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
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 1-9, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3,034,743, herein referred to as ‘743, in view of Otterson et al. (US 8,910,951), herein referred to as ‘951.
For Claim 1, ‘743 discloses a caster (Figure 14) capable of attachment to a support structure, the caster comprising:
a wheel set (Figure 14), comprising:
a level arm (7A) defining opposed first and second ends, and a central region disposed between the first and second ends;
a first primary wheel (1) rotatably coupled to the central region of the level arm;
a first auxiliary wheel (2) rotatably coupled to the first end of the level arm; and
a second auxiliary wheel (8) rotatably coupled to the second end of the level arm;
a fork (5) including:
a first prong (Annotated Figure 14: 5A) having a first prong lower end coupled to the level arm (7A); and
an upper seat (Annotated Figure 14: 5B) coupled to the first prong (5A); and
wherein the level arm (7A) is pivotable at the central region relative to the first prong (5A) of the fork (5) about an axis of rotation of the first primary wheel (1).
‘743 does not disclose a baseplate rotatably coupled to the upper seat of the fork and configured for attachment to the support structure.
‘951 teaches a caster (Figure 32) capable of attachment to a support structure comprising a fork (505), a first prong (503), an upper seat (501), and a baseplate (504) rotatably coupled to the upper seat (501) of the fork (505) and configured for attachment to the support structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the baseplate of ‘951 to the upper seat of the caster of ‘743. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow the caster wheel to swivel with respect to a support structure to which it is installed.
For Claim 2, ‘743 does not teach wherein the wheel set further comprises a second primary wheel rotatably coupled to the central region of the level arm. ‘743 instead teaches only a single primary wheel coupled to the central region of the level arm. ‘951 teaches a caster (Figure 32) comprising two primary wheels (510, 512). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the single primary wheel of ‘743 with two primary wheels as taught by ‘951. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the amount of support and stability the caster provides to a support structure to which it is installed.
For Claim 3, ‘743 does not teach further comprising a central axle extending through a middle bore formed in the central region of the level arm, wherein each of the first primary wheel and the second primary wheel is rotatably coupled to the central axle. ‘951 teaches a caster (Figure 32) where a central axle (506) extends through both a first primary wheel (510) and a second primary wheel (512). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a central axle extending through a first and second primary wheel through a middle bore as taught by ‘951 to attach the first and second primary wheels to the central region of the level arm of ‘743. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to permit faster assembly by requiring only a single fastener that needs to be assembled and tightened for both the first and second primary wheels.
For Claim 4, ‘743 further teaches wherein the first auxiliary wheel (2) and the second auxiliary wheel (8) are rotatable coupled to the level arm (7A) via a first axle and a second axle (as seen in Figure 14).
For Claim 5, ‘743 further teaches wherein the first auxiliary wheel (2) and the second auxiliary wheel (8) are rotatably coupled to a second level arm (7B) via the first axle and the second axle (as seen in Figure 14).
For Claim 6, ‘743 further teaches wherein the first axle and the second axle are offset a distance D4 from the central axle (as seen in Figure 14). ‘743 is silent as to whether D4 is greater than or equal to 0.03 inch and less than or equal to 0.12 inch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the distance limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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 has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05). The general conditions of having an offset distance between the first and second axle from the central axle is known in both ‘743 and ‘951. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the offset distance involves only routing skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the caster wheels for operating on a particular type of terrain or in a particular desired environment.
For Claim 7, ‘743 does not teach comprising bearings between the upper seat and the baseplate and a fastener for attaching the upper seat to the baseplate. ‘951 further teaches comprising bearings (Column 13, Line 40) disposed between the upper seat (501) and the baseplate (504) and a fastener (502) for attaching the upper seat (501) to the baseplate (504). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the bearings and fastener of ‘951 to the caster of ‘743. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow the caster wheel to swivel with respect to a support structure to which it is installed and to reduce friction to aid in such swivel rotation.
For Claim 8, ‘951 further teaches wherein the baseplate (504) further comprises mounting apertures (as seen in Figure 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the base plate having mounting apertures of ‘951 to the caster of ‘743. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow the caster wheel to swivel with respect to a support structure to which it is installed and to allow for easy installation of the caster to a support structure.
For Claim 9, ‘743 does not disclose wherein the primary wheel and the first auxiliary wheel define an attack angle α between 30 and 60 degrees, wherein the attack angle comprises an included angle between a first reference line and a second reference line that extend parallel to a longitudinal axis, wherein the longitudinal axis runs through a middle bore center.
‘951 teaches a caster wherein a primary wheel (510) and a first auxiliary wheel (514) define an attack angle α, wherein the attack angle comprises an included angle between a first reference line and a second reference line that extend parallel to a longitudinal axis, wherein the longitudinal axis runs through a middle bore center. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the caster of ‘743 to have the primary wheel and first auxiliary wheel offset to define an attack angle as taught by ‘951.
‘951 is silent as to the attack angle being between 30 and 60 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the attack angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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 has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05). The general conditions of having an attack angle between the primary wheel and the first auxiliary wheel is known in ‘951. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the attack angle involves only routing skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the caster wheels for operating on a particular type of terrain or in a particular desired environment.
For Claim 12, ‘743 does not teach comprising bearings between the upper seat and the baseplate and a fastener for attaching the upper seat to the baseplate. ‘951 further teaches comprising bearings (Column 13, Line 40) disposed between the upper seat (501) and the baseplate (504) and a fastener (502) for attaching the upper seat (501) to the baseplate (504). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the bearings and fastener of ‘951 to the caster of ‘743. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow the caster wheel to swivel with respect to a support structure to which it is installed and to reduce friction to aid in such swivel rotation.
For Claim 13, ‘951 further teaches wherein the baseplate (504) further comprises mounting apertures (as seen in Figure 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the base plate having mounting apertures of ‘951 to the caster of ‘743. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow the caster wheel to swivel with respect to a support structure to which it is installed and to allow for easy installation of the caster to a support structure.
For Claim 14, ‘743 does not disclose wherein the primary wheel and the first auxiliary wheel define an attack angle α between 30 and 60 degrees, wherein the attack angle comprises an included angle between a first reference line and a second reference line that extend parallel to a longitudinal axis, wherein the longitudinal axis runs through a middle bore center.
‘951 teaches a caster wherein a primary wheel (510) and a first auxiliary wheel (514) define an attack angle α, wherein the attack angle comprises an included angle between a first reference line and a second reference line that extend parallel to a longitudinal axis, wherein the longitudinal axis runs through a middle bore center. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the caster of ‘743 to have the primary wheel and first auxiliary wheel offset to define an attack angle as taught by ‘951.
‘951 is silent as to the attack angle being between 30 and 60 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the attack angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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 has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05). The general conditions of having an attack angle between the primary wheel and the first auxiliary wheel is known in ‘951. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the attack angle involves only routing skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the caster wheels for operating on a particular type of terrain or in a particular desired environment.
For Claim 17, ‘743 does not disclose wherein the first auxiliary wheel is located approximately two thirds of the first auxiliary wheel diameter in front of the primary wheel. ‘951 teaches wherein the first and second auxiliary wheels are offset in front of or behind the primary wheel by a fractional amount of the respective auxiliary wheel (as seen in Figure 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the auxiliary wheels offset from the primary wheel as taught by ‘951.
‘951 is silent as to the offset amount being two thirds of the first auxiliary wheel diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the fractional diameter offset amount limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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 has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05). The general conditions of having a fractional diameter offset between the primary wheel and the first auxiliary wheel is known in ‘951. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the fractional diameter offset involves only routing skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the caster wheels for operating on a particular type of terrain or in a particular desired environment.
For Claim 18, ‘743 does not disclose wherein the second auxiliary wheel is located approximately two thirds of the second auxiliary wheel diameter behind the primary wheel.
‘951 teaches wherein the first and second auxiliary wheels are offset in front of or behind the primary wheel by a fractional amount of the respective auxiliary wheel (as seen in Figure 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the auxiliary wheels offset from the primary wheel as taught by ‘951.
‘951 is silent as to the offset amount being two thirds of the second auxiliary wheel diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the fractional diameter offset amount limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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 has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05). The general conditions of having a fractional diameter offset between the primary wheel and the second auxiliary wheel is known in ‘951. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the fractional diameter offset involves only routing skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the caster wheels for operating on a particular type of terrain or in a particular desired environment.
For Claim 19, ‘743 teaches wherein the first auxiliary wheel is located above the primary wheel. ‘743 does not teach wherein the offset distance of the first auxiliary wheel is one thirtieth of the first auxiliary wheel diameter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the fractional diameter offset amount limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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 has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05). The general conditions of having a fractional diameter offset of the first auxiliary wheel above the primary wheel is known in ‘743. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the fractional diameter offset involves only routing skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the caster wheels for operating on a particular type of terrain or in a particular desired environment.
For Claim 20, ‘743 teaches wherein the second auxiliary wheel is vertically offset from the primary wheel. ‘743 does not teach wherein the offset distance of the second auxiliary wheel is one thirtieth of the second auxiliary wheel diameter above the primary wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the fractional diameter offset amount limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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 has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05). The general conditions of having a fractional diameter offset of the first auxiliary wheel above the primary wheel is known in ‘743. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the fractional diameter offset of the second auxiliary wheel above the primary wheel involves only routing skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the caster wheels for operating on a particular type of terrain or in a particular desired environment.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement on 5/21/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey O'Brien whose telephone number is (571)270-3655. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/Jeffrey O'Brien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights