19).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Gale discloses: wherein said at least one wheel is removably attached from said support member, thereby allowing a more compact storage profile (See, e.g., Fig.1-19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 of record when taken alone or in combination with another does not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein said sliding joint member locking mechanism is comprised of lock assembly having an outer support plate with an aperture, a cam pivotably attached to said sliding joint member constructed and arranged to pivot through said aperture between a locked and unlocked position, a first spring is attached to said cam constructed and arranged to rotate said cam between a locked and unlocked position, a second spring constructed and arranged with a spring bias of a magnitude required to return said cam to a locked position, as claimed in Claim 2 (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 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.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613