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 informality: Wording in Line 3. Replacing “crossbars set” with “crossbar set” is suggested, for consistency throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 3. Replacing “their crossing center” with “an intersection of the third crossbar and the fourth crossbar” 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 and 3-6 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, wherein a crossbar set 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 a folding center of the crossbar set [Zhang Fig. 2, Reference Character 62], 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 the second crossbar are arranged symmetrically about an axis of the lifting rod with respect to the fifth crossbar and the sixth crossbar, and the intersection of the first crossbar and the second crossbar is offset towards one side of the second side frame relative to their vertical central axis [Zhang Fig. 4], wherein the base frame assembly includes a first base frame [Zhang Fig. 3, wherein the first base frame is represented by four “first bottom connecting tubes” (Reference Character 43, typ) and a “first bottom connector” (Reference Character 41)] and a second base frame [Zhang Fig. 3, wherein the second base frame is represented by four “second bottom connecting tubes” (Reference Character 44, typ) and a “second bottom connector” (Reference Character 42)] which are pivotally connected to each other [Zhang Figs. 2 and 4, wherein the pivotal connection consists of two “hanger rod joints” (Reference Characters 63 and 65)], the first base frame is pivotally connected to a bottom of the first side frame and the second base frame is pivotally connected to a bottom of the second side frame [Annotated Zhang Fig. 1, below; Zhang Figs. 2 and 6], a bottom of the lifting rod is located at a junction of the first base frame and the second base frame [Zhang Fig. 4, Reference Character 63; Zhang Paragraph 0061: “second hanger rod joint 63 is slidably arranged on the second hanger rod 62”].
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Zhang Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches the side-folding trailer according to claim 1, wherein 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, wherein the third crossbar and the fourth crossbar are set in a cross configuration and a 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, wherein a handle is fixed on an 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, wherein bottoms of both the first base frame and the second base frame are equipped with a set 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, when the trailer is folded, the casters at a bottom of the first base frame and the casters at a 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, wherein when the trailer is folded, a 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, wherein after the trailer is folded, the lifting rod is positioned directly above the casters and does not make contact with them [Zhang Fig. 6].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The structure and configuration of the base frame assembly (claimed invention) are different from those of the bottom support mechanism (Zhang). (Applicant Arguments: Page 6, Paragraph 6). Examiner acknowledges that the structure and configuration of the base frame assembly of the claimed invention are different from the structure and configuration of Zhang’s bottom support mechanism, but does not concede that the differences between Zhang and the claimed invention render Zhang an unsuitable teaching reference. Claim 1 of the instant application recites a base frame assembly (instant application Claim 1, Lines 6-7) that includes a first base frame (instant application Claim 1, Line 17) and a second base frame (instant application Claim 1, Line 17), which are pivotally connected to each other. As is shown in Zhang Fig. 3, Zhang discloses a base frame that includes a first base frame and a second base frame that is pivotally connected to the first base frame [Zhang Fig. 3, wherein the first base frame is represented by four “first bottom connecting tubes” (Reference Character 43, typ) and a “first bottom connector” (Reference Character 41); Zhang Fig. 3, wherein the second base frame is represented by four “second bottom connecting tubes” (Reference Character 44, typ) and a “second bottom connector” (Reference Character 42)]; wherein a first bottom frame and a second base frame is pivotally connected to the first base frame via Zhang’s rod joint, represented by Reference Character 63 (typ) in Zhang Fig. 4)].
The first side frame (1) and the second side frame (2) are two independent frames (claimed invention). On the contrary, in the expandable cart of Zhang, there are four independent columns (11, 12, 13, and 14). Examiner acknowledges that the structure and configuration of the side frames of the claimed invention are different from structure and configuration of Zhang’s side frames, but does not concede that the differences render Zhang an unsuitable teaching reference. Claim 1 of the instant application recites a first side frame (instant application Claim 1, Line 2) and a second side frame (instant application Claim 1, Line 2), and further recites the first base frame being pivotally connected to a bottom of the first side frame (instant application Claim 1, Lines 18-19), and the second base frame being pivotally connected to a bottom of the second side frame (instant application Claim 1, Lines 19-20. As is shown in Zhang Figs. 1, 5, and 6, Zhang discloses a first side frame, which consists of members represented by Reference Characters 11, 14, 72, 73, 231, 232, 233, and 234, and a second side frame, which consists of members represented by Reference Characters 12, 14, 51, 52, and 53. Zhang further discloses the first base frame being pivotally connected to a bottom of the first side frame via unnumbered member presented in Annotated Zhang Fig. 1, above, called-out in Annotated Zhang Fig. 1 as a “Pivotal Connections between the First Base Frame and Bottom of the First Side Frame” and a second base frame being pivotally connected to a bottom of the second side frame, via unnumbered member presented in Annotated Zhang Fig. 1, above, called-out as a “Pivotal Connections (hidden) between the Second Base Frame and Bottom of the Second Side Frame”.
The first side frame or the second side frame in the present application are integrated structures. That is, the four independent columns (11, 12, 13 and 14) in Zhang are different from the first side frame or the second side frame as recited in amended claim 1 of the present application (Applicant Arguments: Page 7, Paragraph 1) (Applicant Arguments Page 7, Paragraph 1). Examiner acknowledges different structures but does not concede that Zhang’s component parts are not integrated. Regardless of whether or not Zhang’s component parts are integrated, it should be noted that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” (MPEP2144.04(V).
The support mechanism 5 in Zhang includes a first transverse support tube 51, a second transverse support tube 52 and a transverse support connector 53 which is also different from that of the present application. Namely, the support member in the present application is an integrated structure (Applicant Arguments Page 8, Paragraph 1). Examiner acknowledges different structures but does not concede that Zhang’s component parts are not integrated. It should be noted that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” (MPEP2144.04(V).
The support mechanism includes a first transverse support tube, a second transverse support tube and a transverse support connector which is also different form the support member (that is an integrated structure). Lastly, structure and configuration of the bottom support mechanism in Zhang 063 is also different from those of the base frame assembly of the present application. (Applicant Arguments Page 9, Paragraph 3 to Page 10, Paragraph 1). Examiner acknowledges different structures but does not concede that the differences render Zhang an unsuitable teaching reference. (See Responses a, b, and c, above). It should be noted that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” (MPEP2144.04(V).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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