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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in ¶0043, “41” should be --21-- in two places; and
“40” should be --32--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
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, upper frame part including cushions configured to support under the armpits (claim 25); at least two wheels equipped with adjustable tension (claim 27); and at least two wheels arranged to be manually blocked against rotation (claim 28) must be shown 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 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last clause, “a ratio a height” should be --a ratio of a height-- or similar language. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 17-19, 22-24, 26-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe (US 2005/0183759) in view of Coviello (5,800,318).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Wolfe discloses a walking frame comprising:
front wheels and rear wheels (20);
an upper frame part (14) and a hinged gate (22) collectively forming a closed hoop (see e.g., Fig. 3); and
wheel-holding front frame parts and wheel-holding rear frame parts (see four downwardly descending legs, all denoted 18) being directly or indirectly attached to or integrated with the upper frame part (14), wherein
the hinged gate (22) is positioned at a rear end (see ¶0094) of the upper frame part (14),
a lower portion (e.g., the lower portion of the rear leg 18 near plate 16) of the rear wheel-holding frame parts (18) extends rearward of the rear end of the upper frame part (14, see Fig. 1 showing the outwardly widening lower ends of the legs and see also Fig. 3 which more clearly shows the outward angling of the legs in another embodiment) in the direction towards the rear wheels (20), and
the lower portion (16/18) is positioned at a height less than 35 cm above a lower surface of the wheels (i.e., while the drawings are not to scale, it should be readily appreciated that the lower ends of the legs 16/18 are not over a foot above the ground in Fig. 1).
While Wolfe discloses that the rear legs (18) project rearwardly away from the rearward-most extent of the upper frame (14), it does not disclose that the rear leg lower has a horizontal extension away from upper frame of at least 10 cm.
Coviello teaches another user-surrounding wheeled walking aid, including an upper frame (1) with an entry door (3) along with front and rear frame parts (9) that have horizontally extending lower portions (5) that increase the wheelbase. As shown in Fig. 2, the extension can have a height of less than 35 cm (e.g., 38.75” - 20.8” - 6.38” = 39.39 cm) and is more than 10 or 20 cm rear of the frame (e.g., 12.5” = 31.75 cm) away from the body-supporting framework.
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 the horizontally running wheel legs 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 a known technique (e.g., increasing the wheelbase of a vehicle to improve drivability and/or stability) to known devices (e.g., wheeled walking aids that can fully support a user) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a more stable and/or easier to control walker).
Regarding claim 17, Wolfe further discloses that an intermediate frame part (21) at a vertical distance from the upper frame part (14, see Fig. 1), said intermediate frame part (21) extending between the rear wheel-holding frame parts and front wheel-holding frame parts (18) on each of a left side and a right side (see Fig. 1 showing the two side intermediate bars 21 extending between the front and rear legs).
Regarding claim 18, Coviello in the above combination has horizontally extending legs (5), which extend at an angle of less than 25 degrees relative to a horizontal plane (e.g., zero degrees).
Regarding claim 22, Wolfe further discloses that the wheels (20) can be height adjustable (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 23, Wolfe 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 claim 24, Wolfe further discloses that the upper frame part (14) includes padding (32) configured to support the forearms of a user (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Wolfe further discloses a harness (24) and at least one harness attachment (26) that is fixed to the walking frame or an integral part of the walking frame (see Fig. 2), wherein the harness (24) is configured to be attached to a user and to be attached to the at least one harness attachment (26; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, while Wolfe discloses that the wheels can include brakes (see Fig. 6), that apply pressure/friction to the wheel, it does not disclose that the friction is adjustable.
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.”
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 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 (brakes that can be gradually applied to a walker wheel) for another (brakes that lock against a walker wheel) to yield predictable results (e.g., a wheeled walker that is easier to control during movement).
Regarding claim 28, as discussed immediately above, Wolfe discloses that the wheels include locking brakes (42; see Fig. 6) and are arranged to be manually blocked against rotation.
Regarding claim 29, Wolfe discloses walking frame comprising:
front wheels and rear wheels (20);
an upper frame part (14) and a hinged gate (22) collectively forming a closed hoop (see e.g., Fig. 3); and
wheel-holding front frame parts and wheel-holding rear frame parts (see four downwardly descending legs, all denoted 18) being directly or indirectly attached to or integrated with the upper frame part (14), wherein
the hinged gate (22) is positioned at a rear end (see ¶0094) of the upper frame part (14),
a lower portion (e.g., the lower portion of the rear leg 18 near plate 16) of the rear wheel-holding frame parts (18) extends rearward of the rear end of the upper frame part (14, see Fig. 1 showing the outwardly widening lower ends of the legs and see also Fig. 3 which more clearly shows the outward angling of the legs in another embodiment) in the direction towards the rear wheels (20).
Wolfe does not disclose the specific height to length dimensions of the legs or that the ratio of the extension’s height to its length is less than 3.5 to 1.
As discussed above, Coviello teaches another user-surrounding wheeled walking aid, including an upper frame (1) with an entry door (3) along with front and rear frame parts (9) that have horizontally extending lower portions (5) that increase the wheelbase. As shown in Fig. 2, the extension can have a height of less than 35 cm (e.g., 38.75” - 20.8” - 6.38” = 11.57” = 39.39 cm) and is more than 10 or 20 cm rear of the frame (e.g., 12.5” = 31.75 cm) away from the body-supporting framework. This results in a height to extension distance ratio that is approximately 39:32, which is less than 3.5:1.
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 walking frame of Wolfe to include horizontally running wheel as legs 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 a known technique (e.g., increasing the wheelbase of a vehicle to improve drivability and/or stability) to known devices (e.g., wheeled walking aids that can fully support a user) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a more stable and/or easier to control walker).
Regarding claim 31¸as discussed above Wolfe discloses that the rear wheels is slightly offset rearwardly from body-supporting framework (14/21) of its walker, but does not disclose a specific offset distance of 10 cm.
As discussed above, Coviello teaches that the wheels of a walking frame can be longitudinally offset a distance away from a body-supporting framework (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 walking frame of Wolfe to include offset the wheels longitudinally a distance away from the body-supporting framework as taught by Coviello to arrive at a 10cm offset to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) The motivation for doing so would be balance the overall size of the walker to degree of control/steerability afforded by a longer wheelbase.
Regarding claim 32, Coviello in the above combination has horizontally extending legs (5), which extend at an angle of less than 25 degrees relative to a horizontal plane (e.g., zero degrees).
Regarding claim 33, Wolfe further discloses that an intermediate frame part (21) at a vertical distance from the upper frame part (14, see Fig. 1), said intermediate frame part (21) extending between the rear wheel-holding frame parts and front wheel-holding frame parts (18) on each of a left side and a right side (see Fig. 1 showing the two side intermediate bars 21 extending between the front and rear legs).
Regarding claim 34, in the Wolfe/Coviello combination of claim 29, the longitudinal legs (5/9) are adjustable (see Figs. 2 and 4) where the heights and lengths can be adjusted to a position where the height to length ratio is 1:1 or less (e.g., height of legs of Coviello that can be 11.57” versus the extendable length legs 5, that is at least 12.5”; resulting in a ratio that is less than 1:1).
Claims 16, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Coviello as applied to claims 15 or 29 above, and in further view of Daugherty (4,226,413).
Regarding claims 16 and 30, as discussed above with respect to claims 15 and 29, Wolfe does not disclose that the rear wheels are longitudinally offset via an extension distance of at least 10 cm or that this extension is less than 25 cm above the ground.
Coviello teaches that the wheels, including the rear wheels, of a wheeled walker can be longitudinally offset via an extension (5) that is at least 10 cm from the body-supporting framework (1).
Daugherty teaches another wheeled walker including a user-supporting frame (38), wherein the rear wheels are longitudinally offset from the body-supporting frame (see Fig. 1). The longitudinally offset lower portion of the frame (24) being less than 25 cm above the ground (see Fig. 2 showing the relative height of the horizontal frame 24 to a user’s foot which is readily apparent to be less than 25cm/10inches).
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 Wolfe to include a longitudinally running wheelbase extending lower leg portion as taught by Coviello and to locate the wheelbase extension close to the ground as taught by Daugherty 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., increasing the wheelbase of a vehicle while lower the center of gravity of a vehicle to improve drivability and/or stability) to known devices (e.g., wheeled walking aids that can fully support a user) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a more stable and/or easier to control walker).
Regarding claim 25, Wolfe does not disclose that the upper frame includes armpit cushioning.
Daugherty teaches a wheeled walker having an upper frame (26/38) that includes cushions (26) configured to support under the armpits of a user (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 the Wolfe combination to include padded crutch-like underarm supports as taught by Daugherty 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 user-specific body part supports in a medical transporter) to known devices (e.g., wheeled walking aids) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a walker that comfortably supports a particular user based on their walking/weight bearing capability).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Coviello, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Shikinami et al. (6,974,142).
Regarding claim 20, Wolfe 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 the Wolfe combination 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, Wolfe 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 the Wolfe combination 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).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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