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 § 102
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 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 17, 18 and 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heidrick, Jr. 4,133,440.
In Re Claim 17, Heidrick, Jr. teaches skate for use with a vehicle platform for a pickup truck and for guiding on a ground surface said vehicle platform, the skate comprising: a front wheel-assembly (26, Fig. 1) comprising at least one front wheel (26, Fig. 1) and a front wheel-axle (axle for 26); a rear wheel-assembly (26, Fig. 1) comprising at least one rear wheel (26, Fig. 1) and a rear wheel-axle (axle for 26); and a body (28) comprising a bottom side having a mostly flat lowest and central portion, (Fig. 1) and a pivot (31) couplable to said vehicle platform; wherein said front wheel-axle is coupled to said body near a front of said mostly flat lowest and central portion so that said front wheel protrudes from said bottom side of said body, parallel to said mostly flat lowest and central portion, and extending through a width of said body; (Fig. 1) wherein said rear wheel-axle is coupled to said body near a rear of said mostly flat lowest and central portion so that said rear wheel protrudes from said bottom side of said body, parallel to said front wheel-axle, and extending through said width of said body; (Fig. 1) wherein said skate, when coupled to said vehicle platform, rotates in relation to said vehicle platform (36) around said pivot to ensure that said mostly flat lowest and central portion remains about parallel to ground surface so that at least one of said front wheel or said rear wheel makes a first contact with said ground when said vehicle platform is being lowered. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 18, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said body comprises a left-wall (Curved left end wall of 28, Fig. 1) on a left side of said body, a right-wall (Curved left end wall of 28, Fig. 1) on a right side of said body, and wherein said bottom side extends at least between said left-wall and said right-wall. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 22, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said front wheel-assembly comprises only one of said at least one front wheel. (26, Fig. 3, 4)
In Re Claim 23, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said rear wheel-assembly comprises only one of said at least one rear wheel. (26, Fig. 3, 4)
In Re Claim 24, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said front wheel-assembly further comprises at least one front wheel-bearing. (Fig. 3, 4)
In Re Claim 25, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said front wheel is coupled to said front wheel-axle through one of said at least one front wheel-bearing. (Fig. 3, 4)
In Re Claim 26, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said rear wheel-assembly further comprises at least one rear wheel-bearing. (Fig. 3, 4)
In Re Claim 27, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said rear wheel is coupled to said rear wheel-axle through one of said at least one rear wheel-bearing. (Fig. 3, 4)
In Re Claim 28, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said bottom side is a ski-shaped surface (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
In Re Claim 29, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein a front tip and a rear tip of said ski- shaped surface curve upwardly from said mostly flat lowest and central portion. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
In Re Claim 30, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein front wheel-axle is coupled to said body near an upward curve of said front tip, and wherein rear wheel-axle is coupled to said body near an upward curve of said rear tip. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
In Re Claim 31, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said ski-shaped surface extends through a length of said body. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
In Re Claim 32, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said pivot comprises a pivot axle parallel to said front wheel-axle and couplable to said vehicle platform. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
In Re Claim 33, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said rear wheel and said front wheel protrude downwardly by a same distance from said mostly flat lowest and central portion. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
In Re Claim 34, Heidrick, Jr. teaches wherein said ground surface is perpendicular to a direction of gravitational acceleration. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidrick, Jr. 4,133,440 and in view of Esser 1,550,309.
In Re Claims 19-21, Heidrick, Jr. teaches the skate of Claim 17 as discussed above.
Heidrick, jr. does not teach wherein said front wheel-axle is coupled at a first end to said left-wall and coupled at a second opposed end of said front wheel-axle to said right-wall, and wherein said rear wheel-axle is coupled at a first end to said left-wall and coupled at a second opposed end of said rear wheel-axle to said right-wall.
However, Esser teaches wherein said front wheel-axle (26) is coupled at a first end to said left-wall (23 left side, Fig. 1, Fig. 2) and coupled at a second opposed end of said front wheel-axle to said right-wall (23 Right side, Fig. 1, Fig. 2), and wherein said rear wheel-axle is coupled at a first end to said left-wall and coupled at a second opposed end of said rear wheel-axle to said right-wall; (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) and wherein said pivot (21) is couplable to a most rear end of said vehicle platform that would make a first ground contact if no skate were attached thereto, thereby ensuring that said skate makes a first contact with said ground surface when said vehicle platform is being deployed and makes said first contact to said ground surface; (Fig. 2) and wherein said most rear end is a protracting member of said vehicle platform. (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an axle coupled at a first end connected to a left wall and an opposite end connected to a right wall in the skate of Heidrick, Jr. as taught by Esser with a reasonable expectation for success in order to protect the wheel assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Schultz, Railsback and Springer teach a skate for use with a vehicle platform for a pickup truck.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights