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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,352,096 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 5, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “foldable bicycle trailer” in the preamble of the claims is interpreted in view of Applicant’s disclosure to encompass foldable chairs on wheels. See Specification at col. 1:25-28, describing the present invention as embracing “foldable chairs (hereinafter referred to as bicycle trailer, without any limitation and it should be understood that the present invention embraces all the types of foldable chairs, as stated in the preceding paragraph) on wheels.”
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massie (US Patent No. 3,227,465, hereinafter Massie) in view of Williams (US Patent No. 4,273,350, hereinafter Williams ‘350) and Williams (US Patent No. 4,323,133, hereinafter Williams ‘133).
Regarding claim 1, Massie discloses a foldable chair on wheels (wheel chair 25 with foldable central chair means 30, Figs. 1-2, col. 4:11-27; the preamble term “bicycle trailer” interpreted in view of Applicant’s disclosure as embracing foldable chairs on wheels, as noted above) comprising:
two main frames (spaced side frame members 31, 32) disposed symmetrically about a central plane, which are connected by crossbars (rear cross-frame member 33 and bottom cross-frame means 34), and the frames (31, 32) stand on wheels (44, 45, 90), the wheels (44, 45, 90) being a movable interface;
wherein the crossbars (33, 34) comprise a first element (bottom cross-frame means 34) which is substantially flat in unfolded state (Fig. 1), having two foldable arms (see Figs. 1-2), and a second element (rear cross-frame member 33) which is substantially upright in the unfolded state (Fig. 1), the second element (33) also having two foldable arms (see Figs. 1-2);
wherein the foldable arms of each of the first and second elements (33, 34) are connected by hinges (central bars 33’ and 34’) for connecting foldable segments of each foldable arm (the central bars 33’ and 34’ “forming a pivot connection adapted to pivot inwardly when the wheel chair 25 is folded,” col. 4:16-21);
wherein the first element (34) and the second element (33) are turned respectively upwardly (see element 34 in Fig. 2) and forwardly (see element 33 in Fig. 2) when the foldable arms are folded about the corresponding hinges (Fig. 2; col. 4:15-21); and
wherein the first and second elements (34 and 33) each have a pair of rigid arms (see annotated Fig. 4 below) in close proximity to the main frames (31, 32), the rigid arms being pivotable with respect to the corresponding frame (col. 4:16-19).
Massie Fig. 4, Annotated
PNG
media_image1.png
309
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Massie does not explicitly teach that the foldable arms of the first and second elements (33, 34) are parallel (since these arms are illustrated in the Figures as converging toward the center pivot bars 33’, 34’), and Massie does not teach that the rigid arms of at least the second element are pivotally fastened to the main frames via hinge brackets (since the rigid components that pivotally connect the foldable arms of the second element to the main frames could be considered either rigid arms or hinge brackets, but not both1).
However, with respect to the parallel configuration of the foldable arms, Williams ‘350 teaches a foldable chair (Fig. 1) with similar crossbar elements (toggle braces 3, 4, 8) each having two foldable arms that are parallel (i.e., the parallel legs of the foldable U-shaped members of braces 3, 4, 8; col. 3:42-54), as a preferable configuration of crossbar elements for a foldable chair (the term “toggle brace” referring to “any form of brace having two pivotally connected arms which tend to remain in a braced condition when extended” but frameworks “preferably hav[ing] toggle brace assemblies comprising a pair of U-shaped bracing arms,” col. 2:59-66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Massie by configuring the foldable arms of each of the first and second crossbar elements to be parallel, as taught by Williams ‘350, since this involves only the simple substitution of one known shape of a crossbar element for a foldable wheelchair for another known shape of a crossbar element for a foldable wheelchair, to yield predictable results.
With respect to the rigid arms, Williams ‘133 teaches a foldable framework for a wheeled chair (Figs. 3-4) comprising a second crossbar element (toggle brace 22 or 22b) with two parallel foldable arms (i.e., the horizontal segments of U-shaped arms 35a, 35b, Fig. 4; col. 4:27-34) and a pair of rigid arms (i.e., the inwardly turned tips of arms 35a, 35b which are snap-fit into mounting lugs 38, col. 4:27-34, see Fig. 4) in close proximity to two symmetrical main frames (rigid side frames 19, 20), the rigid arms being pivotable with respect to the corresponding main frame (19, 20) and pivotally fastened at least indirectly to the main frames (19, 20) via hinge brackets (mounting lugs 38, Fig. 4). Williams ‘133 teaches that this configuration of the foldable arms permits flexing “for absorbing strains” (col. 2:25-38) and provides “a very inexpensive mode of manufacture which nevertheless can provide a high strength weight ratio and readily permit the absorption of strains set up when the wheelchair runs over uneven ground” (col. 2:50-57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Massie by pivotally fastening the rigid arms at least indirectly to the main frames via hinge brackets, as taught by Williams ‘133, in order to reduce manufacturing costs and/or to facilitate absorption of strains when the chair runs over uneven ground.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Williams ‘133 further teaches that the crossbar elements (22, 22a) each comprise a U-shaped element (U-shaped arms 35a, 35b, Fig. 4; col. 4:27-34) constituted by at least a part of the corresponding foldable arms and the corresponding rigid arms (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Massie is silent with respect to lockability of the hinges. However, Williams ‘350 further teaches at least one hinge between foldable segments of folding elements is lockable to ensure positive locking when in use (col. 2:42-45) (claim 4), wherein the hinges are configured to be unlocked manually and remotely (e.g., via a “remote lifting device,” see col. 2:42-45 and col. 4:10-26) (claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Massie by making one or more of the hinges lockable and manually and remotely unlockable, as taught by Williams, in order to ensure reliable retention of the foldable chair in an erect condition.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Massie further teaches that the foldable arms have the same length (see Fig. 1; see also Williams, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Massie does not teach that the foldable arms have different lengths. However, Williams ‘133 further teaches the foldable arms (35a, 35b) have different lengths (see Fig. 4), “[i]n order to cause overlapping of internal protuberances such as electric motors or bolt heads when the structure is folded” (col. 1:66-col. 2:2; see Fig. 2B), which facilitates compact folding (col. 1:42-45, 4:9-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Massie by providing the foldable arms with different lengths to that the hinges are offset from a central plane, as taught by Williams ‘133, in order to facilitate compact folding.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. The limitation “usable for carrying goods” describes an intended use of the claimed invention. With respect to the statements of intended use, the examiner notes that a claim containing 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" if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, Massie, Williams ‘350, and Williams ‘133 teach each and every structural limitation of the claims, as set forth in detail above for claim 1. Moreover, the apparatus of Massie is capable of use for carrying goods, for example, by placing the goods on the seat of the chair for transport.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Massie further teaches the foldable arms of the first element (34, Fig. 1) and the foldable arms of the second element (33) are disposed at an angle to each other (see Fig. 2, the elements 33 and 34 being generally at a right angle to one another).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Massie further teaches a pair of wheels (90) connected on either side of the main frames (31, 32) via suitable suspensions (stair traction means 100 with differential gear means 130 mounted on axles 92, Figs. 11a-13). The term “suspension” is interpreted according to its dictionary definition to mean “the system of springs and other devices that insulates the chassis of a vehicle from shocks transmitted through the wheels.”2 The stair traction means (100) with differential gear means (130) are understood to be suspensions as broadly claimed because they includes springs and other devices designed to eliminate bumping which would otherwise yield an undesirably rough ride (col. 7:49-69).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. Massie further teaches that corners of the U-shaped elements (33, 34 of Massie, Fig. 1; modified in view of U-shaped elements 35a, 35b of Williams ‘133 as discussed above) are pivotally fastened to the main frames (by pivotal connection of the rigid arms to hinge brackets/lugs 38 as in Fig. 4 of Williams ‘133) and the hinges (33’, 34’ of Massie) are positioned at a central part of each of the respective foldable arms (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. Massie is silent with respect to lockability or non-lockability of the hinges. However, Williams ‘350 further teaches that it was known prior to Applicant’s invention to make one hinge between foldable segments lockable (for “positive locking of the bottom toggle brace,” col. 2:42-45) and another hinge between foldable segments non-lockable (releasable back toggle brace 32, Fig. 1; col. 4:27-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Massie by making one of the hinges lockable and another of the hinges non-lockable, as taught by Williams ‘350, in order to permit easy folding while ensuring reliable retention of the foldable chair in an erect condition.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massie in view of Williams ‘350 and Williams ‘133, in further view of Aldus et al. (US Patent No. 5,112,069, hereinafter Aldus).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Massie does not teach a pair of detachable handles. However, in the art of foldable chairs on wheels, Aldus teaches a pair of detachable handles (removable handles 23, Figs. 1-2; col. 3:39-41) attached to upright rigid arms (tubes 21) for pushing a rider seated in the chair. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Massie by attaching a pair of detachable handles as taught by Aldus to the upright rigid arms of the second element, in order to facilitate pushing of the wheeled chair. The limitation “for using the trailer as a baby buggy or for carrying goods” is a statement of intended use. A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, Massie and Aldus teach all of the structural limitations of the claim. There is nothing in the language of the claims to distinguish the claimed trailer used as a baby buggy or for carrying goods from the wheeled folding chair taught by Massie and Aldus. Moreover, the wheeled folding chair taught by Massie and Aldus is capable of use as a baby buggy (e.g., by pushing a child rider in the wheeled chair) or for carrying goods (e.g., by setting goods on the seat of the wheeled chair).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massie in view of Williams ‘350 and Williams ‘133, in further view of Assaf (US Patent Pub. 2010/0244405, hereinafter Assaf).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Massie does not teach a detachable tow bar. However, Assaf teaches a light transport vehicle for use as a bicycle trailer, stroller, jogger, sled, or other configuration (Abstract) comprising a detachable tow bar (58, Fig. 11a; ¶ 86) attached at a lower lateral portion of a main frame (at attachment receiver 56, Fig. 11a) for towing by a bicycle (“In this configuration, the vehicle is useful as a bicycle trailer,” ¶ 86). Assaf teaches that the detachable tow bar advantageously permits the apparatus to be “readily converted between different configurations such as a bicycle trailer, jogger, stroller, etc.” (¶ 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Massie by adding a detachable tow bar as taught by Assaf attached at a lateral portion of one of the main frames, to permit the apparatus to be converted between a wheeled chair and a bicycle trailer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the components of Massie’s second element which pivotally connect the rear cross-frame member (33, Fig. 4) of Massie to the main frames (31, 32) are connectors that if considered to read on the rigid arms would not also read on the newly recited hinge brackets, or if considered to read on the newly recited hinge brackets would not also read on the rigid arms; “[i]n other words, Massie does not describe separate elements to be equated to claimed ‘rigid arms’ and ‘hinge bracket.’” Remarks, pg. 11. On this point, the examiner agrees. However, the examiner maintains that Williams ‘133 does teach a combination of elements equating to the rigid arms and hinge brackets which would have been obvious to combine with Massie, as discussed in the rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth above in response to Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/JOSHUA KADING/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 On this point, the examiner agrees with Applicant’s positions as set forth in the Remarks filed June 5, 2025, see pg. 10-11. See Response to Arguments below.
2 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved February 28 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/suspension