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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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(s) 9-18, and 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartkopf (US – 2021/0276366 A1) and further in view of Patmore et al. (US – 2019/0358998 A1).
As per claims 9 and 20, Hartkopf discloses Caster Comprising A Running Wheel comprising:
a body (2, 4, Fig: 1-5);
a wheel (6, Fig: 1-5) operatively rotatably connected to the body (Fig: 1-5);
a hub structure (49, Fig: 1-5) operatively connected to the wheel (Fig: 1-5), the hub structure having an outward facing brake ring (Attached figure and Fig: 1-5), the brake ring having a plurality of teeth arranged in a pattern on an outer surface of the brake ring (Attached figure and Fig: 1-5); and
a brake block adapted (41, 46, 47, Fig: 1-5) and configured for reciprocating motion within the body between an engaged position with the brake ring and a disengaged position with the brake ring, the brake block having a plurality of teeth on an outer surface of the brake block (radially inwardly with respect to the running wheel axis of arms 47, interlocking means 48 are provided in the form of a toothing. These serve for interlocking interaction with a sprocket 49 in each case. Both sprockets 49 are formed on both sides of the wheel rim on running wheel 6, [0090] – [0092], Fig: 1-5);
wherein when the brake block is in the engaged position relative to the brake ring, the brake block engages the brake ring in a manner so as to allow relative motion between the brake block and the brake ring, and after rotation of the wheel, enable at least one of the teeth in the plurality of teeth of the brake block to interlock with at least one of the teeth in the plurality of teeth on the outer surface of the brake ring (Due to the freely projecting embodiment of arms 47, an elastic connection of second braking part 46 to first braking part 41 is established. Arms 47 may elastically yield in the case of jamming. Such jamming may be achieved in the case that the tooth crests of interlocking means 48 strike tooth crests of sprocket 49 in an unfortunate wheel position. In such a situation, the achievement of the total locking position, in which a braking effect is also achieved, is also possible, even if optionally initially only a friction-locking braking action may be achieved. A slight movement of running wheel 6 in the running direction is sufficient, however, to facilitate an automatic drop of interlocking means 48 into sprocket 49; this is a consequence of the elastic reset ability of arms 47, [0106], Fig: 1-5); and
wherein when the brake block (41, 46, 47, Fig: 1-5) is in the disengaged position relative to the brake ring (49, Fig: 5), the brake block is spaced from the brake ring in a manner so as to allow free rotation of the wheel relative to the body (Fig: 5).
Hartkopf discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the brake ring is formed of a material sufficiently radially compliant.
Patmore discloses Caster Assembly With Brake Assembly comprising:
wherein the brake ring is formed of a material sufficiently radially compliant (The outer wheel portion 71 may also be referred to as a tire, tread, etc. In some embodiments, the outer wheel portion 71 comprises a first material and the wheel hub 69 comprises a second material, wherein the first material is different than the second material. The first material may be softer than the second material, and have a higher coefficient of friction (static and/or dynamic) to provide suitable frictional engagement during braking, described further below. The first material also provides the wheel 68 with suitable grip on the floor surface F. The first material comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of, the first material, which may be a polymer. In many embodiments, the first material is selected from elastomers, thermoplastic elastomers, thermoplastics, and combinations thereof. Other first materials are also contemplated, [0027], Fig: 2), that is a material sufficiently radially compliant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Caster Comprising A Running Wheel of the Hartkopf to make the brake ring in which brake ring is formed of a material sufficiently radially compliant as taught by Patmore in order to provide suitable frictional engagement during braking.
As per claims 10 and 21, Hartkopf discloses wherein brake ring (49, Fig: 2) is coaxially aligned with an axis of rotation of the wheel (7, Fig: 2).
As per claims 11 and 22, Hartkopf discloses wherein the hub structure has an annular surface (Fig: 2) with the brake ring (49) being mounted on the annular surface (Fig: 2).
As per claims 12 and 23, Patmore further discloses where the brake ring is formed of an elastomer material ([0027], Fig: 2).
As per claims 13 and 24, Hartkopf discloses wherein each tooth of the tooth profile of the brake block has rounded outer edges (Attached figure and Fig: 4-5).
As per claims 14 and 25, Hartkopf discloses wherein each tooth in the plurality of teeth on the outer surface of the brake ring has rounded outer edges (Attached figure and Fig: 4-5)
As per claims 15 and 26, Patmore further discloses wherein the brake block is made of a plastic material ([0027], Fig: 2).
As per claims 16 and 27, Hartkopf discloses wherein the brake block moves in a vertical direction within the body when moving between the engaged and disengaged positions (Fig: 1-5).
As per claims 17 and 28, Hartkopf discloses wherein each tooth in the plurality of teeth of the brake block (Attached figure and Fig: 1-5) is defined by a rounded outer edge disposed between rounded inner edges (Attached figure and Fig: 1-5), the rounded outer edge has a first curvature, the rounded inner edge has a second curvature, the first curvature is greater than the second curvature (Attached figure and Fig: 1-5).
As per claims 18 and 29, Hartkopf discloses wherein each tooth in the plurality of teeth of the brake ring (Attached figure and Fig: 1-5) is defined by a rounded outer edge disposed between rounded inner edges (Attached figure and Fig: 1-5), the rounded outer edge has a first curvature, the rounded inner edge has a second curvature, the first curvature is greater than the second curvature (Attached figure and Fig: 1-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
770
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
Prior art and teaching reference fail to disclose wherein the tooth profile of the brake block is adapted and configured to slip with the tooth profile on the outer surface of the brake ring at a first speed of rotation of the wheel when the brake block is in the engaged position, and the tooth profile of the brake block is adapted and configured to interlock with the tooth profile on the outer surface of the brake ring at a second speed of rotation of the wheel when the brake block is in the engaged position, the first speed being higher than the second speed; and
brake ring at the first speed of rotation of the wheel and to limit relative motion between the brake block and the brake ring at the second speed of rotation of the wheel.
Claims 2-8 depend directly or indirectly depend on claim 1.
Claims 19 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art and teaching reference fail to disclose wherein the plurality of teeth of the brake ring are adapted and configured to slip with the plurality of teeth of the brake block at a first speed of rotation of the wheel when the brake block is in the engaged position and interlock with the plurality of teeth of the brake block at a second speed of rotation of the wheel when the brake block is in the engaged position, the first speed is greater than the second speed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A: Jie (US – 2015/0239291 A1),
B: Childs (US – 2013/0111664 A1),
C: Park (US – 2012/0111672 A1), and
D: Yan (US – 2006/0254867 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights