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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. After abstract has “(FIG.2)” in another paragraph which should be removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20080078059 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a wheel mechanism (figs.1-15) comprising a wheel orientation mechanism (swivel locking device 14) for orienting a wheel seat (wheel bearing assembly 20 having base 32, fig.3) with respect to a frame (seat 22 coupled to stem 10, figs.1-3), the wheel orientation mechanism comprising: an orientating portion arranged on the frame (positioning slot 86, figs.5-7); a receiving slot (vertical trench 54, fig.3) arranged in the wheel seat corresponding to the orientating portion (figs.3-7); an oriented-locking element (locking pin 26 with upright portion 92, figs.3-7), which comprises an engaging end (end of upright portion 92, figs.3-7), is interposed into the receiving slot along an plugging direction (upright portion 92 is in vertical trench 54, figs.3-7) and is capable of sliding between a released position (fig.5) and a locked position (fig.7); when the oriented-locking element is in the locked position, the engaging end protrudes from an inlet of the receiving slot (upright portion 92 protrudes from the top inlet of the vertical trench 54 into the positioning slot 86 in the locked position as seen in figures 3 and 7) and is inserted into the orientating portion; and when the oriented-locking element is in the released position, the engaging end is retracted into the receiving slot and is not inserted into the orientating portion (upright portion 92 is retracted into the vertical trench 54 and removed from the poisoning slot 86 in the released position as seen in figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses a wheel assembly (wheel assembly as seen in figures 1-15) comprising a wheel mechanism of claim 1 and a wheel seat (wheel bearing assembly 20 having base 32, fig.3) and a frame (seat 22 coupled to stem 10, figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses further comprising a wheel (wheel 18, fig.1) and the wheel being rotatably installed on the wheel seat (wheels 18 can rotate relative to wheel seat 20, figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses wherein the oriented-locking element further comprises a handle exposed outside the wheel seat (operating member 24, figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses wherein the frame is provided with a connecting rod (mounting portion 70, fig.3) which can be inserted into the wheel seat (mounting portion 70 installed in the cavity 51, fig.3), and the orientating portion is spaced apart from the connecting rod (positioning slot 86 is spaced from mounting portion 70, figs.3-5).
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses A child carrier (stroller, paragraph [0025]), comprising a frame (seat 22 connected to stem 10, fig.1) and the wheel assembly of claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20080078059 A1) in view of Cioroiu (US 20230226852 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses an elastic portion (biasing member 28), and elastic portion may be elastically deformed (figs.3-7) to bias the orientation-locking element (26, figs.3-7). Chen fails to disclose an elastic stopping portion being part of the orientation-locking element and being elastically deformed in a direction transverse to the plugging direction.
However, Cioroiu discloses a oriented-locking element (release trigger 4, figs.2a-b) further comprises an elastic stopping portion (resilient arms 15a-b, figs.2a-b), and the elastic stopping portion may be elastically deformed in a direction transverse to the plugging direction (arms 15a-b are elastically deformed in a direction transverse to the plugging in direction to cavity 11, figs2-4), and in a normal state the elastic stopping portion has a transverse dimension, which is larger than a size of the inlet (arms 15a-b have transverse dimension larger than the transverse dimension between the constriction sides 23a-b of the cavity 11, figs.2-4).
Chen and Cioroiu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wheel mechanisms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen with the elastic arms of trigger (4) of Cioroiu with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of having the biasing member be part of the locking element to have less pieces making assembly and manufacturing easier.
Regarding claim 3, Chen in combination with Cioroiu discloses wherein the receiving slot has a locking slot (Cioroiu, indents 17a-b, fig.3), and the locking slot has a transverse dimension that is larger than the size of the inlet (fig.3 of Cioroiu).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in combination with Cioroiu, Cioroiu discloses wherein the oriented-locking element further comprises an oriented-locking element body (body of release trigger 4, fig.2), and the elastic stopping portion extends out of the oriented-locking element body (arms 15a-b extend from body of trigger 4, fig.2).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in combination with Cioroiu, Cioroiu discloses wherein the elastic stopping portion is provided as a finger (arms 15a-b, fig.2), and the finger obliquely extends from an end of the oriented-locking element body opposite to the engaging end (arms 15a-b extend from an end opposite the top end of the trigger, fig.2; Chen, top end of locking pin 26 has the engaging end, fig.3) or a position of the oriented-locking element body near the end of the oriented-locking element body opposite to the engaging end in a direction opposite to the plugging direction to form a branched arm (fig.3 of Chen and fig.2 of Cioroiu).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in combination with Cioroiu, Cioroiu discloses wherein a plurality of fingers (arms 15a-b, fig.2) are provided, and are distributed uniformly circumferentially around the oriented-locking element body.
Regarding claim 14, Chen in combination with Cioroiu, Cioroiu discloses wherein two fingers (arms 15a-b, fig.2) are provided, and the oriented-locking element body is in a shape of flat plate or cylindrical rod (trigger 4, fig.2), and the two fingers respectively extend from two opposite sides of the oriented-locking element body transverse to the plugging direction (arms 15a-b, figs.2-4).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in combination with Cioroiu, Cioroiu discloses wherein the elastic stopping portion is provided as a skirt (arms 15a-b form a shirt, fig.2), and the skirt obliquely extends from an end of the oriented-locking element body opposite to the engaging end (arms 15a-b extend from an end opposite the top end of the trigger, fig.2; Chen, top end of locking pin 26 has the engaging end, fig.3) or a position of the oriented-locking element body near the end of the oriented-locking element body opposite to the engaging end in a direction opposite to the plugging direction to form a mushroom shape.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20080078059 A1) in view of In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses bar (91) received between the upright bars (57), where the space between the upright bars (57) defines a guide slot and the bar (91) defines a guide rod. The guide rod of Chen is on the locking pin (26) and the guide hole is in the vertical trench (54) instead of the other way around as claimed in claim 9. However, In re Gazda discloses mere reversal of the guide rod and the guide hole was held to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 10, Chen in combination with In re Gazda discloses wherein the guide rod forms an annular space with an inner wall of the receiving slot (bar 91 is received between the two upright bars 57, fig.3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-8 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.
Claim 4 depends upon claim 2 which is rejected, but claim 4 has the limitation of “wherein the receiving slot has a locking slot near the inlet and a release slot far away from the inlet, there is a locking protrusion protruding inward between the locking slot and the release slot, an opening size formed by the locking protrusion is smaller than the transverse dimension, in the released position, the elastic stopping portion is in the release slot; and in the locked position, the elastic stopping portion is in the locking slot.” The primary reference Chen discloses receiving slot (54, fig.3) but fails to disclose a locking slot, a release slot, a locking protrusion protruding inward between the locking slot and the release slot. The teaching reference of Cioroiu discloses a locking slot (17a-b, fig.3) near inlet (23a-b, fig.3) and release slot (18a-b, fig.3) away from inlet, but fails to disclose a locking protrusion protruding inward between the locking slot and the release slot. Modifying Cioroiu would be modifying a modifying reference and would be hindsight reconstruction and unreasonable. The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 4. For the reasons above claim 4 has allowable subject matter.
Claims 5-7 depend upon claim 4 giving them the same allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Claim 8 depends upon claim 2 which is rejected, but claim 8 has the limitation of “wherein the oriented-locking element further comprises a sliding portion, and the elastic stopping portion is positioned between the engaging end and the sliding portion, the receiving slot has a guide portion arranged at an end of the receiving slot opposite to the inlet, when the oriented-locking element slides between the released position and the locked position, the sliding portion slides on the guide portion.” The primary reference of Chen discloses orientation-locking element (locking pin 26) having a sliding portion (portions 92, 94, 96, and 98 slide) and elastic portion (spring 28, fig.3) but failed to disclose an elastic stopping portion as discussed in claim 2 above. The teaching reference of Cioroiu discloses elastic stopping portion (arms 15a-b). Both Chen and Cioroiu fail to disclose the elastic portion between the engaging end and the sliding portion as the spring (28) and arms (15a-b) are disposed at below the locking elements. Modifying Cioroiu would be modifying a modifying reference and would be hindsight reconstruction and unreasonable. The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 8. For the reasons above claim 8 has allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (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 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights