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 1-20 are pending herein
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II (Claims 10-18) and Species D (Fig.9-13) in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Inventions I, II, and III are overlapping in scope and therefore should be examined together; and
the Examiner has not shown that maintaining the species in the application would be a burden or how searching would be burdensome.
This is not found persuasive because:
As best understood, Inventions I and III are different in scope based on the claim terms provided in Claims 1-9, and 19-20.
Furthermore, in addition to reading and understanding all of the various features of the species of invention presented it would, indeed, be a serious burden upon the examiner to search for the added features and apply any found additional relevant prior art to each of the inventions/species presented. Moreover, the examiner disagrees with Applicant's allegation that the search for each Invention/Species would be substantially the same. Clearly, in the examiner's view, the Inventions/Species carry substantially more features that could be claimed, and which therefore would require being individually searched and individually addressed in the written Office Action, thus prima facie a serious burden.
Consequently, Applicant’s arguments in traverse notwithstanding, the examiner maintains the restriction requirement to be proper and hereby makes the restriction final.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9, 16 (unelected Fig.7), and 19-20, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 10/24/2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “125” (Fig.9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “at least one of a torsion spring, a compression spring, a tension spring, an extension spring, a conical spring, a spiral spring, or a leaf spring” (Claim 10 – not all options shown only torsion springs 114 shown) must be labeled 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the diameter” (line 2 & 3) should be rewritten as “a diameter”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “biasing mechanism” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
page 7, P[0001] improperly restarts the paragraph numbering.
Page 7, P[0001] provides that the cart is element “10” however the figures and the remainder of the disclosure provided element “100”.
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 10-18 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 10, the claim recites the limitation: "configured to engage" (line 3), is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-18 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 10, the claim recites the limitation: "changes a biasing state" (line 13), is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-15 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 12, the claim recites the limitation: “at least one of a torsion spring, a compression spring, a tension spring, an extension spring, a conical spring, a spiral spring, or a leaf spring" (line 1-3, see above drawing objection), is unclear 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) 10, 12-15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang (US 7,219,907 B1).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Chang discloses: A suspension system (See, e.g., Fig.1-11) for a roller board assembly (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 10), the suspension system comprising:
a truck center housing (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 40+42+30) configured to engage with a lower portion of a truck assembly (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 41), the truck center housing defining a pivot axle cavity (See, e.g., Fig.1-11) that houses a pivot axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 421), a pivot axle shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 421+33), and a biasing mechanism (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 60) coupled to the pivot axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-11), the pivot axle defining a shaft orifice (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 421) through which the pivot axle shaft extends from a first end to a second end of the truck center housing and defines a truck axis (See, e.g., Fig.1-11);
a truck wing (See, e.g., Fig.1-11,30+40) coupled to the truck center housing, the truck wing having a front cavity and a rear orifice (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 30), the front cavity configured to receive at least a portion of the biasing mechanism and the pivot axle shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-11), and the rear orifice configured to receive a wheel axle shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 34), the wheel axle shaft defining a wheel axis; wherein the truck wing is pivotable about the truck axis and the biasing mechanism changes a biasing state (See, e.g., Fig.1-11).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Chang discloses: wherein the biasing mechanism is at least one of a torsion spring, a compression spring, a tension spring, an extension spring, a conical spring, a spiral spring, or a leaf spring (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 60).
[Claim 13] Regarding Claim 13, Chang discloses: wherein the biasing mechanism is a torsion spring (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 60).
[Claim 14] Regarding Claim 14, Chang discloses: wherein the pivot axle includes a center portion and an arm portion disposed at an end of the center portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 421+33), wherein the diameter of the center portion is larger than the diameter of the arm portion and the torsion spring surrounds the arm portion of the pivot axle (See, e.g., Fig.1-11).
[Claim 15] Regarding Claim 15, Chang discloses: wherein the pivot axle defines a spring notch (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 422+35) at a circumference of the center portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-11), the spring notch configured to receive a leg of the torsion spring and limit rotation of the torsion spring with respect to the truck axis (See, e.g., Fig.1-11).
[Claim 17] Regarding Claim 17, Chang discloses: wherein the suspension system includes a dampening system disposed on the truck wing (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 310) the dampening system configured to absorb kinetic energy as the biasing mechanism changes its biasing state (See, e.g., Fig.1-11).
[Claim 18] Regarding Claim 18, Chang discloses: further including a bumper stop (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 422+35) disposed on a side of the truck wing adjacent to the truck center housing (See, e.g., Fig.1-11), the bumper stop configured to limit the rotation of the truck wing with respect to the truck center housing (See, e.g., Fig.1-11).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 7,219,907 B2) in view of Johnson (US 4,176,850).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Chang fails to explicitly teach: wherein the truck wing further houses at least one roller bearing disposed around the pivot axle shaft in the front cavity, the at least one roller bearing configured to pivot the truck wing with respect to the truck center housing.
However, Johnson teaches: a similar roller board suspension system (See, e.g., Johnson: Fig.1-19, 200) wherein at least one roller bearing (See, e.g., Johnson: Fig.1-19, 194) is disposed around a pivot axle shaft (See, e.g., Johnson: Fig.1-19, 22+77).
Johnson teaches that it is well known in the art of transport cart design to provide roller bearings around a pivot axle shaft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Chang modified with roller bearings around the pivot axle shaft as taught by Johnson and housed in the front cavity, for the purpose of precisely controlling operation of the pivot axle shaft when in use to provide smooth movement (See, e.g., Johnson: Fig.1-19; Col.7, Ln.34-58), and beneficially allowing a user to use the roller board without significant exertions of strength during tricks/turns. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
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