Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on application serail number 18/648,071 filed 4/26/24. Claims 1-19 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The drawings filed 4/26/24 are approved.
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 16-17 and 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 16, “the upper portion” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 17, “the Y-shaped upper portion” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 19, “The kit” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2022/0015981 to Younger.
Younger provides a walking cane [0002] comprising: an upper portion comprising a handle 1014 and a wrist support 1012W; and a lower portion comprising a support leg 1008, wherein the handle and wrist support are spaced apart from one another and extend from the support leg at diverging angles.
With respect to claims 2 and 15 see at least figure 10B which shows he handle and support as both branched and “Y” shaped.
With respect to claim 3, see paragraph [0042] which recites that section 1004/1106/108 are secured to one another using any means for example a quick-release pin. This inherently would allow for removable coupling and interchangeability.
With respect to claim 4, see paragraph [0051] which lists strong and lightweight materials.
With respect to claim 7, see paragraph [0054] which provides for interchangeability of the hand grip 1014.
With respect to claims 8-9, see paragpgh [0059] which recites “As is known to those of skill in the art, the height of the crutch 1000 or cane 1000′ can be adjusted based on the height of the user. In embodiments, both the first section 1008 and the third section 1004 section may be lengthened or shortened as desired. While any method of extending the length of any of the sections 1004, 1006, 1008 may be used, in embodiments, quick-release pins and corresponding holes in the respective sections 1004, 1006, 1008 may allow for easily adjust the length of the desired section 1004, 1006, and/or 1008”.
With respect to claim 12, at least paragraphs [0042, 0054, 0055] provide for one or more interchangeable components.
With respect to claim 13, the handle 1014 is shown at an angle that is neither parallel or perpendicular to the axis of section 1008.
With respect to claim 14, support 1012 with wrist support 1012W is shown at an angle that is neither parallel or perpendicular to the axis of section 1008.
With respect to claims 16-17 no structural differences are recited to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With respect to claim 18, paragraph [0059] provides for vertical adjustment of vertical support 1008 and as noted above several paragraphs provide for interchangeable components.
With respect to claim 19, cradle 1012 provides support for the users forearm as recited in paragraph [0048] and has a wrist support end 1012W.
Claims 13, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2011/0240077 to Dougherty et al.
Dougherty provides a walking cane comprising a ground engaging length 66 supporting a handle 24 on an upper end of the length, wherein the handle extends outwardly from connection with the ground engaging length at an angle such that the handle extends along an axis that is neither parallel nor perpendicular to an axis of the ground engaging length.
With respect claim 14, the walking cane further comprises a wrist support length 18 extending outwardly from connection with the ground engaging length at an angle such that the wrist support extends along an axis that is neither parallel nor perpendicular to an axis of the ground engaging length.
With respect to claims 16-17, note paragraphs [0083-0089] which discuss the ergonomic design.
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.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0015981 to Younger in view of U.S. Patent 6,561,206 to Wilkensen.
Younger provides each of the elements for claims except for magnetic clips configured to couple two walking canes.
Wilkens teaches using magnetic clips 10 and 20 to couple two canes (fig.3)
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that the magnetic clips of Wilkensen could have been provided to the cane of Younger so as to allow for the cane to be statically coupled to its mate.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of magnetically coupling a pair of canes.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0015981 to Younger in view of U.S. Patent 6,561,206 to Wilkensen and U.S. D866,163 to Crown et al.
Younger as modified by Wilkensen above teaches the use for magnetic clips for attached two canes but fails to provide for two clips one positioned on an upper portion and one positioned on a lower portion.
Crown shows a crutch connector arrangement using two clips one positioned higher than the other.
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that two of the magnetic clips of Wilkensen could have been provided to the cane of Younger as taught by Crown so as to allow for the cane to be statically coupled to its mate.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of magnetically coupling a pair of canes.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0015981 to Younger in view of U.S. H2138 to Pullman et al.
Younger provides each of the elements of the claims as noted above including any known foot 1010 to provide cushion and traction, the foot may be interchangeable [0055].
Younger fails to specify the foot is rubber.
Pullman teaches that a replaceable non-slip rubber foot 21 was know at the tome of the effective filing date of the invention (col.3, lns 65+).
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a replaceable rubber foot for the foot of Younger as Younger suggests any known foot [ 0055] and Pullman provides an example that rubber was known at the time of the effective filing date of the invention. It would have been an obvious substitution of mechanical equivalents at the time of the effective filing date of the invention absent any expected or unpredictable results.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly note:
U.S. 2010/0051077 to McGann et al. which provides for a cane which is adjustable in length (fig.4) and has interchangeable grips (figs. 6-8) at the upper end thereof and interchangeable feet (figs.9-11) at the lower end thereof to be customizable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636