Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/712,590

Walking Frame with Self-Aligning Wheels

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 22, 2024
Priority
Nov 29, 2021 — GB 2117186.3 +1 more
Examiner
HAWK, NOAH CHANDLER
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Mobilitas Group Limited
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
956 granted / 1554 resolved
+9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
1610
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
68.3%
+28.3% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1554 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-10, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 under Obitts as modified by Vig have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Obitts in view of Rothstein and Cooper. Conclusion 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 Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 22, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 30, 2026
Response Filed
May 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12635773
UMBRELLA COMPRISING AN ILLUMINATION FEATURE AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12624565
TRUCK BED CANOPY DEVICE
2y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12624566
PORTABLE SHELTER
2y 0m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12616284
Umbrella
2y 0m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12612800
LOCKABLE GROUND ANCHOR
2y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+21.9%)
1y 11m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1554 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month