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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Wording in Line 2. Replacing “set of crossbars” with “crossbar set” is suggested, for consistency with the other claims.
Punctuation and capitalization in Lines 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11. Replacing periods i.e., “.” with semicolons or commas is suggested; replacing capitalized letters with lowercase letters is suggested. See MPEP 608.01(m): “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: Punctuation and capitalization in Lines 3 and 4. Replacing periods i.e., “.” with semicolons or commas is suggested; replacing capitalized letters with lowercase letters is suggested. See MPEP 608.01(m): “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “equipped with two sets of casters” with “each equipped with a set of casters” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 20250018989 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a side-folding trailer that does not rise in height [Zhang Figs. 1 and 6], comprising a first side frame and a second side frame, characterized in that a set of crossbars is positioned between the said first side frame and second side frame [Zhang Fig. 1, Reference Characters 12 & 13 (first side frame); 11 & 14 (second side frame); 21 or 22 (set of crossbars); wherein a lifting rod is situated at the folding center of the crossbar set [Zhang Fig. 2, Reference Character 62]; the bottoms of the first side frame and the second side frame are equipped with a base frame assembly connected to the lifting rod [Zhang Fig. 1, Reference Character 4]; on each side of the crossbar set, there are sliding connections to the side frames: a first sliding sleeve slidingly connected to the first side frame and a second sliding sleeve slidingly connected to the second side frame [Zhang Fig. 4, Reference Character 217 (typ)]; the crossbar set includes a first crossbar pivotally connected to the second side frame, a second crossbar pivotally connected to the first sliding sleeve, a sixth crossbar pivotally connected to the first side frame, and a fifth crossbar pivotally connected to the second sliding sleeve [Zhang Fig. 4, Reference Characters 211 (first crossbar), 214 (second crossbar), 216 (sixth crossbar), and 213 (fifth crossbar)]; and the first crossbar and second crossbar are arranged symmetrically about the axis of the lifting rod with respect to the fifth crossbar and sixth crossbar, and the intersection of the first crossbar and the second crossbar is offset towards the side of the second side frame relative to their vertical central axis [Zhang Fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 1, characterized in that the base frame assembly includes a first base frame and a second base frame which are pivotally connected to each other; the first base frame is pivotally connected to the bottom of the first side frame, and the second base frame is pivotally connected to the bottom of the second side frame; and the bottom of the lifting rod is located at the junction of the first base frame and the second base frame [Zhang Fig. 2, Reference Characters 4 (wherein the first base frame is the portion of the base frame (represented by Reference Character 4) that connects to Reference Characters 12 & 13 (first side frame); and wherein the second base frame is the portion of the base frame (represented by Reference Character 4) that connects to Reference Characters 11 & 14 (second side frame)); 61 or 62 (lifting rod); 63 or 65 (junction of first base frame and second base frame)].
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 1, characterized in that the crossbar set further includes a third crossbar which is pivotally connected both to the second crossbar and the sixth crossbar, and a fourth crossbar which is pivotally connected both to the first crossbar and the fifth crossbar [Zhang Fig. 4, Reference Characters 215 (third crossbar) and 212 (fourth crossbar)].
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 3, characterized in that the third crossbar and the fourth crossbar are set in a cross configuration and the top of the lifting rod is located at their crossing center [Zhang Fig. 4, Reference Characters 215, 212, and 62].
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 1, characterized in that a handle is fixed on the outer side of the second side frame [Zhang Fig. 4, Reference Character 7].
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 1, characterized in that the bottom of both the first base frame and the second base frame are equipped with two sets of casters [Zhang Fig. 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20250018989 A1) in view of Zhang 063 (US D929063 S). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang teaches a side folding trailer comprising casters but does not teach caster overlap. Zhang 063 teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 6, characterized in that when the trailer is folded, the casters at the bottom of the first base frame and the casters at the bottom of the second base frame come close to each other until they overlap [Zhang 063 Fig 8]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the side-folding trailer of Zhang to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, overlapping casters in view of Zhang 063. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Zhang 063 because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing overall length of the folded trailer thereby improving packability and decreasing storage space requirements. It should be noted that while Zhang 063 does not explicitly provide a motivation for incorporating this feature, such feature is common in the art [see US 11851097 B2, US 20150035258 A1, WO 2022257066 A1, CN 210478755 U]. It should be further noted that Zhang could be modified by Zhang 063 without any loss of utility. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 7, characterized in that when the trailer is folded, the center connection point of the first base frame and the second base frame drives the lifting rod to move downward [Zhang Fig. 6].
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 8, characterized in that after the trailer is folded, the lifting rod is positioned directly above the casters and does not make contact with them [Zhang Fig. 6].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights