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
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 of this title, 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 15-16, 18-19, 22, 24, 26, 29-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer (5,255,697).
Regarding claims 15-16, 19, 29-31, and 34, Grauer discloses a walking frame comprising:
front wheels and rear wheels (12);
an upper frame part (24, 34, 34, and 30; collectively) having a rear end (30) and a hinged gate (e.g., rear bar 30 is pivotable to allow entry - see Col. 2, lines 26-36)) collectively forming a closed hoop (see e.g., Fig. 1); and
wheel-holding front frame parts (e.g., the lower frame 10 in front of the two side T-connectors 20 along with the front upright 18) and wheel-holding rear frame parts (e.g., the two side T-connectors 20 along with the lower frame 10 to the rear of these two side T-connectors and the two side uprights 14, 16) being directly or indirectly attached to or integrated with the upper frame part (24-34), the wheel-holding rear frame parts including a lower portion (e.g., rearward portions 10) defined as the portion thereof that extends rearward of the rear end of the upper frame part (24-34; see Fig. 1) and an intermediate portion (e.g., the two side T-connectors 20 and uprights 14, 16) between the upper frame part (24-30) and the lower portion (rearward 10), wherein
the hinged gate (30) is positioned at the rear end of the upper frame part (24-34),
the lower portion (rearward 10) of the rear wheel-holding frame parts extends rearward of the rear end of the upper frame part (24-34, see Fig. 1 showing the rear of the wheel base frame 10 extending rearward of the upper frame loop) in the direction towards the rear wheels (20).
Further Grauer discloses that in one embodiment, the frame is made from one inch pipe (Col. 1, lines 50-52) and while patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, the one inch diameter of the frame elements suggests that the dimensions associated with the lower frame are likely less than 25cm in height and 20cm in extension. However, Grauer does not specifically provide for the dimensions or the resulting ratio between these dimensions.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the walking frame of Grauer to use relatively low-height horizontally running wheel legs that are less than 25cm from the ground and extend over 20cm from upper framework resulting a ratio less than 3.5 to 1 or even 1 to 1 to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). The motivation for doing so would be to ensure the relatively heavy lower base is set low to improve its low center of gravity (see Col. 1, line 50-53) while also ensuring that the wheelbase is sufficiently large to maintain stability.
Regarding claims 18 and 32, Grauer has horizontally extending rear legs (rearward 10), which extend at an angle of less than 25 degrees relative to a horizontal plane (e.g., zero degrees).
Regarding claim 22, Grauer further discloses that the wheel-holding frame parts (e.g., the uprights 14-18) can be height adjustable (see Fig. 5 and Col. 2, lines 59-52).
Regarding claim 24, Grauer further discloses that the upper frame part (24-34) includes padding (46) configured to support the forearms of a user (see Fig. 1 showing the upper frame is at a location suitable for resting a user’s forearms).
Regarding claim 26, Grauer further discloses a harness (40-44) and at least one harness attachment (see connection along upper frame 24-34) that is fixed to the walking frame or an integral part of the walking frame (see Fig. 1), wherein the harness (40-44) is configured to be attached to a user and to be attached to the at least one harness attachment.
Claims 17, 23, 27-28, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Coviello (5,800,318).
Regarding claims 17 and 33, Grauer does not disclose that the frame includes an intermediate frame part between the front and rear wheel-holding frame parts.
Coviello teaches another walking frame having a user-surrounding upper frame part (12) supported on a wheeled lower portion having a rear wheel-holding frame part (see portion generally denoted by reference character 5 in Fig. 1) and a front wheel-holding frame part (“13” in Fig. 1) and includes an intermediate frame part (“14” in Fig. 1) at a vertical distance from the upper frame part (12), said intermediate frame part (14) extending between the rear wheel-holding frame parts (5) and front wheel-holding frame parts (13) on each of a left side and a right side (see Fig. 1 showing the two side intermediate bars 14 extending between the front and rear legs).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the walking frame of Grauer to a horizontally oriented support bar between the rear vertical supports and the front vertical supports as taught by Coviello to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying known techniques (e.g., reinforcing a framework with additional interconnecting elements) to known devices (e.g., wheeled walking aids that can support a user’s weight and surround a user’s body/legs) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a more durable/sturdier walker).
Regarding claim 23, Grauer does not disclose that the rear wheels are not casters.
Coviello teaches that the rear wheels of a walking frame can be non-swivel type (see Col. 4, lines 12-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the walking frame of Wolfe to include non-pivoting rear wheels as taught by Coviello to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (non-pivoting rear wheels) for another (pivoting rear wheels) to yield predictable results (e.g., a wheeled walker that is more stable and/or easier to control).
Regarding claims 27-28, Grauer does not disclose that the wheels are braked.
Coviello teaches that the wheels of a walking frame can include “pressure sensitive” brakes (see Col. 4, lines 1-6). This pressure/weight sensitive brakes read upon the wheels equipped with adjustable friction when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “adjustable friction.” Further, the braking operation inherently manually blocks the wheels from rotating.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the walking frame of Grauer to include pressure sensitive wheel brakes as taught by Coviello to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (unbraked walker wheels) for another (walker wheels having brakes that lock against a walker wheel) to yield predictable results (e.g., a wheeled walker that is easier to control during movement and/or more stable when stopped).
Claims 20-21 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Shikinami et al. (6,974,142).
Regarding claims 20 and 35, Grauer does not disclose that the rear frame parts have a curved intermediate portion.
Shikinami teaches another wheeled walker, including a body-supporting upper frame (2) that extends rearwardly past the underlying wheel-holding frame part (4; see Fig. 1 showing the body-surrounding upper frame extending beyond the vertical support frame 4u, 4lv, 4l). The wheel-holding frame part (4) including an intermediate portion that is adjacent to a lower portion (4lh)and is curved forward and located in front of a plumb line drawn from the rear end of the upper frame part (2; see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the wheeled walker of Grauer to include a curved intermediate portion disposed forward of the rear of the body-supporting framework as taught by Shikinami to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying known techniques (e.g., using curvature in a framework to reduce stress/failure points and shaping a framework to improve clearance) to known devices (e.g., wheeled walking aids that can support a user’s weight and surround a user’s body/legs) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a more durable walker that has reduced likelihood of a user impacting the frame’s uprights while walking/striding).
Regarding claim 21, Grauer does not disclose that the upper frame includes handles.
Shikinami teaches another wheeled walker, including a body-supporting upper frame (2) that includes handles (6) at the front end (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the wheeled walker of Grauer to include handles as taught by Shikinami to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying known techniques (e.g., providing handles in a medical transporter) to known devices (e.g., wheeled walking aids) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a walker that is more readily controlled by a user).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly, the amendments to these claims (and the addition of new claim 35) necessitated additional searching and consideration of the prior art which produced the Grauer patent which discloses/suggests the recited low profile rear lower portion.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights