Drawings
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I comprising Claims 1-2 in the reply filed on March 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 30, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: None of the reference characters are mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 102352722 B1 (hereinafter “CHOI”).
Regarding Claim 1, CHOI discloses an improved road trailer (100), of the type having a pair of longitudinal members (130) forming part of a frame and a pair of rear wheels (141) carrying the frame, the improvement comprising: a pair of C-shaped channels (see the provided English translation: “A U-shaped support frame 130 with an open side higher than the support frame 120 so that both ends of the support frame 120 are inserted and coupled;” A U-shaped channel is the equivalent of a C-shaped channel) defining the pair of longitudinal members (130).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
983
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI in view of US 2022/0063742 A1 (hereinafter “SHOCKLEY”).
Regarding Claim 2, CHOI further discloses wherein the rear wheels (141) are mounted on an axle (140), the axle is coupled to the frame for easy removal (see the provided English translation: “the support frame 130 and the bolt fastening member 160 are coupled and installed. , the bolt fastening member 160 is an inner structure 161 disposed on the inner surface of the support frame 130 , and an outer structure 162 disposed on the outer surface of the support frame 130 and coupled to the wheel shaft 140 ).”).
CHOI does not disclose the frame is adapted to receive a pair of casters at its rear and the frame is narrow enough to pass through a conventional human entry door.
SHOCKLEY teaches a road trailer comprising: the frame (12) is adapted to receive a pair of casters (34) at its rear (see at least 26).
PNG
media_image2.png
604
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CHOI wherein the frame is adapted to receive a pair of casters at its rear as taught and/or suggested by SHOCKLEY, since SHOCKLEY teaches at para. [0023]: “so that the trailer 10 may be tilted upwardly into a vertical orientation and may rest on the castor wheels 34 in that position, as shown in FIG. 2. This arrangement allows the trailer 10 to be easily stored and moved while in a vertical orientation, thus taking up much less floor space in a garage, shed, parking lot or other storage facility or building.”
With regard to wherein the frame is narrow enough to pass through a conventional human entry door. SHOCKLEY teaches at para. [0023]: “so that the trailer 10 may be tilted upwardly into a vertical orientation and may rest on the castor wheels 34 in that position, as shown in FIG. 2. This arrangement allows the trailer 10 to be easily stored and moved while in a vertical orientation, thus taking up much less floor space in a garage, shed, parking lot or other storage facility or building.” Moreover, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CHOI wherein the frame is narrow enough to pass through a conventional human entry door as taught and/or suggested by SHOCKLEY, since SHOCKLEY teaches at para. [0023]: “so that the trailer 10 may be tilted upwardly into a vertical orientation and may rest on the castor wheels 34 in that position, as shown in FIG. 2. This arrangement allows the trailer 10 to be easily stored and moved while in a vertical orientation, thus taking up much less floor space in a garage, shed, parking lot or other storage facility or building.” And furthermore because, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799