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, 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 1, 3, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obitts in US Patent 5692762 in view of Rothstein et al. in US Publication 2014/0265256 and Cooper et al. in US Patent 8490242.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 5-9, Obitts teaches a walking frame comprising: a walking frame body (A) configured to provide support to a user as they walk across a surface; at least one swivel castor (62a/b) coupled to the walking frame body to allow the user to steer the walking frame in different directions across the surface.
Obitts is silent on the use of an alignment mechanism on the wheel swivels. Rothstein teaches the use of an alignment mechanism (510) configured to apply a biasing force to a wheel mount on rotation thereof to bias the wheel into a predetermined orientation relative to the walking frame body. 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 device of Obitts by adding an alignment mechanism as taught by Rothstein in order to ensure that the wheels remain aligned during use.
Obitts, as modified, is silent on the details of the alignment mechanism. Cooper teaches (Fig. 12) a swivel castor including frame body (84), a wheel (96) configured to contact the surface and rotate as it is moved across the surface, and a wheel mount (88) rotatable with respect to frame body to change the orientation of the wheel relative to the walking frame body and allow the user to steer the frame in different directions across the surface; and an alignment mechanism (85/91) configured to apply a biasing force to the wheel mount on rotation thereof to bias the wheel into a predetermined orientation relative to the frame body, wherein the biasing force applied to the wheel mount decreases as the wheel mount rotates away from the predetermined orientation (magnetic force is well-known to decrease as the magnets are moved away from each other), wherein the alignment mechanism is configured to apply the biasing force to the wheel mount over a predetermined rotational range (when the magnets are near enough to interact) of the wheel mount, wherein the predetermined rotational range of the wheel mount is 90 degrees or less (insofar as the arrangement of Cooper is the same as that of the applicant’s device and therefore would act in the same manner), wherein the alignment mechanism is configured to apply no biasing force to the wheel mount outside of the predetermined rotational range (such as when the wheel is at a 90 degree angle to the magnet 85), wherein the alignment mechanism comprises a plurality of magnets configured to provide the biasing force to bias the wheel mount into the predetermined orientation, wherein the alignment mechanism comprises a first magnet (85) coupled to the frame body and a second magnet (91) coupled to the wheel mount and configured to rotate therewith, wherein relative rotation between the wheel mount and the frame body causes the biasing force to be applied to the wheel mount, wherein opposing poles of the first and second magnets are aligned when the wheel mount is in the predetermined orientation (see Fig. 12), wherein the first and second magnets are coaxial when the wheel mount is in the predetermined orientation, wherein the first and second magnets are coupled to the walking frame body and the wheel mount respectively in a position offset from a rotational axis (R) of the wheel mount. 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 device of Obitts, as modified, by using castors as taught by Cooper in order to prevent unwanted swiveling of the castors and to provide a positive alignment for the wheels to allow the user to more easily move straight.
Regarding Claim 10, Obitts, as modified, teaches a plurality of swivel castors (there are 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Obitts, as modified, teaches that the walking frame body comprises front legs (22a/22b) and rear (24a/24b) legs, and wherein a swivel castor is coupled to each of the front legs and a low-friction glide (100) for sliding over the surface is coupled to each of the rear legs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as explicitly stated in the rejection, the use on the Obitts device of the alignment mechanism taught by Rothstein would provide means ensuring that the wheels remain aligned during use. Rothstein is not relied upon to teach the details of the alignment mechanism, but only stands for the idea that such an alignment mechanism provides an improvement.
In response to applicant's argument that Rothstein is only concerned with limiting the size of the device, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the applicant’s argument that Obitts teaches away from the use of limited-rotation wheels, referring to the fact that “’the patient can easily steer the walker…’”, it is noted that immediately after the quoted passage, Obitts further states that “Of course, it will be recognized that fixed wheels, i.e., unable to rotate about a vertical axis, are sometimes used in place of the caster wheels.” (Column 3, line 63-65). Therefore, Obitts does not limit the device to swiveling wheels and cannot be relied upon to teach the addition of a limited rotation wheel.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah C. Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights