DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
The claim amendments filed on June 5, 2026 have been entered.
The substitute specification filed on June 5, 2026 has not been entered because it contains numerous errors and inaccuracies. Some examples are:
¶ 0007 is inconsistent with the definition of the invention in amended claim 1 as well as the description of the invention in ¶¶ 0010, 0012, 0014-0017 and 0023. Note that:
¶ 0007 recites “a lower fixed sleeve” whereas amended claim 1 defines the same sleeve as “a middle fixed sleeve”.
¶ 0007 recites “a first base support crossbar”, but amended claim 1 defines the same structure as “two front support bars”.
¶ 0007 recites “a second base support crossbar”, but amended claim 1 defines the same structure as “two rear support bars”.
¶ 0007 recites plural “upper connectors” whereas amended claim 1 defines the invention as having a single “upper connector”.
¶ 0007 recites plural “upper connectors” whereas ¶¶ 0014, 0016 and 0017 use the singular term “the upper connector”.
¶ 0007 requires that each pole has “an upper fixed sleeve” whereas ¶¶ 0010, 0012 and 0013 refer to the same sleeves as “top fixed sleeves”.
¶ 0007 recites “an upper fixed sleeve” whereas ¶ 0023 defines the same sleeve as a “Top fixed sleeve”.
¶ 0007 recites “a lower fixed sleeve” whereas ¶ 0023 defines the same sleeve as “Middle fixed sleeve”.
In ¶ 0007, the singular terms “the upper fixed sleeve” and “the sliding sleeve” are inaccurate because the paragraph previously requires more than one of each of these sleeves.
In ¶ 0008, the singular terms “the upper fixed sleeve” and “the sliding sleeve” are inaccurate because ¶ 0007 requires more than one of each of these sleeves.
¶ 0008 recites “the lower fixed sleeves” whereas amended claim 1 defines the same sleeves as “middle” fixed sleeves.
In ¶ 0009, “left or right” should read “left and right”, and “front or back” should read “front and back”.
In ¶ 0010, “a main left or right cross bar” fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 2. Note that reference number 21 does not label a single “bar”; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint.
In ¶ 0010, “a first cross sub-bar” fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 2. Note that reference number 22 does not label a single “bar”; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint.
In ¶ 0010, “a second cross sub-bar” fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 2. Note that reference number 23 does not label a single “bar”; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint.
In ¶ 0010, “The main left or right cross bar has a V-shaped structure” fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 2. Note that reference number 21 does not label a single “bar” having a V-shaped structure; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint, thereby forming a V-shaped structure.
In ¶ 0010, the description of “the first cross sub-bar” as having one end connected to a sliding sleeve and another end connected to the main left or right cross bar fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 2. Note that reference number 22 does not label a single “bar” having one end connected to a sliding sleeve and another end connected to one of the main bars; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint, with one of the two bars having an end connected to a sliding sleeve and the other of the two bars having an end connected to one of the main bars.
In ¶ 0010, the description of “the second cross sub-bar” as having one end connected to a sliding sleeve and another end connected to the main left or right cross bar fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 2. Note that reference number 23 does not label a single “bar” having one end connected to a sliding sleeve and another end connected to one of the main bars; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint, with one of the two bars having an end connected to a sliding sleeve and the other of the two bars having an end connected to one of the main bars.
In ¶ 0011, the description of “the front and second cross sub-bars” as having ends, which are close to each other, that are rotatable connected fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 2. Note that one of the bars 22 has a central portion that is connected to a central portion of one of the bars 23.
In ¶ 0012, “a first front or back cross bar” fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 3. Note that reference number 31 does not label a single “bar”; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint.
In ¶ 0012, “a second front or back cross bar” fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 2. Note that reference number 32 does not label a single “bar”; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint.
In ¶ 0012, “Both cross bars” fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 3 because reference numbers 31, 32 do not label just two cross bars.
In ¶ 0013, the description of “the first front or back cross bar” as having ends connected to two top fixed sleeves fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 3. Note that reference number 31 does not label a single “bar” having ends connected to top fixed sleeves; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint, with one of the two bars having an end connected to a top fixed sleeve and the other of the two bars having an end connected to another top fixed sleeve.
In ¶ 0013, the description of “the second front or back cross bar” as having ends connected to two sliding sleeves fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 3. Note that reference number 32 does not label a single “bar” having ends connected to sliding sleeves; rather, it labels two bars that appear to be connected by a pivotal/folding joint, with one of the two bars having an end connected to a sliding sleeve and the other of the two bars having an end connected to another sliding sleeve.
In ¶ 0013, the description “The first and second front or back cross bars are rotatably connected” fails to accurately describe the structure shown in Fig. 3. Note that reference number 31 does not label a single “bar” that is rotatably connected to a single “bar” labeled by reference number 32.
¶ 0014 recites “the first base support cross bar”, but amended claim 1 defines the same structure as “two front support bars”.
¶ 0014 recites “the second base support cross bar”, but amended claim 1 defines the same structure as “two rear support bars”.
¶ 0015 recites “the first lower base cross bar”, but amended claim 1 defines the same structure as “two front support bars”.
¶ 0014 recites “the second lower base cross bar”, but amended claim 1 defines the same structure as “two rear support bars”.
Applicant should note that the above are just some examples of the numerous errors and inaccuracies contained in the substitute specification.
The substitute abstract filed on June 5, 2026 has not been entered because it contains errors and inaccuracies. Examples are:
The phrase “a middle fixed sleeve fixed to a middle part thereof” is duplicated at lines 3-4.
Lines 8-9 recite “a first and a second base support crossbar, both pivotally connected to a base support connector”, but amended claim 1 defines the same structure as “two front support bars”, “two rear support bars”, and “an upper connectors pivotally connected to each of the front and rear support bars”.
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 and 5-9 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 and 5-9 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. See the explanation given above with respect to the substitute specification.
Claims 5 and 6 fail to accurately define the structure shown in Fig. 3. See the explanation given above with respect to the substitute specification.
In claim 7, the terms “the first base support crossbar” (l. 2) and “the second base support crossbar” (ll. 2-3) lack proper antecedent basis. Further, the use of these terms contradicts claim 1, which defines the same structure as “two front support bars” and “two rear support bars”.
Claim 7 ends with the incomplete phrase “and are symmetrically”, which renders the claim indefinite.
Lines 2-3 of claim 8 improperly repeat a limitation contained in prior claim 1.
Lines 4-11 of claim 8 improperly re-define and improperly contradict the limitations previously set forth in lines 43-47 of claim 1. Further, lines 4-11 of claim 8 fail to accurately define the structure of the lower base support section shown in Figs. 1-5.
In claim 9, the terms “the first upper base crossbar” (l. 2), “the second upper base crossbar” (ll. 2-3) and “the upper base connector” (ll. 5-6) lack proper antecedent basis. Further, the use of these terms contradicts claim 1, which defines the same structure as “two front support bars”, “two rear support bars” and “an upper connector”.
In claim 9, the use of the terms “the first lower base crossbar” (l. 4), “the second lower base crossbar” (l. 4) and “the lower base connector” (l. 5) contradicts claim 1, which defines the same structure as “two front support bars”, “two rear support bars” and “a lower connector”.
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).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because:
In claim 3, reference number “(23)” should be omitted from line 10 for consistency with the rest of the amendments.
In claim 5, “and” should be added after the comma in line 4.
Specification Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The term “TRAILER” is inaccurate for the reasons given above. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(o). The specification fails to describe the invention as having “auxiliary” crossbars. See claim 3. Correction is required.
The specification is objected to because:
In ¶ 0002, “trailers” (l. 1) is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In ¶ 0007, “trailer” (l. 2) is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
Other references to “trailers” or “trailer” in the specification are inaccurate for the same reasons.
In each of ¶¶ 0018-0021, “application” is inaccurate and confusing. This should read “folding wagon”.
In ¶ 0023, “cross section” (ll. 2 and 3) is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
Other references to “cross section” or “cross sections” in the specification are inaccurate for the same reasons.
In ¶ 0023, “Left-right” (l. 2) is confusing and inaccurate. The mechanical folding assemblies 2 do not extend left-to-right. Further, each of the folding assemblies 2 is not a “left-right” structure. This should read “Left or right” or “Front-to-back”.
In ¶ 0023, “left-right” (l. 2) is confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In ¶ 0023, “Front-back” (l. 3) is confusing and inaccurate. The mechanical folding assemblies 3 do not extend front-to-back. Further, each of the folding assemblies 3 is not a “front-back” structure. This should read “Front or back” or “Side-to-side”.
In ¶ 0023, “front-back” (ll. 3 and 4) is confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In ¶ 0025, “forming a rectangular structure” (ll. 2-3) is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In ¶ 0025, “sequentially equipped from top to bottom with…a lower fixing sleeve 12” (ll. 3-4) is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In ¶ 0025, “left-right cross section” (l. 8) is confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above. Further, the drawings show more than one front-to-rear mechanical folding assembly 2.
In ¶ 0025, “front-back cross section” (l. 9) is confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above. Further, the drawings show more than one side-to-side mechanical folding assembly 3.
In ¶ 0026, “left-right cross section” (l. 1) and “left-right” (ll. 1, 3 and 5-6) are confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above. Further, the drawings show more than one front-to-rear mechanical folding assembly 2.
In ¶ 0026, “main left-right cross bar 21, a first cross sub-bar 22, and a second cross sub-bar 23” (ll. 1-2) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 21, more than one cross bar 22, and more than one cross bar 23.
In ¶ 0026, “The main left-right cross bar 21” (l. 3) and “the main left-right cross bar 21” are inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 21.
In ¶ 0026, “The first cross sub-bar 22” (ll. 4-5) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 22.
In ¶ 0026, “the slider 13” (l. 5) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one slider 13.
In ¶ 0026, “the second cross sub-bar 23” (l. 6) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 23.
In ¶ 0027, “front-back cross section” (l. 1) and “front-back” (ll. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6) are confusing and inaccurate for the reasons given above. Further, the drawings show more than one side-to-side mechanical folding assembly 3.
In ¶ 0027, “a first front-back cross bar 31 and a second front-back cross bar 32” (ll. 1-2) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 31, and more than one cross bar 32.
In ¶ 0027, “the first front-back cross bar 31” (ll. 4 and 6) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 31.
In ¶ 0027, “the second front-back cross bar 32” (ll. 5 and 6) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 32.
In ¶ 0027, “are rotatably connected” (ll. 6-7) is incomplete because it fails to define what element of the invention the cross bars 31, 32 are rotatably connected to.
In ¶ 0028, “a first base support cross bar 41, a second base support cross bar 42” (ll. 1-2) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 41, and more than one cross bar 42.
In ¶ 0029, “Refer to Figures 1 and 4, the lower base support section 5” (l. 1) is inaccurate because Fig. 4 does not show the lower base support section 5.
In ¶ 0029, “a first lower base cross bar 51, a second lower base cross bar 52” (ll. 1-2) is inaccurate because the drawings shown more than one cross bar 51, and more than one cross bar 52.
In ¶ 0029, “The length of the lower base connector 53 is greater than that of the base support connector 43” (ll. 16-17) is inaccurate because the drawings appear to show the upper connector 43 as being longer than the lower connector 53.
In ¶ 0030, “The folding principle of the front-back cross section 3 is the same as described above” (ll. 11-12) is inaccurate. The scissor-type linkage of each side-to-side mechanical folding assembly 3 differs from the scissor-type linkage of each front-to-rear mechanical folding assembly 2. Due to their different constructions, these folding assemblies do not operate via the same folding principle.
In the abstract, “This application concerns a” (l. 1) should read “A”.
In the abstract, “trailer” (ll. 1 and 2) and “trailer’s” (ll. 6 and 10) are inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In the abstract, “a lower fixed sleeve” (l. 3) is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In the abstract, “alongside” fails to accurately describe the relationship between the middle fixed sleeve and the sliding sleeve.
In the abstract, “cross sections” (l. 5) is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
In the abstract, “both pivotally connected to base support connectors” is inconsistent with the rest of the specification, which describes the upper base support section 4 as having a (single) connector 43.
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 Claim & Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 3 and 5-9 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 June 5, 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.
Final Action
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).
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).
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.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: 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 the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 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