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 .
Requirement For Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In response to this requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:
Prior art “Gail Improvement in Adults with Hemiparesis using a Rolling Cane: a Cross-Over Trial” with authors including inventor Thierry Deltombe, show a rolling cane in use at least by 2020.
Is the claimed range of angles (105 and 120° in claims 2, 7 and 12; 72 and 88° in claims 3 and 12; and 75 and 91° in claims 4 and 5) known to the applicant in existing products or prior art?
Is the claimed range of surface area (550cm2 and 570cm2 in claim 6) known to the applicant in existing products or prior art?
What are the range of angles and the range of surface areas of the device in the prior art?
If you don’t have the specific angles or the surface area of the device in the prior art, does applicant believe they are within the claimed ranges?
If the answer to question 4 is no, please provide any technical data or engineering rationale available to the applicant that demonstrates why this specific range is necessary or provides a surprising result over the other angles or the other surface areas.
The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of Application 18/681444 and identify the properties of similar products found in the prior art.
In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products that have incorporated the claimed subject matter. In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure.
The fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and has a shortened statutory period of 2 months. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gail Improvement in Adults with Hemiparesis using a Rolling Cane: a Cross-Over Trial ("Thierry").
Claim 1: Thierry teaches A stick (1; Annotated Fig. 3 below) to help individuals with reduced mobility to move around, comprising: a handgrip (10) for gripping the stick, and a supporting structure (3) comprising: a support tube (4) onto which the handgrip is attached, a first curved branch, a second curved branch, a third curved branch, and a fourth curved branch, each one of the branches (5, 6, 7 and 8) connected to the support tube (Annotated Fig. 3), each one of the branches having a vertical lower end, and a caster (9), fixedly connected to the vertical lower end of each of said branches, the caster being freely rotatable around a vertical axis (Annotated Fig. 3), the vertical lower ends of the first curved branch (5) and the second curved branch (6) extending at a distance from each other in a first vertical plane (Annotated Fig. 3), and the vertical lower ends of the third curved branch (7) and the fourth curved branch extending at a distance from each other in a second vertical plane, parallel to the first vertical plane, these two planes being situated on either side of the support tube (Annotated Fig. 3), wherein said first, second, third and fourth curved branches (5, 6, 7, 8) connected to the support tube (4) extend downwards away from the support tube (Annotated Fig. 3), and a distance between the vertical ends of the first curved branch and of the second curved branch in said first vertical plane is greater than a distance between the vertical ends of the third curved branch and of the fourth curved branch in said second vertical plane, the first vertical plane being situated at a distance from the support tube that is shorter than a distance between the second vertical plane and the support tube (Annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Claim 8: Thierry teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Thierry further teaches the stick, wherein the handgrip (10) is an ambidextrous handgrip (Annotated Fig. 3).
Claim 9: Thierry teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Thierry further teaches the stick, wherein the support tube (4) is formed by two height-adjustable tubes, one inside the other (page. 2, col. 1, para. 4, lines 4-5; Annotated Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 2-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gail Improvement in Adults with Hemiparesis using a Rolling Cane: a Cross-Over Trial ("Thierry") in view of In Re Aller.
Claim 2: Thierry the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Thierry art does not teach the stick, wherein an upper portion of the first curved branch and an upper portion of the second curved branch form an angle with each other of between 105 and 120°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 3: Thierry the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Thierry art does not teach the stick, wherein an upper portion of the third curved branch and an upper portion of the fourth curved branch form an angle with each other of between 72 and 88°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 4: Thierry the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Thierry art does not teach the stick, wherein the upper portion of the second curved branch and the upper portion of the third curved branch form an angle with each other of between 75 and 91°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5: Thierry the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Thierry art does not teach the stick, wherein the upper portion of the first curved branch and the upper portion of the fourth curved branch form an angle with each other of between 75 and 91°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6: Thierry the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Thierry art does not teach the stick, wherein said vertical lower ends of said curved branches form a quadrilateral with a surface area between 550cm2 and 570cm2
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7: Thierry the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Thierry art does not teach the stick, wherein an upper portion of the first curved branch and an upper portion of the second curved branch form an angle with each other of between 105 and 120°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 12: Thierry the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Thierry further a method for assembling a stick according to claim 1 comprising the steps of: fitting an upper vertical tube (2) into the handgrip (10), attaching the handgrip (10) to the upper vertical tube (2) (Annotated Fig. 3), fitting a trim ring (11) onto an upper portion of a lower vertical tube (4), fitting a trim ring (12) onto a lower portion of the lower vertical tube (4) (Annotated Fig. 3), sliding the upper vertical tube (2) into the lower vertical tube (4) so that the upper vertical tube is adjustable in height, and attaching upper vertical tube to the lower vertical tube at an adjusted height (page. 2, col. 1, para. 4, lines 4-5; Annotated Fig. 3), and attaching a caster (9) to the vertical lower end of each of said curved branches, to enable the caster to rotate around a vertical axis (Annotated Fig. 3). But does not teach welding the first curved branch and the second curved branch at a first level of the lower vertical tube, an upper portion of said first curved branch and an upper portion of said second curved branch forming an angle with each other of between 105 and 120°, welding the third curved branch and the fourth curved branch at a second level of the lower vertical tube, which is different from the first level, an upper portion of said third curved branch and an upper portion of said fourth curved branch forming an angle with each other of between 72 and 88°
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gail Improvement in Adults with Hemiparesis using a Rolling Cane: a Cross-Over Trial ("Thierry") in view of US 20080035193 A1 ("Baker").
Claim 10: Thierry the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the stick, wherein one of the two support tubes is at least partially made of anodized aluminum.
However, Baker teaches the stick, wherein one of the two support tubes is at least partially made of anodized aluminum (para. 109, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry with the features of Baker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Baker teaches "the materials selected for use must be rust and corrosion resistant in order to ensure the telescoping action of the upper tubes inside the lower tubes is not impeded" (para. 109, lines 4-7).
Claim 11: Thierry the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Thierry does not teach the stick, wherein the supporting structure is at least partially made of steel
However, Thierry teaches the stick, wherein the supporting structure is at least partially made of steel (para. 109, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thierry with the features of Baker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Baker teaches "the materials selected for use must be rust and corrosion resistant in order to ensure the telescoping action of the upper tubes inside the lower tubes is not impeded" (para. 109, lines 4-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614