DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of Submission
The claim amendments filed on July 27, 2026 have been entered.
The substitute specification and the substitute abstract filed on July 27, 2026 have not been entered because they contain numerous errors and inaccuracies. Specific examples are:
In ¶ 0008, “it is fixed to the outside of” (7th line1) is inaccurate because the center of the upper support section is not fixed to the outside of the poles through the middle fixed sleeves. It appears that “it is fixed to the outside of” should read “the upper support section is coupled to”.
¶¶ 0010-0011 fail to accurately define the structure of the cross bar assembly shown in Fig. 2. See the explanation given in GROUND 1 below with respect to claim 3.
¶¶ 0012-0013 fail to accurately define the structure of the cross bar assembly shown in Fig. 3. See the explanation given in GROUND 1 below with respect to claims 5 and 6.
¶¶ 0015-0016 fail to accurately define the structure of the lower support section and the upper support section shown in Figs. 1-5. See the explanation given in GROUND 1 below with respect to claims 8 and 9.
¶ 0026 fails to accurately define the structure of the cross bar assembly shown in Fig. 2. See the explanation given in GROUND 1 below with respect to claim 3.
¶ 0027 fails to accurately define the structure of the cross bar assembly shown in Fig. 3. See the explanation given in GROUND 1 below with respect to claims 5 and 6.
¶ 0030 (7th to 12th lines) fails to accurately define the structure of the cross bar assembly shown in Fig. 2. See the explanation given in GROUND 1 below with respect to claim 3.
In ¶ 0030, “the top fixed sleeve 11” (12th line) is inaccurate because the wagon has four top fixed sleeves, not one top fixed sleeve.
In the abstract, “These crossbars” (11th line) should read “These support bars”.
While specific examples are identified above, applicant should carefully review and revise the specification in its entirety in order to correct all errors and inaccuracies therein.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1, 3 and 5-9 of this application are subject to examination. Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The current claim limitations are construed under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary.
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.
GROUND 1: Claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
Claim 3 fails to accurately define the structure shown in Fig. 2 and is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The recitations “include left and right main crossbars” (l. 2) and “the left and right main crossbars comprise two bars…” (l. 4) are inaccurate because reference number 21 does not label a single “crossbar” in Fig. 2; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a folding joint.
The recitation “the left and right main crossbars comprise two bars…” (l. 4) is indefinite because a “crossbar” cannot be accurately defined as including “two bars”. If it is one crossbar, then it is not two bars.
The recitation “the left and right main crossbars comprise two bars…” (l. 4) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this requires both of the left and right main crossbars to comprise two bars, or whether it requires the left and right main crossbars to collectively comprise two bars.
The alternative expression “pivotal/folding joint” (ll. 5, 8 and 12) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this means “pivotal and folding joint”, “pivotal or folding joint”, “pivotal and/or folding joint”, or something else.
The recitations “include…first cross sub-bars” (ll. 2-3) and “the first cross sub-bars comprise two bars…” (l. 7) are inaccurate because reference number 22 does not label a single “cross sub-bar” in Fig. 2; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a folding joint.
The recitation “the first cross sub-bars comprise two bars…” (l. 7) is indefinite because a “cross sub-bar” cannot be accurately defined as including “two bars”. If it is one cross sub-bar, then it is not two bars.
The recitation “the first cross sub-bars comprise two bars…” (l. 7) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this requires each of the cross sub-bars to comprise two bars, or whether it requires the cross sub-bars to collectively comprise two bars.
The recitations “include…second cross sub-bars” (ll. 2-3) and “the second cross sub-bars comprise two bars…” (l. 11) are inaccurate because reference number 23 does not label a single “cross sub-bar” in Fig. 2; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a folding joint.
The recitation “the second cross sub-bars comprise two bars…” (l. 11) is indefinite because a “cross sub-bar” cannot be accurately defined as including “two bars”. If it is one cross sub-bar, then it is not two bars.
The recitation “the second cross sub-bars comprise two bars…” (l. 11) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this requires each of the cross sub-bars to comprise two bars, or whether it requires the cross sub-bars to collectively comprise two bars.
The term “the pair” (l. 8) lacks proper antecedent basis.
The term “the sliding sleeve” (l. 13) is indefinite because more than one sliding sleeve is required by claim 1. It is unclear which sliding sleeve is being referred to in claim 3.
Claim 5 fails to accurately define the structure shown in Fig. 3 and is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The recitations “include a first crossbar and a second crossbar” (l. 2) and “each of the first cross bar and the second cross bar comprises two bars…” (l. 3) are inaccurate because reference number 31 does not label a single “first crossbar” in Fig. 3, and reference number 32 does not label a single “second crossbar”; rather, they each label two bars that appear to be connected by a folding joint.
The recitation “each of the first cross bar and the second cross bar comprises two bars…” (l. 3) is indefinite because a “cross bar” cannot be accurately defined as including “two bars”. If it is one cross bar, then it is not two bars.
The alternative expression “pivotal/folding joint” (l. 4) is indefinite for the reasons given above.
The term “the first crossbar” (l. 5) and “the second crossbar” (l. 5) are indefinite because line 2 appears to require that each of the front and rear cross bar assemblies include a first crossbar and a second crossbar. Since more than one of each crossbar appears to be required, it is unclear which ones are being referred to in line 5.
The recitation “about respective connection points with the top fixed sleeves and the sliding sleeves” (ll. 6-7) is inaccurate because each of the cross bars is not connected to all of the top fixed sleeves or to all of the sliding sleeves.
Claim 6 fails to accurately define the structure shown in Fig. 3 and is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The recitations “the two bars of the first crossbar” (l. 2), “the two bars of the second crossbar” (ll. 5-6), “each bar of the two bars” (l. 8) and “a corresponding bar to the two bars” (l. 9) are indefinite for the reasons given above with respect to claim 5.
The terms “one top fixed sleeve” (ll. 2-3) and “another top fixed sleeve” (l. 3) are indefinite because it is unclear whether these terms refer to the same top fixed sleeves introduced in claim 1, or to different top fixed sleeves.
The terms “one sliding sleeve” (l. 6) and “another sliding sleeve” (l. 7) are indefinite because it is unclear whether these terms refer to the same sliding sleeves introduced in claim 1, or to different sliding sleeves.
The recitation “each bar of the two bars of is” (l. 8) is incomplete and confusing.
Claim 8 fails to accurately define the structure of the lower support section shown in Figs. 1-5 and is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The recitation “in a middle of the four bottom fixed sleeves is the lower support section” (l. 3) is inaccurate because the lower support section is not in “a middle of” the bottom fixed sleeves.
Lines 3-10 of claim 8 duplicate limitations previously recited in the final paragraph of claim 1, while rewording the limitations to a certain degree. Such a rewording/re-presentation of duplicative limitations is confusing and indefinite.
Due to the recitation of duplicate limitations, lines 3-10 of claim 8 recite terms that are indefinite since they are not tied to similar terms in claim 1.
The recitation “the two front support bars of the lower support section connects to one end of the two bottom fixed sleeves” (ll. 7-8) is inaccurate because plural front support bars do not connect to “one end of” two bottom fixed sleeves.
The recitation “the two rear support bars of the lower support section connects to other side of the two bottom fixed sleeves” (ll. 7-8) is inaccurate because plural rear support bars do not connect to a single “other side of” two bottom fixed sleeves.
The term “the two bottom fixed sleeves” (ll. 8 and 9-10) is inconsistent with claim 1, which requires four bottom fixed sleeves.
Claim 9 fails to accurately define the structure of the upper and lower support sections shown in Figs. 1-5 and is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The phrase “trailer wagon” (l. 1) is inconsistent with the preamble of claim 1 and is inaccurate.
The phrase “the wherein lengths” (l. 2) is confusing and lacks proper antecedent basis.
The recitation “both are shorter” (l. 4) is inaccurate/indefinite because this limitation applies to four support bars, not two support bars.
While many examples of indefiniteness have been identified by the examiner, a thorough and complete revision of the claims is required in order to place them into compliance with 35 USC 112(b).
Suggested Claim Amendments
The examiner suggests that claims 3 and 5-9 be canceled and replaced with new claims 10-15 as presented in the APPENDIX below.
Specification Objections
The original specification (the only version of the specification that has been entered) is objected to for the reasons given in items 57 and 59 (pp. 10-14) of the prior Office action mailed on April 23, 2026.
While many examples of errors in the specification have been identified by the examiner, a thorough and complete revision of the specification is required. Care should be taken to insure that the terminology used in the specification conforms to the terminology used in the claims.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art and Patents of Interest
The following is a listing of the prior art and other patents of interest cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Conn”
US Publication No. 2024/0124040 A1
“Sun”
US Publication No. 2025/0083726 A1
“Qiao et al. ‘431”
US Patent No. 12,552,431 B1
“Qiao et al. ‘922”
US Patent No. 12,491,922 B1
“Yang et al.”
CN Publication No. 212148912 U (with translation)
“Zhang ‘417”
US Publication No. 2025/0326417 A1
“Zhang ‘934”
US Publication No. 2025/0065934 A1
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art listed above is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Sun teaches a double-layer folding wagon that is structured in a similar manner to the claimed invention. However, Sun’s sliding sleeves 7 are located above the middle fixed sleeves 4. Thus, Sun fails to teach a double-layer folding wagon, as defined in claim 1, and including the claimed vertical poles sequentially equipped from a top to the bottom thereof with (a) a top fixed sleeve fixed at the top thereof, (b) a middle fixed sleeve fixed to a middle part thereof, and (c) a sliding sleeve slidably connected thereto below the middle fixed sleeve.
Zhang ‘417 teaches a double-layer folding wagon that is structured in a similar manner to the claimed invention. However, in Zhang ‘417, the sliding sleeves 6 are located above the middle fixed sleeves 102. Thus, Zhang ‘417 fails to teach a double-layer folding wagon, as defined in claim 1, and including the claimed vertical poles sequentially equipped from a top to the bottom thereof with (a) a top fixed sleeve fixed at the top thereof, (b) a middle fixed sleeve fixed to a middle part thereof, and (c) a sliding sleeve slidably connected thereto below the middle fixed sleeve.
Zhang ‘934 teaches a double-layer folding wagon that is structured in a similar manner to the claimed invention. However, Zhang ‘934 lacks middle fixed sleeves above the sliding sleeves 51-54. Thus, Zhang ‘934 fails to teach a double-layer folding wagon, as defined in claim 1, and including the claimed vertical poles sequentially equipped from a top to the bottom thereof with (a) a top fixed sleeve fixed at the top thereof, (b) a middle fixed sleeve fixed to a middle part thereof, and (c) a sliding sleeve slidably connected thereto below the middle fixed sleeve.
Conn teaches a double-layer folding wagon that is structured in a similar manner to the claimed invention. However, Conn lacks middle fixed sleeves above the sliding sleeves 40. Thus, Conn fails to teach a double-layer folding wagon, as defined in claim 1, and including the claimed vertical poles sequentially equipped from a top to the bottom thereof with (a) a top fixed sleeve fixed at the top thereof, (b) a middle fixed sleeve fixed to a middle part thereof, and (c) a sliding sleeve slidably connected thereto below the middle fixed sleeve.
Yang et al. teaches a double-layer folding wagon that is structured in a similar manner to the claimed invention. However, Yang et al. lacks middle fixed sleeves above the sliding sleeves 7. Thus, Yang et al. fails to teach a double-layer folding wagon, as defined in claim 1, and including the claimed vertical poles sequentially equipped from a top to the bottom thereof with (a) a top fixed sleeve fixed at the top thereof, (b) a middle fixed sleeve fixed to a middle part thereof, and (c) a sliding sleeve slidably connected thereto below the middle fixed sleeve.
Qiao et al. ‘431 is cited as being of interest because it teaches a double-layer folding wagon that is structured in a similar manner to the claimed invention. However, Qiao et al. ‘431 does not qualify as prior art.
Qiao et al. ‘922 is cited as being of interest because it teaches a double-layer folding wagon that is structured in a similar manner to the claimed invention. However, Qiao et al. ‘922 does not qualify as prior art.
Allowed Claims & Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 7 are allowed.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see the explanations in the discussion of the prior art above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 27, 2026 have been considered. Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to comply with 35 USC 112(b). The examiner disagrees for the reasons given above. Applicant argues that the substitute specification overcomes the objections to the specification. However, the substitute specification has not been entered for the reasons given above.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center2: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
APPENDIX - SUGGESTED CLAIM AMENDMENTS
Cancel claims 3 and 5-9 and replace them with the following new claims 10-15.
10. (New) The double-layer folding wagon according to claim 1, wherein:
the left cross bar assembly includes (i) first and second main bars connected to each other by a folding joint to form a V-shaped structure having opposite ends connected to the top fixed sleeves on the left side of the wagon, (ii) first and second sub-bars connected to each other by a folding joint, and (iii) third and fourth sub-bars connected to each other by a folding joint, wherein ends of the first and fourth sub-bars are connected to the sliding sleeves on the left side of the wagon, an end of the second sub-bar is connected to the second main bar, and an end of the third sub-bar is connected to the first main bar; and
the right cross bar assembly includes (i) third and fourth main bars connected to each other by a folding joint to form a V-shaped structure having opposite ends connected to the top fixed sleeves on the right side of the wagon, (ii) fifth and sixth sub-bars connected to each other by a folding joint, and (iii) seventh and eighth sub-bars connected to each other by a folding joint, wherein ends of the fifth and eighth sub-bars are connected to the sliding sleeves on the right side of the wagon, an end of the sixth sub-bar is connected to the fourth main bar, and an end of the seventh sub-bar is connected to the third main bar.
11. (New) The double-layer folding wagon according to claim 1, wherein:
the front cross bar assembly includes (i) first and second bars connected to each other by a folding joint, and (iii) third and fourth bars connected to each other by a folding joint, wherein ends of the first and second bars are connected to the top fixed sleeves at the front of the wagon, and ends of the third and fourth bars are connected to the sliding sleeves at the front of the wagon; and
the rear cross bar assembly includes (i) fifth and sixth bars connected to each other by a folding joint, and (iii) seventh and eighth bars connected to each other by a folding joint, wherein ends of the fifth and sixth bars are connected to the top fixed sleeves at the rear of the wagon, and ends of the seventh and eighth bars are connected to the sliding sleeves at the rear of the wagon.
12. (New) The double-layer folding wagon according to claim 11, wherein:
the first and third bars are connected to each other by a folding joint, and the second and fourth bars are connected to each other by a folding joint;
the first and third bars are symmetrical with respect to the second and fourth bars;
the fifth and seventh bars are connected to each other by a folding joint, and the sixth and eight bars are connected to each other by a folding joint; and
the fifth and seventh bars are symmetrical with respect to the sixth and eighth bars.
13. (New) The double-layer folding wagon according to claim 1, wherein the two front support bars and the two rear support bars of the upper support section have identical structures and are symmetrically distributed about the upper connector.
14. (New) The double-layer folding wagon according to claim 1, wherein the lower support section is located between the bottom fixed sleeves at the front of the wagon and the bottom fixed sleeves at the rear of the wagon, the two front support bars of the lower support section are pivotally connected to a first side of the lower connector, and the two rear support bars of the lower support section are pivotally connected to a second side of the lower connector.
15. (New) The double-layer folding wagon according to claim 14, characterized in that lengths of the two front support bars and the two rear support bars of the upper support section are the same and are each shorter than lengths of the two front support bars and the two rear support bars of the lower support section, and a length of the lower connector is shorter than a length of the upper connector.
1 All references to line numbers in this section of the Office action are with respect to the marked-up copy of the substitute specification.
2 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).
Prosecution Insights