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 of this title, 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 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (11,478,692) in view of Tsai (5,820,114).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9-10, 14-17, and 18-19, Sandusky discloses a truck assembly for a skateboard and a method of operation thereof, comprising:
a baseplate (102);
a hanger (104) movably disposed relative to the baseplate; and
a dampening mechanism (164) configured to dampen movement of the hanger relative to the baseplate, wherein the dampening mechanism includes:
a compression spring (164) or a resilient material (e.g., cast polyurethane, see Col. 7, lines 61-64) to provide resistance during movement of the hanger relative to the baseplate.
While Sandusky discloses that the dampening mechanism can be a spring or a resilient material, it does not disclose a spring at least partially molded within a resilient material.
Paton teaches a composite dampener including a coil spring that is combined with an elastomeric body, such that the coil spring (14) is embedded within the resilient material (10) with the space between the coils filled with the resilient material (see Fig. 4) and define a substantially cylindrical configuration with a hollow interior (see Fig. 1). The presence of the spring-surrounding resilient material inherently providing addition damping characteristics in addition to the resilient material being configured to eliminate “dead coils” which supplements the resistance provided by the spring (see e.g., Col. 2, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the truck assembly of Sandusky to use a composite spring as that taught by Paton to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a coil spring or a elastomeric element) for another (a spring having both a coil spring and an elastomeric element) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a spring that is stronger over a shorter length).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, Sandusky further discloses that the skateboard truck is in a channel configuration wherein the baseplate (102) has two spaced kingpin cups (124, 126) with the hanger (104/200) at least partially disposed therebetween, the hanger (200, see Fig. 17 - denoted 202) including a cylindrical extension (202) protruding therefrom wherein a coil spring (164) fits over the extension.
-----
Regarding claims 8 and 20, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Sandusky discloses that the dampening mechanism for a skateboard truck can be formed from a polyurethane resilient material, but while Paton teaches that a dampening composite spring can be formed by embedding a coil spring within a tubular elastomeric body, it does not specifically recite that the elastomeric material is polyurethane.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the truck assembly of the Sandusky combination to a urethane resilient material as part of dampening mechanism as taught by Sandusky to arrive at the claimed device/method with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a urethane elastomeric element) for another (a generic elastomeric element) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a composite spring that uses a material known to be used in skateboard truck dampers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The independent claims have been amended to narrow the scope of the claim to eliminate the previous alternative language. The amendment, while overcoming the prior art rejection based on the now-deleted alternative limitations required additional searching and review of the prior art resulting in the above prior art §103 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 case, 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 STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights