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.
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 14-24 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 independent claims 1 and 19, 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 main frame (col. 4:16-19). The rigid arms extend along the adjacent main frame (31, 32) between two ends of the rigid arm (see Fig. 4, each rigid arm extending from a top end to a bottom end along the respective main frame) which are pivotally fastened at least indirectly to the main frames (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 ends of each rigid arm (as recited in claim 1) or the rigid arms (as recited in claim 19) of at least the second element are pivotally connected at least indirectly 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), wherein each of the rigid arms extends along the adjacent main frame (19, 20) between two ends of the rigid arm (see Fig. 4). The ends of each rigid arm are pivotally connected at least indirectly to the main frames (19, 20) via hinge brackets (mounting lugs 38, Fig. 4). See annotated Fig. 4 below. Because the rigid arms are pivotally connected to the main frames (19, 20) via the hinge brackets (38), the ends of each rigid arm are “at least indirectly” pivotally connected to the main frames (19, 20) via the hinge brackets (38), as broadly claimed. 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 connecting the rigid arms to the main frames via hinge brackets, as taught by Williams ‘133, which includes the ends of the rigid arms being at least indirectly pivotally connected to the main frames via the hinge brackets, in order to reduce manufacturing costs and/or to facilitate absorption of strains when the chair runs over uneven ground. For further discussion of this rejection, see Response to Arguments below.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 19, respectively. 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, 5, and 24, 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) (claims 4 and 24), 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 ‘350, 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 ‘350, 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 claims 17 and 21, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 3 and 20, respectively. 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 claims 18 and 22, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 3 and 20, respectively. 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.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 19. Massie further teaches the foldable arms of the first element (34) and the foldable arms of the second element (33) are disposed at an angle to each other (i.e., at a right angle, as shown in Fig. 4).
Claims 9 and 25 are 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 claims 9 and 25, the modified Massie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 19, respectively. 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 filed April 28, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Applicant argues with respect to Williams ‘133 that “the turned portion T does not extend between two ends that are each connected pivotally to the frame 19.” Remarks, pg. 10, referring to Applicant’s annotation of Fig. 4, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
304
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 includes broad language permitting the ends of each rigid arm to be “indirectly” pivotally connected to the main frame. Because Williams ‘133 teaches that the central portion of each turned portion/rigid arm is pivotally connected to the main frame by the hinge brackets (38, Fig. 4), the ends (T1, T2) of the turned portions/rigid arms are also pivotally connected to the main frame by the hinge brackets, at least indirectly.
Applicant additionally argues that the turned portions are not rigid arms but are instead end portions of arms 35a and 35b. See Remarks, pg. 10. This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not require that the rigid arms are separate components from the folding arms. In fact, Applicant’s patent specification explicitly discloses that the rigid arms are part of a U-shaped frame that includes the foldable segments of the foldable arms. See ‘096 patent, col. 4:4-16. Therefore, claim 1 is reasonably considered to encompass rigid arms that are integrally connected to the foldable segments of the folding arms.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the rigid arms do not extend along the adjacent frame between the end portions, the examiner maintains that the turned portion T of Williams ‘133 clearly extends along the adjacent frame (19) between the ends T1 and T2 of the turned portion T. While the examiner recognizes that Applicant has disclosed an embodiment in which each one of the rigid arms extends continuously along the adjacent main frame from one foldable arm to another foldable arm of each pair of foldable arms (see, e.g., Fig. 1a), this arrangement is not yet claimed.
New independent claim 19 is identical to claim 1 as previously presented in the amendment filed June 5, 2025, which was rejected in the non-final Office action mailed February 19, 2026, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Massie, Williams ‘350, and Williams ‘133.
With respect to claim 19, Applicant argues that the proposed modification of Massie in view of Williams ‘133 would not have been obvious because it would result in increased manufacturing costs. See Remarks, pg. 12-13. However, this argument is not supported by evidence on the record. Attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). In this case, the evidence of record does not show that the proposed modification would actually result in increased manufacturing costs, particularly in view of the explicit teaching of Williams ‘133 that the U-shaped spring wire configuration of first and second elements (which includes the rigid arms) is a cost-saving measure. See Williams ‘133, col. 1:46-49, 2:50-54.
Applicant additionally argues that the proposed modification of Massie in view of Williams ‘133 would not have been obvious because it would be an inconvenient design for a wheelchair and would cause discomfort or injury to a user’s back. See Remarks, pg. 13-14. Again, this argument is not supported by evidence on the record. The evidence of record does not show that the proposed modification would actually result in user injury or discomfort, or would be any less comfortable than the wheelchair of Massie which includes similar rigid components at the back of the wheelchair, which are covered by a flexible back rest when in use (see Fig. 1).
Applicant also argues that the proposed modification of Massie in view of Williams ‘133 would not have been obvious because offsetting the pivot axis from the line of force applied to push the wheelchair would result in reduced operational stability. This argument is also not supported by evidence on the record. The evidence of record does not support the position that the configuration of the rigid arms and hinge brackets taught by Williams ‘133 would cause the wheelchair to inadvertently fold, particularly in view of the fact that Williams ‘133 explicitly teaches this configuration in the context of a wheelchair, where the direction of force applied relative to the rigid arms and hinge brackets would likewise be in a line offset from the pivot axis. See Williams ‘133.
Finally, Applicant argues that bodily incorporation of components of Williams ‘133 into the wheelchair of Massie would require multiple steps to accomplish. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, the examiner notes that Williams ‘133 provides ample guidance for incorporating hinge brackets and rigid arms into a foldable wheelchair, such that any modifications necessary to apply the teaching of Williams ‘133 to Massie would be within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
2 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved February 28 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/suspension
Prosecution Insights