Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serail number 18/731,230 filed 5/31/26. Claims 1-6 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 .
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 5/31/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The drawings filed 5/31/24 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 1-6 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.
The preamble of claim 1 includes a typo “waler” which is inaccurate and should read - - walker - -.
The terms “large” and “small” in claims 1-6 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “large” and “small” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear where “large” or “small” begin and end. The examiner suggests deleting the terms as claim 1 already requires “the two ground engaging front wheels having an equal radius of R1, the two ground engaging rear wheels having an equal radius of R2, and wherein R1 is greater than R2”.
Claim 1 fails to particularly point the disclosed invention in that it recites “two ground engaging front wheels, each attached to each end of the two front supports; two ground engaging rear wheels, each attached to each end the two rear supports”. As best understood, each wheel is not attached to each support as required by the limitations. The examiner suggests amending to “two ground engaging front wheels, each respectively attached to an end of one of the two front supports; two ground engaging rear wheels, each respectively attached to an end one of the two rear supports”.
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, 5 and 6 ,as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 4,461,471 to Brastow.
Brastow provides a walker (title) with two large front wheels 14 and two small rear wheels/casters 16, comprising: two laterally spaced front supports and two laterally spaced rear supports; two ground engaging front wheels, each attached to each end of the two front supports; two ground engaging rear wheels, each attached to each end the two rear supports, wherein the two ground engaging front wheels having an equal radius of R1, the two ground engaging rear wheels having an equal radius of R2, and wherein R1 is greater than R2 (all shown unlabeled by clearly shown in at least Fig.1)
With respect to claim 5 see Figs. 2-3 and column 3, lines 1-11.
With respect to claim 6, the rear wheels are inherently removable they could be replaced or even just cut off.
Claims 1-4 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,158,313 to Becker.
Becker provides a walker (title) with two large front wheels 40 and two small rear wheels/casters 162, comprising: two laterally spaced front supports 20A and two laterally spaced rear supports 142; two ground engaging front wheels 40, each attached to each end of the two front supports; two ground engaging rear wheels 162, each attached to each end the two rear supports, wherein the two ground engaging front wheels having an equal radius of R1, the two ground engaging rear wheels having an equal radius of R2, and wherein R1 is greater than R2.
With respect to claim 2, column 6, lines 37-43 recite “the caster assembly 152 includes a pivot pin 154 centrally disposed about a ball bearing assembly 156. The ball bearing assembly 156 and the pivot pin 154 rotatably couple a clevis member 158 to the stanchion 150. A permanently secured stub shaft 160 extending between the spaced-apart walls of the clevis member 158 in turn rotatably supports a caster wheel 162”.
With respect to claims 3-4, while the examiner recognizes that drawings are not necessarily to scale, attention is drawn to MPEP 2125 which recites ddrawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). The examiner printed Fig. 1 and used a ruler and determined that the figure teaches both claimed ratios. Further, while not relied upon in this anticipation rejection, note that 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.
With respect to claim 6, the rear wheels are inherently removable they could be replaced or even just cut off.
Claims 1 and 4-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 8,708,363 to Chang.
Chang provides a folding walker (title) with two “large” front wheels 154 and two removable (fig. 9) “small” rear wheels 174 comprising: two laterally spaced front supports and two laterally spaced rear supports; two ground engaging front wheels, each attached to each end of the two front supports; two ground engaging rear wheels, each attached to each end the two rear supports, wherein the two ground engaging front wheels having an equal radius of R1, the two ground engaging rear wheels having an equal radius of R2, and wherein R1 is greater than R2 (all shown unlabeled by clearly shown in at least Fig.1).
With respect to claim 4, while the examiner recognizes that drawings are not necessarily to scale, attention is drawn to MPEP 2125 which recites ddrawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). The examiner printed Fig. 2 and used a ruler and determined that the figure teaches the claimed ratio. Further, while not relied upon in this anticipation rejection, note that 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.
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 2-4, as best understood are, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,461,471 to Brastow.
Barstow provides each of the elements of the claims as noted above except specifying that the caster wheels 16 are of the swivel type and the claimed ratios of the radii of the front wheels to rear wheels in claims 3-4.
With respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try or an obvious matter of design choice to select a swivel caster for the rear casters of Barstow at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as casters come in one of fixed or swivel variety both which would have been obvious absent any unexpected or unpredictable result.
With respect to the ratios of claims 3-4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have select4ed the claimed size ratios 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. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of Barstow to have the claimed size ratios since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Absent any unexpected or unpredictable result dimensioning the front wheels and rear wheels to have the claimed radii rations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill int eh art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly note the following which appear to meet at least claim 1 but have not been applied so as to avoid undue multiple rejections:
U.S. Patent 4,277,100 to Beougher. Note caster wheels 28 shown at an angle which implies swivel.
U.S. Patent 4,384,713 to Deutsch et al.
U.S. Patent 4,620,714 to Davis.
U.S. Patent 4,765,355 to Kent.
U.S. Patent 8,215,652 to Dashew et al.
U.S. Patent 9,480,619 to Frankian provides a walker with large front wheels 20 and omni-directional casters 55 having free rotation.
U.S. Patent 10,292,891 to Zheng.
U.S. Patent 11,771,615 to Diao et al.
U.S. Patent 11,793,705 to Diao et al.
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