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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24-30, 31-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (claims 24-30 are the unelected method) and species (claims 31-33 require “L-shaped rotation limiting member” which is only shown in species A subspecies 2), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “abutment arm 34” is not shown in elected figure 31 (examiner assumes it is shown but applicant has not included an indicator 34 for “abutment arm”), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-23 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.
Regarding claim 1: applicant claims “suspension mechanism adapted to be installed on a caster” which indicates the caster is intended use, but then claims “a suspension mechanism is installed between each of the fork legs”. First, examiner assumes that applicant means “the suspension mechanism” is installed, and second, that applicant does positively claim the combination of the caster and suspension mechanism, since applicant claims “is installed”. Because both claims 1 and 14 positively claim the combination of caster with the suspension mechanism, there is no discernable difference in scope between claim 1 and claim 14. Claim 11 seems to indicate that claim 1 is the combination of suspension mechanism and caster.
Regarding claim 1: applicant claims “wheel is rotatably mounted on an axle coupled to the fork legs”, but this is not shown in the elected embodiment. Examiner notes that applicant later claims “the suspension mechanism is installed”, which therefore negates the location of the wheel axle on the fork legs, because applicant later claims “pivot arm….coupled to the wheel axle”. The wheel axle cannot be located in two locations. Therefore, examiner assumes that “axle coupled to the fork legs” is incorrect, and/or is part of a method step; applicant does not claim a method. Examiner suggests removing all references to the previous location of the wheel axle, since the suspension mechanism “is installed” in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, applicant claims “about a common axis”, which is not shown in the drawings. Examiner assumes that “common axis” is identical in scope to “suspension pivot shaft 40”.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, applicant claims “at the location whereat the axle was coupled to the fork leg”. Examiner notes that applicant is not claiming a method, so claiming where a wheel was formerly mounted is not further limiting the structure of the suspension mechanism or the fork. Claim 3 does not require the pivot arm and the abutment arm are pivotally secured at the same location, nor does applicant locate the pivotal securement location on the fork leg. If applicant intends to locate “suspension pivot shaft 40” having both abutment arm 34 and pivot arm 32 pivoting around it at the end of the distal ends of the fork legs, applicant does not claim as much.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, applicant claims “between the pivot arm to fork leg pivotal connection and the pivot arm to wheel axle coupling”. Examiner notes that the “pivot arm to fork leg pivotal connection” is identical to “common axis” and “suspension pivot shaft 40”, and does not see a need for a different term in claims 7 and 19. Applicant claims “spring wall”, but discloses “spring mounting walls 66”, which examiner assumes are the same thing. Examiner suggests the nomenclature in the claims should match the specification.
Regarding claim 9, applicant includes the same claim language as claim 3, the “at the location whereat the axle was coupled to the fork leg”, which is not definite, please see claim 3 above. Further, applicant claims “suspension shaft”, but discloses “suspension pivot shaft 40”, which examiner assumes are the same thing. Applicant also claims “slide past each other like scissor blades”. Examiner notes that the pivot arm 32 and the abutment arm 34 do NOT “slide past each other like scissor blades” because of the spring engaging shelf 48, spring mounting wall 66, and spring 36. Examiner suggests removing the “slide past…like scissor blades” from the claim language. Claim 9 does not require that both pivot arms and abutment arms are both on the same suspension shaft.
Regarding claim 10, applicant claims “pivot arms”, but does not previously claim two pivot arms 32.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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) 1, 3-11, 13-14, 16-21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2915776 Hanson in view of 9956822 Yu.
PNG
media_image1.png
781
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hanson discloses a suspension mechanism adapted to be installed on (is installed on) a caster comprising a fork 16 and a wheel 18, wherein the fork includes a pair or fork legs (15 and 16) and the {wheel 18 is rotatably mounted on an axle 27 coupled to the fork legs} (examiner notes that the wheel 18 could be mounted on the fork legs directly, but applicant later claims the wheel axle is mounted on the pivot arm, which is what examiner assumes is being claimed), wherein a suspension mechanism (as shown in Hanson) is installed between each of the fork legs 15/16 and the wheel axle 27 and each suspension mechanism comprises:
a pivot arm 20 pivotally secured to and projecting from a fork leg 15/16 (pivoting around pin 23), and coupled to the wheel axle 27 (as shown in figure 1);
an abutment arm (L-bracket 36) secured to and projecting from the fork leg 15/16 (as shown in figures 1-2), and abutting the fork leg (with the abutting side of the L-bracket 36); and,
a spring 43 between the pivot arm 20 and the abutment arm 36 which cushions impact forces experienced by the wheel and axle as they are transferred to the abutment arm the fork leg (in the manner disclosed by column 3 lines 5-11).
Hanson discloses that the spring has multiple internal springs 42, 41, as well as threaded rod 38. The threaded rod is adjustably inserted/connected to the abutment arm 36 in a non-pivotable manner, but the stem/springs 41-43 are pivotably attached to the pivot arm 20. Hanson does not disclose that the abutment arm 36 is pivotally secured to the fork leg.
Yu discloses a caster with a suspension mechanism, comprising a wheel 3, wheel axle 30 attached to a pivot arm 2, a spring 80 and adjustable threaded stem 10, the threaded stem 10 attached to an abutment arm 4, the abutment arm 4 pivotably secured to and projecting from a main body 1 of the caster, the spring and adjustable threaded stem are used “to absorb shocks” (column 4 line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to mount the threaded stem with spring which serves as a shock absorber in a caster as taught by Hanson, with a mounting device of a similar caster spring with threaded stem serving as a shock absorber as taught by Yu, as this allows the upper end of the threaded stem and spring of Hanson to be pivotable. Hanson already discloses the use of a pivotable connection at the opposite end, and Yu discloses the old and well known manner of making both ends to be pivotable.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 3, please see 112b rejection above. Hanson as modified discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the pivot arm 20 and the abutment arm (pivotable arm 4 as taught in Yu on the side of the fork arms 15/16 as is the location of abutment art 36 of Hanson) are pivotally secured to the fork legs 15/16 (in different locations).
Regarding claim 14, Hanson discloses a caster assembly comprising: a fork (with arms 15/16); a wheel 18; and,
a suspension mechanism comprising: a pivot arm 20 pivotally secured to the fork 15/16 (at pin 23) and projecting therefrom (as shown in figure 1); wherein the wheel 18 is rotatably secured to the pivot arm 20 (by axle 27); an abutment arm 36 secured to the fork (on the outside of the fork arms 15/16) and projecting therefrom, and abutting the fork (L-shaped bracket 36 both abuts and projects from the fork arms); a spring 43 between the pivot arm 20 and the abutment arm 36; and, wherein impact forces experienced by the wheel are cushioned by the spring as they transferred to the abutment arm and to the fork (in the manner disclosed by column 3 lines 5-11).
Hanson discloses that the spring has multiple internal springs 42, 41, as well as threaded rod 38. The threaded rod is adjustably inserted/connected to the abutment arm 36 in a non-pivotable manner, but the stem/springs 41-43 are pivotably attached to the pivot arm 20. Hanson does not disclose that the abutment arm 36 is pivotally secured to the fork leg.
Yu discloses a caster with a suspension mechanism, comprising a wheel 3, wheel axle 30 attached to a pivot arm 2, a spring 80 and adjustable threaded stem 10, the threaded stem 10 attached to an abutment arm 4, the abutment arm 4 pivotably secured to and projecting from a main body 1 of the caster, the spring and adjustable threaded stem are used “to absorb shocks” (column 4 line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to mount the threaded stem with spring which serves as a shock absorber in a caster as taught by Hanson, with a mounting device of a similar caster spring with threaded stem serving as a shock absorber as taught by Yu, as this allows the upper end of the threaded stem and spring of Hanson to be pivotable. Hanson already discloses the use of a pivotable connection at the opposite end, and Yu discloses the old and well known manner of making both ends to be pivotable.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Hanson as modified discloses the suspension mechanism and caster of claims 1 and 14 wherein the spring 43 is an elastically compressible spring 43 comprising a coil spring (as shown in both Hanson and Yu).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Hanson as modified discloses the caster with suspension mechanism of claims 1 and 14, wherein each suspension mechanism further comprises a stopper (threaded stem 38 in Hanson, 10 in Yu) secured to and adapted to retract or extend away from the abutment arm 4 (the threads allow securement to and retraction of the spring) whereby the distance between the fork 15/16 and the abutment arm is selectively adjustable (by rotating the stopper 38).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Hanson as modified discloses the caster and suspension mechanism of claims 5 and 17, wherein the stopper (threaded stem 38) comprises a head (terminus) in Hanson, but Yu discloses the stopper/threaded stem 10 has a semispherical head (figures 1 and 3b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the lower terminus of the stopper/threaded stem 38 of Hanson with a rounded terminus as known in the art, as these are equivalent changes in shape that do not affect the form, function, or use, of the lower terminus of the threaded stem 38 of Hanson. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Hanson as modified discloses the caster with suspension mechanism of claims 1 and 14, wherein the pivot arm 20 comprises a spring engaging shelf (washer 45) projecting therefrom (bigger than arm 20, shown in figure 1) and located between the axis 23 and wheel axle 27, the abutment arm (4 of Yu attached to the exterior of the fork arms 15/16 as taught in Hanson) comprises a spring wall 41 projecting therefrom (figure 1 of Yu), and the spring (43 of Hanson, 80 of Yu) is sandwiched between the pivot arm spring engaging shelf washer 45 of Hanson) and the abutment arm spring wall (41 of Yu, as taught by Yu figures 2 and 3a).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Hanson as modified discloses the caster with suspension mechanism of claims 1 and 14, wherein the fork comprises a pair of fork legs (15 and 16 of Hanson) defining a gap therebetween (as shown in figure 2), wherein the pivot arms 20 and abutment arms (4 of Yu) are pivotally secured to the fork legs 15/16 outside of the gap (as taught in Hanson figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hanson as modified discloses the device of claim 1 with the structure of claim 3 as discussed above, the pivot arm 20 is attached to the fork leg 16 by suspension shaft 23, the abutment arm (4 of Yu) is connected to the fork leg 16 by suspension shaft 9 (of Yu), wherein the pivot arm 20 and abutment arm 4 pivot independently from each other.
Regarding claims 13 and 23, Hanson as modified discloses the caster with suspension mechanism of claims 1 and 14, wherein a second spring (and third springs 41 and 42) is nested within (figure 1 of Hanson) the spring 43 located between the pivot arm 20 and the abutment arm (4 of Yu).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson modified by Yu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2008/0116660 Nicholls.
Regarding claim 10, Hanson as modified discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the pivot arms 20 comprise one wheel axle bore (for axle 27), where the wheel axle 27 can be coupled to the pivot arm at the hole on the pivot arm 20. Hanson does not disclose multiple axle holes on the pivot arm 20.
Nicholls discloses a caster having a rotation stem 126, wheel 220, fork arms 236/232 with multiple through holes (figure 10), a wheel axle 250 that extends through the holes in the fork arms (as shown in figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include multiple axle holes on the pivot arm 20 of Hanson, in the manner taught by Nicholls figure 11, in order to allow further variety of function depending on what kinds of device is attached to the caster of Hanson. This inclusion of extra wheel axle holes allows further variability of suitability of the Hanson device.
Claim(s) 11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson as modified as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of 2011/0254241 Piontek.
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Hanson as modified discloses the device of claims 1 and 14, wherein the caster of Hanson as modified is adapted to pivot about a vertical axis (around pin 12 of Hanson) it can be pivotally secured to multiple articles by plate 10. Hanson does not disclose the particular combination of a “zero turn mower”.
Piontek discloses a zero turn mower (title) which uses a caster wheel (cover and title), the caster must be able to pivot around a vertical axis and a wheel axle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the vertically pivoting caster of Hanson as modified to a zero turn mower that also requires a vertically pivoting caster as taught by Piontek. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 2009/0205164 Larson.
Regarding claims 1 and 14: Larson discloses a caster assembly (figure 2) comprising: a fork 16; a wheel 38; and, a suspension mechanism comprising: a pivot arm 34 pivotally secured to the fork 16 and projecting therefrom (from the sides thereof); wherein the wheel 38 is rotatably secured (using axle at end of pivot arm 34) to the pivot arm; an abutment arm 26 pivotally secured to the fork 16 and projecting therefrom (projecting when screw 42 is used), and abutting the fork 16 (when the screw 42 is not used, shown in figure 3); a spring 40 (“elastomeric material”) between the pivot arm 34 and the abutment arm 32; and, wherein impact forces experienced by the wheel are cushioned by the spring as they transferred to the abutment arm and to the fork (“larger range of force without the concern of the shaft over rotating” [0019]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Larson discloses the pivot arm 34 and the abutment arm 26 pivot about a common axis (axis 30 shown in figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 22 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights