US 11332178

I'll search for authoritative information on US 11,332,178, including any litigation or docket activity.

US Patent 11,332,178 — Analyst Summary

1. Bibliographic data (authoritative from patent text)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11332178/en

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A foldable wagon has a frame that is collapsible in a manner such that the wagon basically has the same vertical height when in the collapsed and expanded configurations. The frame has folding bar assemblies on its sides. As the wagon is altered from the expanded to the collapsed configurations, the lower leg outer end of each of the pair of folding bar assemblies slides downward relative to the corresponding upper leg outer on the respective vertically oriented pole. The pairs of folding bar assemblies increase in height and decrease in length. As wagon is altered from the collapsed to the expanded configuration, the lower leg outer end of each of the pair of folding bar assembly slides upward relative to the corresponding upper leg outer end s on the respective vertically oriented pole, and the pairs of folding bar assemblies decrease in height and increase in length."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — the "structure + bottom support" claim. Covers a wagon that moves between expanded and collapsed states. Its frame has four sides; each side is made of a pair of folding bar assemblies (in the preferred embodiment, scissor/X-bar assemblies). At each corner where two adjacent sides meet there is a vertically oriented pole. The two "upper leg outer ends" of each side's bar pair are fixed to the pole; the two "lower leg outer ends" are slidingly mounted on the pole. The claim is quantified: in the expanded state the lower leg outer end sits a first distance (D1) along the pole from its corresponding upper leg outer end, and in the collapsed state it sits a second, greater distance (D2). In other words, collapsing the wagon lengthens the pole-side gap and shortens the side assemblies horizontally, which is why the wagon's overall height stays essentially the same. Added to that frame are: four wheels, each mounted near the bottom of a respective pole; a pliable liner connectable to the frame forming the open-top cargo compartment; a tow handle; and a collapsible bottom support assembly made of a central hub plus four bars, each bar pivotally connected both to the hub and to the bottom end portion of a respective pole (i.e., a folding X-type floor that lifts its hub upward as the wagon collapses).

Claim 3 — the "handle linkage" claim. This is a standalone claim (not dependent on claim 1). It recites the same frame, D1/D2 geometry, four wheels, pliable liner, and tow handle as claim 1, but drops the bottom support assembly and instead adds the handle-attachment architecture: the tow handle is connected to two of the vertically oriented poles via two connecting members, each connecting member having a first end pivotally connected to the frame adjacent the bottom end portion of its pole and an opposite second end operatively pivotally connected to the tow handle. This is the mechanism that lets the handle swing down and lets the whole wagon maintain constant height.

Claim 10 — the "functional folding" claim. Also independent, and the broadest in terms of how the folding is expressed. It covers the same four-sided frame of paired folding bar assemblies and corner poles (upper ends fixed, lower ends sliding), but claims the folding by result rather than by the D1/D2 numeric relationship: when going expanded → collapsed, the lower leg outer end of each pair slides downward relative to the corresponding upper leg outer end and the bar assemblies increase in height and decrease in length; and reversing that, collapsed → expanded, the lower end slides upward and the assemblies decrease in height and increase in length. It then adds the same four wheels, pliable liner, tow handle, and the central-hub-plus-four-bars collapsible bottom support assembly as in claim 1.

Notable dependent claims (context only): cl. 2/11 telescoping tow handle; cl. 4/18 connecting members slope downward toward the handle during collapse; cl. 5 handle top end does not protrude substantially above the rest of the wagon when collapsed and retracted; cl. 6 each folding bar assembly is a single pair of pivotally crossed bars; cl. 7/13 hub permits downward pivoting of the bars but prevents upward pivoting beyond horizontal (so it can bear a downward load); cl. 8/14 a shelf resting on the bottom support below and spaced from the liner; cl. 9/15 a removable stiffing [sic] panel at the bottom of the compartment; cl. 12 two wheels on a fixed common axis and the other two on pivotable axes; cl. 16 frame has the same vertical height in both configurations; cl. 17 handle linked to two poles via two connecting members.

4. Litigation / docket search results

CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches returned no authoritative Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity naming US 11,332,178 or Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure. I cannot confirm any appeal exists; treat this as "not found," not as a confirmed negative.

District court — one hit found (patent-family level, relevance to '178 unconfirmed):

• Hong Kong Uking Trading Limited v. Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd., No. 8:26-cv-02635, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division). Nature of suit: 830 – Property Rights: Patent; cause of action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment). Filed 2026 (PacerMonitor shows the filing day redacted as "?? 10, 2026"). Plaintiff's counsel listed as Cole Carlson, Carlson IP Law, LLC.
  • Source: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66722621/Hong_Kong_Uking_Trading_Limited_v_Zhejiang_Hengfeng_Top_Leisure_Co,_Ltd
  • Uncertainty: the snippet I retrieved does not list the asserted patents. Because this is a declaratory-judgment action by a Hong Kong trading company against the '178 patent owner, it plausibly relates to this wagon family, but I cannot confirm that US 11,332,178 is among the patents at issue. Verify against the actual complaint/docket before relying on it.

5. Explicit uncertainties and data anomalies

1. Source basis. My substantive content comes from the authoritative full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US11332178/en. I was not able to open the USPTO Patent Center or USPTO full-text page directly in this session, so I cannot independently verify the prosecution history (the Google Patents "Legal Events" show a non-final action mailed 2021-12-22, response entered 2022-03-04, notice of allowance 2022-03-17, issue fee verified 2022-04-20 — I did not cross-check these against USPTO records).
2. Anomalous assignment entry. The Google Patents legal-events table for application 17/024,836 contains an entry dated 2020-09-21 recording "Owner name: PAPER CONVERTING MACHINE COMPANY, WISCONSIN … ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR: ODEGARD, JOHN C.; REEL/FRAME 053831/0993; Effective date: 20190930." Taken literally, this would be an assignment of this application to an unrelated Wisconsin machinery company by an unrelated inventor. That is almost certainly a data artifact / mis-mapped record on the aggregator page rather than a real conveyance of US 11,332,178; I flag it rather than correct it. The only substantive assignment evidenced is Yang → Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd.
3. Citation count inconsistency. The same page lists "Citations (72)" in one table and "Patent Citations (81)" in another; this is a rendering duplication, not two different sets.
4. Typographical errors preserved. The specification and claims contain typos I have not corrected: "stiffing panel" (claims 9, 15), "operatively connect to the frame" (claim 10), "the vertically oriented pole 140" / "pole 20" reference-numeral slips, and "FIG. 6 is a side elevation vie". These are faithful to the granted text.
5. Assignee currency. No post-issuance reassignment for this patent appears in the retrieved record; the listed "current assignee" is the original assignee. Google Patents itself disclaims that assignee listings are legally conclusive.
6. Litigation scope. Beyond the Uking declaratory-judgment case above, I found no other dockets tying this patent to litigation. Design patents in this crowded field (e.g., D1,000,032, D1,046,362, D1,071,476) cite US 11,332,178 as prior art, which is citation activity, not litigation.

I'll search litigation databases for US 11,332,178.

Known litigation involving US 11,332,178

Bottom line: My searches of litigation aggregators (Unified Patents Portal case list, PacerMonitor, Darts‑ip, PTAB/PTACTS, and general web sources) returned one case only that touches the owner of US 11,332,178 — and even there I cannot confirm that the '178 patent itself is asserted. I found no PTAB/IPR/PGR proceedings and no Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. Treat the absence as "not found," not as a verified negative. Note also today's date is April 26, 2026, so this docket is very fresh and may not yet be indexed in full-text form on the free aggregators.

Case 1 — Hong Kong Uking Trading Ltd. v. Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd.

Why this case is relevant — and the critical caveat

• It is a declaratory-judgment action brought by a Hong Kong trading company against the owner of the '178 patent, in a patent nature-of-suit. That posture (a downstream seller/distributor seeking DJ) is characteristic of wagon-family patent disputes, and Zhejiang Hengfeng's wagon portfolio is exactly the kind of asset that would be the subject of such a case.
• However, the PacerMonitor record I retrieved does not list any asserted patent numbers. I cannot confirm that US 11,332,178 — or its CIP sibling US 11,685,416 — is among the patents at issue. The complaint itself must be pulled to verify the patent(s)-in-suit. Do not represent that US 11,332,178 is in suit on the strength of this docket alone.

What I searched and did not find

• PTAB / IPR / PGR / CBM: No petition, institution decision, or final written decision naming US 11,332,178 appeared in my searches. (An unrelated "…the '178 Patent" hit in PTACTS concerned a finger-worn ring device, not US 11,332,178 — different patent, same trailing digits. Disregarded.)
• Federal Circuit: No 2026 CAFC docket naming US 11,332,178 or Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure was returned.
• Other district-court suits: Aside from the Uking DJ case, no other docket naming this patent owner/patent was returned.
• Unified Patents Portal: Searching the litigation case list for this patent number returned no case entries for US 11,332,178.

Reliability notes / explicit uncertainties

1. Patent-in-suit unverified. The single identified case is confirmed as to parties, court, case number, cause of action, and counsel, but not as to the patents asserted. This is the single most important gap to close.
2. Filing day indeterminate. PacerMonitor's public page redacts the day ("?? 10, 2026"). I have not substituted a guessed date.
3. Free-source coverage lag. Unified Patents, Darts-ip, and similar tools often lag PACER by days-to-weeks for brand-new filings; a case filed in 2026 may simply not yet be indexed. Darts-ip's coverage of this patent family requires a paid subscription.
4. No auto-correction applied. I have kept all identifiers exactly as retrieved, including the truncated filing date.

Recommended verification steps (to convert "possible" into "confirmed")

• Retrieve the complaint in 8:26-cv-02635 via PACER (M.D. Fla.) and read the "patents-in-suit" section.
• Check USPTO PTAB (PTACTS) for any post-grant petition on US 11,332,178 and on the CIP US 11,685,416.
• Check USPTO Assignment records for any post-issuance assignment or security interest that might signal a licensing/enforcement campaign.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" list against live sources before writing.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 11,332,178 ("Foldable wagon," Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd.)

Data-integrity flag before the analysis. The previously generated sections in this analysis state "today's date is April 26, 2026," whereas this task header gives the current date as 2026-09-11. I treat 2026-09-11 as controlling per the operating instructions, but the discrepancy means the earlier sections' recency assertions (e.g., "this docket is very fresh") should be re-read with a ~4.5-month correction. Nothing in the PTAB findings below turns on it — but if a proceeding was filed between April and September 2026, that window is exactly where an indexing gap would bite.

I also note the previously generated sections state the PTAB search was run against the USPTO ODP API and returned nothing. Below I reconcile that canonical list against live web sources.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 11,332,178 — the USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions, and my live web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision naming this patent; the practical consequence for a defendant is that the patent is completely untested at the Board: none of its 18 claims have been canceled, none have been confirmed in a contested AIA trial, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone — so a defendant today retains the entire prior-art universe, unrestricted by petitioner estoppel, plus the entire IPR-based invalidity playbook (with the significant caveat that the same absence means there is no ready-made, court-tested invalidity roadmap to copy).

Proceedings

None. No proceedings to report.

No IPR####-#####, PGR####-#####, or CBM####-##### number may be listed, because none exists in the canonical ODP data block for this patent, and I will not invent one. Per the constraints, I am stating the disposition plainly rather than constructing a per-proceeding template with fabricated fields.

What I searched, and what it returned

Grounds, panels, FWDs, settlements, appeals: not applicable — there is no proceeding in which any of these could exist. I explicitly decline to report a judge panel, institution date, or claim-level disposition, because any such content would be fabricated.

A note on what "no PTAB activity" does not mean here. The Google Patents page for US 11,332,178 carries large "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" tables. Those are prior-art citation relationships (e.g., USD988633S1, USD1,000,032S1, US20230227087A1, US12371084B2, and dozens of camp-cart/wagon filings by Chinese leisure-goods manufacturers). Citation traffic in a crowded art unit is not PTAB activity, and none of those entries should be mistaken for a trial number. Likewise, the earlier litigation section's Hong Kong Uking Trading Limited v. Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd., No. 8:26-cv-02635 (M.D. Fla., 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaratory judgment, counsel Cole Carlson/Carlson IP Law) is a district-court DJ action, not an AIA proceeding — and as the prior section correctly cautioned, the patents-in-suit are still unverified.

Strategic summary

Claim status across the patent. All claims are in an identical posture: UNTESTED. Independent claim 1 (frame + D1/D2 geometry + four wheels + pliable liner + tow handle + central-hub/four-bar collapsible bottom support), claim 3 (same frame/wheels/liner/handle architecture but omitting the bottom support assembly and adding the two-connecting-member handle linkage), and claim 10 (the functional "slides downward / increase in height and decrease in length" formulation of the fold, plus the bottom support assembly) have never been construed by the Board, and there is no FWD canceling or confirming any of them. Dependents 2, 4–9, 11–18 are likewise intact. Because claim 10 is drafted in terms of what the folding does rather than the D1/D2 numeric relationship, it is the broadest of the three and — in my view — the claim most exposed to an obviousness challenge built on the dense pre-2020 folding-wagon art that the '178 prosecution itself cited (Radio Flyer, Westfield Outdoor, Blue Ridge Recreational Gear, Zhaosheng Chen/Bam Brokerage, and CN202806814U "Double-X assembly," etc.). But that is a prediction, not a finding: nothing at the Board has tested it.

Estoppel landscape: a clean slate, in both directions. With no IPR/PGR, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is inapplicable to every party — neither the patent owner's disclosed licensees nor any accused infringer has been estopped by a prior petitioner's grounds. Practically, this means a defendant asserting invalidity in district court is free to run the full set of § 102/§ 103 combinations, and a defendant contemplating an IPR can choose from the complete prior-art menu with no "raised or reasonably could have raised" shadow. The mirror-image risk: there is no Board-tested invalidity record to lean on, no petitioner-funded expert report in the public file, and no FWD reasoning to adopt. Everything must be built from scratch. Note also 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is unspent as to every real party in interest — including (once the patents-in-suit in 8:26-cv-02635 are confirmed) any Uking-related entity or privy, who would face a one-year clock running from service of a complaint asserting this patent.

Pattern signals. The absence of any IPR is mildly anomalous for an actively enforced member of a crowded consumer-goods product line. Zhejiang Hengfeng holds a substantial wagon portfolio (both the '178 and its CIP sibling US 11,685,416 B2, which carries 20 claims and expires 2041-07-05), and design patents in the field cite the '178 family as prior art. The most likely explanations, in rough order of plausibility: (i) the enforcement posture is still early — the M.D. Fla. DJ action appears to be a 2026 filing, and IPR petitions typically trail an assertion by 6–12+ months; (ii) the accused products are small-seller/e-commerce importers for whom an IPR is not cost-justified versus a design-around or settlement; (iii) the asserted claims sit on a narrow feature set (the constant-vertical-height D1/D2 fold plus the hub-based bottom support) where invalidity positions are less attractive on the merits, so parties prefer § 112/§ 101 or non-infringement. I found no evidence of a defensive aggregator — no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar petitioner appears anywhere in the chain. Nothing suggests this patent owner has appeared before the Board as a patent owner or appellant, and there is no CAFC track record to derive an appeal appetite from.

Caveats on completeness (read these before relying on "zero"). (1) My web verification was partial — three of seven planned searches (the IPR2026/Unified Patents sweep and the CourtListener check) did not return before I exhausted the session's tool-call budget, so those two channels are unverified rather than verified-empty. (2) Free aggregators (Unified Patents Portal, Darts-ip, CourtListener) lag PACER/PTAB E2E by days-to-weeks, so a petition filed in the April–September 2026 window could exist unindexed. (3) The canonical ODP block remains the authoritative negative for this analysis; I did not contradict it.

Recommended next steps

Because there is no PTAB activity, the strategic priorities shift to (a) confirming the negative and (b) watching for the first petition:

1. Confirm the negative at the source. Run a patent-number search on USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB Center and PTACTS for 11,332,178, and separately for the CIP 11,685,416. Do this again at 30-day intervals — the first petition is the signal that changes the whole defensive calculus.
2. Use the absence as leverage, but don't over-claim it. A well-asserted patent eventually attracts IPRs; a completely untested patent this far into its life (issue 2022-05-17; ~4.3 years) gives you no invalidity precedent, so budget for independent prior-art work rather than recycling a Board record. The cited-art list on the face of the '178 is a reasonable starting corpus.
3. Close the litigation gap that the prior section flagged. Pull the complaint in 8:26-cv-02635 (M.D. Fla.) via PACER and read the patents-in-suit section. If US 11,332,178 is asserted, the § 315(b) one-year clock for any privy of the accused begins running from service — and any IPR you file should coordinate with the § 314(a)/§ 325(d) Fintiv-style discretionary-denial risk created by the parallel district-court case. If it is not asserted, the DJ plaintiff likely targets US 11,685,416 B2 or a design patent instead, and the analysis must be re-run on that patent.
4. Watch the USPTO's discretionary-denial posture. The patent has been in force more than three years but well under seven; under the interim "settled expectations" line of Acting Director decisions (see e.g. the Amgen/BMS denials in IPR2025-00601/-00602 on patents in force six-plus years), a 2022-issued patent should not face a settled-expectations denial — a filing is not foreclosed by age. Verify against the Director's then-current guidance before filing.
5. If you are the accused infringer and want an IPR: there is no petitioner estoppel against you and no competing Board record to reconcile, so you have maximum freedom in claim selection and ground construction — but also no free ride, and no FWD to point to. Draft the petition on your own prior-art record and expert declaration from day one, since the Board has scrutinized late-submitted expert testimony (see the Director Review in the US 11,697,028 / Sun Pharmaceuticals–Biofrontera matter, where belated rebuttal expert evidence submitted after institution was held incapable of curing an initial evidentiary shortfall).
6. Monitor the sibling. US 11,685,416 B2 (CIP of the '178; filed 2021-02-04; expires 2041-07-05) carries 20 claims and recites overlapping D1/D2 frame geometry plus a second bottom support assembly. A licensing or enforcement campaign against wagon importers most likely runs through the whole family, so a negative PTAB finding for the '178 alone does not clear the field.

Bottom line for a defendant today: the patent has never been tested, no claim is canceled, and no estoppel binds anyone — the honest read is "greenfield," not "hardened" and not "dead." Any representation that claims of US 11,332,178 have been invalidated at the PTAB would be false; any representation that the patent has survived PTAB scrutiny would be equally false. The correct statement is that no AIA trial proceeding exists, and the validity of its 18 claims remains untested by the Board.

Primary sources to cite: US 11,332,178 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11332178/en · CIP US 11,685,416 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11685416B2](/patent/US11685416B2)/en · PTAB E2E / PTAB Center — https://e2e.uspto.gov/ · CourtListener — https://www.courtlistener.com/ · Uking DJ docket 8:26-cv-02635 (M.D. Fla.) — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66722621/Hong_Kong_Uking_Trading_Limited_v_Zhejiang_Hengfeng_Top_Leisure_Co,_Ltd

I'll reconstruct the assignment record for US 11,332,178, cross-referencing USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and NPE directories.

Let me dig into the assignment records, the assignee's corporate profile, and the docket context.

Let me verify the specific assignment records, correspondent of record, and check for any IP pledge/security interests.

Assignment & NPE Analysis — US 11,332,178 B2 ("Foldable wagon")

Sourcing note. I could not open USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) directly in this session — my tool budget was exhausted before I could run the reel/frame query. The assignment facts below come from the Google Patents legal-events block for application 17/024,836, which mirrors the Assignment Center record (reel/frame, conveyance, assignor/assignee, execution and recording dates). Where a field is not in the retrieved record — notably the correspondent — I say so rather than fill it in. Verify against Assignment Center using the search page links at the end.

Inventors

Pattern check — inventor departure: Not present. Yang is not a rank-and-file engineer who left; public corporate histories identify 杨宝庆 (Yang Baoqing) as the founder and chairman of the Topsun Holdings group (浙江泰普森控股集团), whose 2002-founded subsidiary is Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure (https://www.topsunholdings.com/m/History.aspx; https://job.neuq.edu.cn/.../浙江泰普森(控股)集团2025届校招简章). He remains an active inventor on the same portfolio years later — e.g., US 12,622,411 B2 ("Detachable cat climbing frame," app. 18/964,946, filed 2024-12-02) and USD1,114,130 S1 (filed 2024-02-20), both assigned to Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure. So there is no "all inventors departed within 12 months" fire-sale precursor here. (Note: on the related, earlier wagon patent US 9,738,298 — "Collapsible wagon comprising a tailgate" — Yang had a co-inventor, Ron Markle; the '178 names Yang alone.)

Original assignee

Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 浙江泰普森休闲用品有限公司; part of 浙江泰普森控股集团 / Topsun Holdings Group).

• Primary line of business: design, manufacture, and export of outdoor leisure products — outdoor/garden furniture, tents, sleeping bags, backpacks and bags, fishing tackle, hunting gear, beach gear, and pet equipment. Sources describe it as a large OEM/ODM provider to major outdoor brands as well as owner of its own brands (Westfield Outdoors, Portal Outdoor, DMH Outdoors, Ever Advanced, Topsun). See Bloomberg profile (https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/ACTTWZ:CH), Patsnap company record (founded 2002, Hangzhou; https://discovery-patsnap-com.libproxy.mit.edu/company/zhejiang-hengfeng-top-leisure/), and Topsun group history.
• Scale/status: Operating, private. Public group materials describe a global group with ~12,000–12,500 employees across China, the U.S., Europe, Cambodia, and Vietnam (Topsun Holdings corporate history; see also the Winking Froh project page describing Hengfeng/Topsun as a global producer with 7,000+ staff, https://www.winking-froh.de/zh-hans/node/1541). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition is reported. A Hong Kong IPO prospectus document dated 2026-01-30 (https://iis.aastocks.com/20260130/[12006778](/patent/12006778)-0.PDF) surfaced in search; I could not confirm it is Zhejiang Hengfeng's own prospectus (the excerpt describes a fishing-equipment issuer and may be a different company), so I flag it as unverified rather than as an event. Several subsidiaries appear as co-applicants on the group's filings (Zhejiang Tapson Creative Design Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Firststep Outdoor Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Tai Pusen Science & Technology Co., Ltd.).
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — the claims recite a folding-bar wagon with a constant-height collapse and a hub-based bottom support, and the assignee sells foldable wagons/carts directly under its own brands and as an OEM; the group's own later wagon applications (e.g., US 12,221,146 B2, US 2026/0159145 A1 "Extended Cart") continue the same product line.

Assignment timeline

Recorded conveyances found: ONE substantive assignment, plus one anomalous non-conveyance entry.

• 2020-09-17 (executed) / recorded 2020-09-18 — Reel 054207/0060

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Yang, Baoqing (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: ZHEJIANG HENGFENG TOP LEISURE CO., LTD. (China)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the record I could access. The Google Patents legal-events block for app. 17/024,836 shows the reel/frame and the "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNOR: YANG, BAOQING; REEL/FRAME: 054207/0060" text but does not expose the correspondent field. For the record: prosecution correspondence on several later-filed sibling wagon/outdoor applications (2024 filings) is attributed to Thompson Coburn LLP, but I cannot confirm that firm filed the 2020 recording of reel 054207/0060, and I am not treating it as the correspondent of record. (Recurrence flag: cannot be assessed — only one recording exists in this chain.)
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment, executed the day before the U.S. non-provisional was filed (2020-09-18). This is a first-party rights-consolidation filing, not an acquisition.

• 2020-09-21 — Reel 053831/0993 — ⚠️ ANOMALOUS, NOT A CONVEYANCE OF THIS PATENT

  • Conveyance (as displayed): Assignment
  • Assignor: ODEGARD, JOHN C. Assignee: PAPER CONVERTING MACHINE COMPANY, WISCONSIN
  • Effective date shown: 2019-09-30
  • The Google Patents legal-events table for application 17/024,836 lists this entry, but it is facially unrelated to this patent (different inventor, different technology, a Wisconsin paper-machinery company). It is a mis-mapped / cross-contaminated aggregator record, not a link in the '178 chain. Per the operating rule to interpret identifiers literally, I preserve it verbatim — but I do not treat it as an assignment of US 11,332,178. Do not report Paper Converting Machine Company as an owner of this patent.

• No other recorded assignment, security agreement, license, merger, change of name, or release appears for this patent or for app. 17/024,836 in the retrieved record. No post-issuance assignment is on file.

Because a record exists, I do not stop after this section.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11332178
    2020 : CN priority application filed
         : Assignment executed by inventor Yang
         : US application filed
         : Assignment recorded to Hengfeng
    2021 : CIP sibling application filed
         : Pre-grant publication
    2022 : Patent issued to Hengfeng
    2026 : Declaratory judgment action filed
         : No post-issuance assignment recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No move from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC. The chain terminates at the original operating manufacturer (Assignee: ZHEJIANG HENGFENG TOP LEISURE CO., LTD., Reel 054207/0060, recorded 2020-09-18). No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" successor entity appears anywhere in the record. No registered-agent address, no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Neither the assignor (Yang, Baoqing) nor the assignee (Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd.) matches the public NPE roster (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities, or any high-frequency plaintiff surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX). Zhejiang Hengfeng is a goods manufacturer (outdoor furniture, tents, wagons), not a licensing vehicle — a call supported by its size (~12,500 employees), its brand portfolio, and its continued product-family patent filings, not by its name alone.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ASSESSABLE.
There is only one recorded conveyance (Reel 054207/0060), and the correspondent field was not retrievable in this session. A single-link chain cannot exhibit recurrence, and I will not infer a correspondent. This is the primary data gap to close (see verification steps).

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
One assignment over the entire life of the patent (2020-09-18). No chained LLC-to-LLC conveyances, no <24-month serial transfers, no shared correspondent/principal pattern. The unrelated 053831/0993 record is expressly excluded as a mis-mapping, not counted as a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The sole assignment (2020-09-17/2020-09-18) predates the only identified litigation (Hong Kong Uking Trading Ltd. v. Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd., No. 8:26-cv-02635, M.D. Fla. — a 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaratory-judgment action, 2026) by roughly 5½ years, and it is the original inventor-to-employer grant, not a last-minute transfer to an asserter. No clean-title transfer was arranged on the eve of suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11, no receivership, no sale of the portfolio. The assignee is described in current sources as an ongoing, expanding manufacturer (new plants in Vietnam/Henan per group history).

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No evidence of the operating company transferring the patent to a proxy NPE to assert against competitors. The patent stays with the manufacturer; no SEC 10-K/8-K or Patent Progress/EFF coverage describing a privateering arrangement was found.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Justification. The only recorded conveyance is the original inventor-to-employer assignment to ZHEJIANG HENGFENG TOP LEISURE CO., LTD. (Reel 054207/0060, executed 2020-09-17, recorded 2020-09-18), and no post-issuance assignment exists — so the patent remains with the entity that both makes the product (a ~12,500-employee outdoor-gear manufacturer selling foldable wagons under Westfield Outdoors / Portal Outdoor / DMH Outdoors and as an OEM) and is the natural enforcer of it. Zero of the eight NPE signals are present; the single apparent anomaly (Paper Converting Machine Company, Reel 053831/0993, eff. 2019-09-30) is a mis-mapped record, not a transfer. Assertion activity is indicated by a 2026 declaratory-judgment action brought against the patentee in M.D. Fla. — the posture of a party anticipating an infringement claim.

Caveats on the verdict (read before relying on it). (1) The M.D. Fla. docket (8:26-cv-02635) does not list the patents-in-suit, so I cannot confirm US 11,332,178 is actually asserted by Zhejiang Hengfeng; the "assertion" half of this verdict is inferential from the DJ posture generalized to the patent family, not proven as to the '178. If the '178 is not in suit, the verdict for this patent alone would shade toward "Insufficient data / non-asserting owner" — the ownership half (operating manufacturer, no NPE signals) is unaffected. (2) I could not query USPTO Assignment Center directly this session; the record above is the Google Patents mirror and should be re-verified.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ · legacy interface — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 11332178, or reel/frame 054207/0060). Cross-check: Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11332178/en · Uking DJ docket — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66722621/Hong_Kong_Uking_Trading_Limited_v_Zhejiang_Hengfeng_Top_Leisure_Co,_Ltd

Priority verification steps (to close the gaps flagged above)

1. Pull Reel 054207/0060 from Assignment Center and capture the correspondent of record (the firm that filed the 2020 recording) — the one field I could not retrieve and the one that matters most under your "repeat correspondent" methodology.
2. Run a full assignee-name search for "Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure" in Assignment Center to see whether any patent in the portfolio has been assigned to a leasing/licensing affiliate or pledged as security (collateral for the group's financing) — a pledge would not change the NPE verdict but is material to standing and to any enforcement financing.
3. Confirm the patents-in-suit in 8:26-cv-02635 via PACER before attributing assertion of the '178 to Zhejiang Hengfeng.
4. Re-verify the CN212148912U / NL2027783B1 / GB2595343B / JP3234349U family members for post-grant assignments in their respective national registers — a foreign-register transfer (e.g., into a licensing vehicle) would not appear in Assignment Center and could pre-signal an enforcement campaign.

I'll verify the key cited references against live sources before mapping them to claims.

Now let me pull the claim text of the closest reference (US 10,633,010) and check the Blue Ridge translational wagons.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,332,178 B2 ("Foldable wagon")

Tool-budget disclosure. I exhausted my session's search budget after four verification queries, so this section blends (a) the authoritative citation lists on the face of US 11,332,178 (from the full text provided, which is controlling per the operating rules) with (b) live verification of the four highest-relevance references. I was not able to open USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center directly, and I was not able to retrieve claim text for the Blue Ridge references (US 10,099,711 / US 10,099,712). Those two are flagged as unverified below rather than characterized from memory. Consistent with the earlier sections, I also flag that the task header states today is 2026-09-11 while earlier generated sections used 2026-04-26; nothing here turns on it. No identifier or patent number has been auto-corrected.

1. Record confirmation for the specific number searched

I confirmed only this number — the citations below are the references listed on the face of 11332178, not results for any similar number. Note the two citation tables on the page are inconsistent in count ("Citations (72)" vs "Patent Citations (81)"); the 81-entry list is a superset containing family continuations (e.g., US 9,211,897 B2, US 8,011,686 B2, US 8,220,824 B2, US 8,388,015 B2, US 8,973,940 B2, US 9,771,093 B2, US 9,580,095 B2, US 10,392,042 B2, US 7,547,037 B2). That is a rendering duplication plus family expansion, not two different prior-art sets.

Anomaly preserved literally: the citation list includes US 9,082,311 B2 ("Computer aided system for teaching reading," Electronic Learning Products, 2004-05-28 / 2015-07-14). That reference is facially non-analogous to a wagon and appears to be an erroneous citation. I flag it rather than silently drop it.

Where the two citation sources disagree: the face-of-patent table gives US 10,399,586 B1 a "priority date" of 2018-04-08, while Espacenet shows the underlying US application 16/045,150 filed 2018-07-25 (Xiamen Roadzup / inventor Huang Changjiu). Either way both dates precede 2020-03-25 — I note the discrepancy without resolving it.

2. The § 102 framework that governs this exercise

Because the '178's effective filing date is 2020-03-25, prior art must fall into one of:

• § 102(a)(1) — patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use / on sale before 2020-03-25. This sweeps in every reference issued or published before that date, including third-party and same-field commercial wagon sales.
• § 102(a)(2) — a U.S. patent or U.S. application publication that names another inventor and has an effective filing date before 2020-03-25, even if it published after. This is the "secret prior art" channel and it is where the single most dangerous reference lives (see § 3.1).
• § 102(b)(2)(C) — common-ownership exception. It excuses only § 102(a)(2) art that was owned by the same person/under a joint research agreement. It does not excuse art that is § 102(a)(1) (issued/published) art. This matters here, because the '178's assignee family sits atop a portfolio (Westfield Outdoor, Inc.; Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure; Topsun affiliates) whose earlier patents are cited against it.

Anticipation standard. § 102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element as arranged in the claim. My element-by-element review below finds that no reference on the face of the '178 anticipates claim 1, 3 or 10 as a whole. Several are, however, genuine § 102 candidates against sub-combinations, and two come close enough to warrant a formal § 102 rejection attempt. I say so explicitly rather than inflating the list.

3. Tier 1 — genuinely anticipatory candidates (detailed element mapping)

3.1 US 10,633,010 B1 — Xiangshan Zhang, "Trailer with no extra height when folding" — the most dangerous reference

Disclosure (verified). "fixed standpipes arranged at a front and rear end of the trailer," with front and rear folding components, side folding components, bottom folding components and handle components connected to the fixed standpipes; "the height of the trailer ... does not change after folding to ensure that the height after folding and the height in use are the same"; a telescopic assembly on the handle; a corner fixing part (upper end of each fixed vertical pipe) and a foot fixing part near the lower end, with a linkage sliding sleeve on the pipe (per the CN109305205 description).

Mapping to claim 1:

Potentially anticipates: claim 10 (strongest — claim 10 recites the frame, the drop-slide behavior, the "increase in height and decrease in length" of the assemblies, four wheels, liner, handle and bottom support; the liner and hub are the two hangups) and claim 1 (via CN109305205A as the § 102(a)(1) publication). Also relevant to claim 16 (same vertical height) and cl. 2/11 (telescoping handle). Not directed to claim 3's two-connecting-member handle linkage (its handle mounts differently — torsion-spring reset), so cl. 3/17/18 are not anticipated.

Why this reference matters most: it is the only cited reference whose express object is the '178's stated point of novelty — no increase in height on folding — and it predates the critical date by ~18 months via its US filing and ~13 months via its CN publication. Its citation on the face of the '178 suggests the examiner already treated it as the closest art.

3.2 US 10,399,586 B1 — Xiamen Roadzup Outdoor Products / Huang Changjiu, "Portable folding wagon" — closest art on the bottom support

Disclosure (verified in detail). A folding frame of four scissor mechanisms surrounding a rectangle, each with at least one scissor unit; "the top portions of two adjacent scissor mechanisms are rotatably connected by a top connecting base, the bottom portions … by a bottom connecting base"; a support rod rotatably connected to the bottom connecting base, whose top end is rotatably connected to a sliding connecting piece, the sliding connecting piece being slidably connected to the scissor unit; wheels at the bottom of the support rods; a pull-rod mechanism; and critically — "a bottom frame comprising radial mechanisms, the radial mechanism comprises a central base and four bottom rods rotatably connected to the central base, the end of the bottom rod … rotatably connected to the first central connecting base or the bottom connecting base."

Mapping to claim 1:

Potentially anticipates: claim 1 and claim 10 (both recite the hub-and-four-bar bottom support, which this reference discloses nearly verbatim in structure). Claim 7/13 (hub limits pivot) is a plausible § 102/§ 103 read. Claim 3/17/18 are NOT anticipated — the two-connecting-member tow handle linkage is absent.

3.3 US 9,073,564 B2 (+ continuation US 9,211,897 B2) — Westfield Outdoor, Inc., "Collapsible wagon and method of collapsing a wagon" — the '178's own ancestor art

Disclosure (verified). Four sides each formed by a scissor-bar assembly, a vertically oriented telescoping pole assembly at each intersection, wheels at the pole bottoms, a pliable liner with inverted pockets, Velcro flaps, a fabric handle, a stiffening panel foldable "like an accordion," a cover with a pocket for the stiffening panel, four wheels (two swiveling — see '178 claim 12), a telescoping tow handle connected to two pole assemblies via two connecting members each having a first end pivotally connected at the bottom end portion of its pole and a second end pivotally connected to the handle, and a collapsible bottom support assembly of four bars pivotally connected to a central hub, with the hub limited from dropping below the plane of the bars so it "is capable of supporting a downward acting load."

Mapping: this reference discloses verbatim equivalents of claim 1's bottom support, liner, wheels and tow handle elements, and of claim 3's two connecting members. But it does not anticipate claims 1, 3 or 10, on two decisive differences:

1. The pole telescopes. In US 9,073,564 the "lower end portion of each of the telescoping pole assembly is pivotally connected to the … lower corner portion," and "as the wagon collapses, the telescoping pole assemblies expand in height together with the scissor-bar assemblies." That is the opposite of the '178's fixed-length pole with a sliding lower-leg connection. The '178's claim 1 element "lower leg outer end … operatively slidingly connected to the vertically oriented pole" is absent.
2. The connecting members slope upward ("extends upward in a sloped manner … second end portions move upward"), whereas '178 claims 4/18 require them to extend downward in a sloped manner during collapse.

Potentially anticipates: nothing as a whole. It is, however, the single best § 103 primary reference against every claim that recites the hub-and-four-bar bottom support, the liner architecture, and the handle linkage — and the examiner on the '178 clearly treated the family as material (US 9,073,564 and US 9,211,897 B2 both appear on the face). Practical note: the same-inventor, different-assignee overlap (Yang on Westfield's '564; Yang on Hengfeng's '178) is unusual and is worth confirming against the assignment record if you are building a § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership theory — but that theory cannot reach '564, which is § 102(a)(1) art.

3.4 US 9,738,298 B1 — Zhejiang Hengfeng Top Leisure Co., Ltd. (same assignee), "Collapsible wagon comprising a tailgate"

Disclosure. Six telescoping pole assemblies, four scissor-bar assemblies, a tailgate, and — identical language to the '178 — a collapsible bottom support assembly of four bars pivotally connected to a central hub, hub limited from dropping below the bar plane, pliable liner with Velcro strap, inverted pockets, telescoping tow handle with two connecting members sloping upward, and a paragraph-by-paragraph match to the '178's specification on wheels, liner, and handle.

Potentially anticipates: nothing as a whole. The tailgate/telescoping-pole architecture and the upward-sloping connecting members defeat claims 1, 3 and 10. It is § 103 ammunition for claims 7, 8/14, 9/15 and 12 (swivel-wheel arrangement). Its real significance is evidentiary: it shows the assignee's own pre-2016 disclosure of the hub-and-four-bar bottom support, which is precisely the element the '178 claims as new.

3.5 CN 202806814 U — Zhejiang Xiyu Outdoor Products, "Double-X assembly for foldable baggage car and baggage car," 2012-08-17 / published 2013-03-20

Status: § 102(a)(1) printed publication ✅. Disclosure verified at title/field level only. A "Double-X" (double-scissor) assembly — i.e., two X-assemblies connected end-to-end to form one side of a folding cart — which is exactly the '178's claimed "pair of folding bar assemblies" limitation ("one scissor bar assembly is connected end to end with another scissor bar assembly to form the pair").

Potentially anticipates: the frame sub-combination of claims 1, 3 and 10 (four sides each formed by a pair of end-to-end crossed-bar assemblies). It does not anticipate any claim as a whole — it is a frame component publication, with no wheels/liner/handle/hub support shown on the abstract-level record. This is the reference I would most want full text and figures for, because it is the only cited art squarely aimed at the "double-X per side" structure that distinguishes the '178 from the one-assembly-per-side Westfield/Radio Flyer wagons.

3.6 US D929,063 S1 — Xiangshan Zhang, "Collapsible trailer," filed 2019-09-18 / issued 2021-08-24 (examiner-cited)

Design-patent art. § 102(a)(2) only (its face/publication date 2021-08-24 is after the critical date; its effective filing date 2019-09-18 precedes it — a U.S. patent naming another inventor). Its disclosure is limited to what its drawings show, and a design patent's claim is to ornamental appearance, not structure. Potentially anticipates: nothing on its own; it is useful only as corroborating visual evidence of a same-height-fold trailer configuration, and as a § 103 secondary reference if you can read the D1/D2 geometry out of the figures. Same inventor/family as US 10,633,010 (treat as cumulative).

4. Tier 2 — § 103-grade prior art and partial § 102 references (catalogued)

These are not credible single-reference anticipations of claims 1, 3 or 10, but each discloses one or more recited elements and would support an obviousness combination. Description and dates are as listed on the face of the '178; I have not independently re-verified each.

4a. Folding-wagon art naming X-bar/scissor side frames and constant or reduced-height folding

4b. The Zhaosheng Chen / Bam Brokerage folding-wagon family

4c. The Radio Flyer family

4d. Other wagon/cart/child-transport art cited

5. Verdict per claim, on the § 102 question actually asked

Bottom line for § 102: of the 72–81 listed references, two are serious § 102 vehicles (US 10,633,010 B1 / CN 109305205 A, and US 10,399,586 B1), one is the key frame-structure publication (CN 202806814 U), and the rest are § 103 fodder — several of which, however, disclose dependent-claim limitations verbatim (US 9,073,564 B2 on the hub limit, the single-pair crossed bars, the stiffening panel, and the wheel arrangement). I found no reference on the face of the '178 that discloses the full claim 1 combination in a single disclosure, and I do not represent otherwise.

6. Open gaps and verification steps

1. Full text + figures for US 10,633,010 B1 and its CN/EP family (CN109305205A/B, EP3845433B1). Confirm whether a pliable liner and a central-hub bottom support are present. If both are, this reference anticipates claim 1 and claim 10 and the '178 is in serious trouble on those claims.
2. Full text of CN 202806814 U (Chinese) — the "Double-X" per-side structure. This is the limitation that distinguishes the '178 from Westfield/Radio Flyer art, and it is the one reference aimed directly at it.
3. Claim text for US 10,099,711 B1 and US 10,099,712 B1 (Blue Ridge, "translational" and "single-cross translational" wagons). My search budget expired before these returned; treat their relevance as unassessed, not as neutral. "Translational" in the title suggests a fold that avoids height increase — directly on point.
4. USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center office actions for application 17/024,836. The Legal Events show a non-final action mailed 2021-12-22 and a response 2022-03-04; the actual rejections and the art relied on are not in the retrieved record. If the examiner applied § 102 against any of these references, that is the single fastest way to identify the applicant's own view of the closest art.
5. The face-of-patent date discrepancies noted above (US 10,399,586 B1 "2018-04-08" vs. app. 16/045,150 filed 2018-07-25; the 72-vs-81 citation counts; US 9,082,311 B2 as an apparently erroneous citation) should be reconciled against the USPTO printed patent before any of them is used in a filing.
6. Public-use / on-sale art (§ 102(a)(1)). Given the crowded commercial field (Westfield, Radio Flyer, Roadzup, Horowitz, Chen/Bam, and the Hengfeng/Topsun brands), the strongest unlisted § 102(a)(1) risk is likely pre-March-2020 commercial sales of same-height-fold wagons, not the paper art. No search for catalog/Amazon/video evidence was performed.

Primary sources cited: US 11,332,178 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11332178/en · US 10,633,010 B1 / EP 3 845 433 B1 — http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP3845433B1-TROLLEY-WITH-NO-HEIGHT-INCREASE-IN-FOLDED-STATE.html and https://eureka-patsnap-com.sutd.idm.oclc.org/patent-CN109305205A · US 10,399,586 B1 — https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/063165705/publication/[US10399586B1](/patent/US10399586B1) and https://patents.google.com/patent/US10399586B1/en · US 9,073,564 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9073564B2](/patent/US9073564B2)/en and https://FreePatentsOnline.com/[9073564](/patent/9073564).html · US 9,738,298 B1 — https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[9738298](/patent/9738298).html · US 9,327,749 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9327749B2](/patent/US9327749B2)/en · USPTO Patent Public Search — https://ppubs.uspto.gov/

I'll verify the key references flagged as unverified in the Prior Art section before building the § 103 combinations.

Let me pull the Blue Ridge '711 claims and the "Double-X" Chinese utility model.

One more verification on the primary reference's bottom-fold architecture.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — US 11,332,178 B2 ("Foldable wagon")

Two data-integrity flags before the analysis.
(1) Date contradiction. This task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the parent session header states 2026-09-11. The earlier sections already flagged this (PTAB challenges section). It does not affect anything below — every reference relied on here has a critical date decades-to-months before 2020-03-25, and no § 103 judgment in this art turns on the April-vs-September question. Flagging, not resolving.
(2) Scope. This section builds on the Prior Art section and does not restate its catalog. It converts that catalog into § 103 combinations. Where the Prior Art section marked a reference "⚠️ UNVERIFIED," I closed the gap this session (US 10,099,711 B1, US 10,099,712 B1, US 10,633,010 B1 family, CN202806814U) — see § 7. Contradiction resolved: the Prior Art section listed US 10,099,711 B1 and US 10,099,712 B1 as unverified; both are now verified, and CN202806814U — the "Double-X" publication — is far more damaging than the Prior Art section assumed. Details below.

1. Governing framework

AIA § 103 applies (effective filing date 2020-03-25; post-March-16-2013). The analysis is the Graham v. John Deere inquiry as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): scope and content of the prior art; differences between the prior art and the claims; the level of ordinary skill; and objective evidence of nonobviousness.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA). In this art a POSITA is a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent experience) and roughly 2–4 years designing folding consumer carts, wagons, strollers or luggage carts — or, without a degree, 5+ years of hands-on design of scissor/X-frame and pin-jointed folding mechanisms. This is a wholly predictable mechanical art: every claim element is a rigid link, a pin joint, a sliding sleeve, a telescoping tube, or a fabric panel. KSR's caution about unpredictable arts is simply not in play.

Claim construction of the limitations that decide the case. No court or the Board has construed these terms (cross-ref the PTAB challenges section: zero AIA proceedings, all 18 claims untested). Under plain meaning / Phillips, the load-bearing terms are: "a pair of folding bar assemblies" per side (two scissor assemblies joined end-to-end — per the '178 spec, "the right upper leg end of one scissor bar assembly is connected with left upper leg end of the other"); "vertically oriented pole"; "operatively slidingly connected" (a sleeve sliding along a pole of fixed length — the '178 spec's sliding connector 50); "central hub + four bars" bottom support; and "pliable liner … defin[ing] an open-top interior compartment."

Anticipation vs. obviousness — an honest boundary. As the Prior Art section found, no reference on the face of the '178 discloses the full claim 1 combination in a single disclosure. So the § 103 case is a combination case, and under KSR and In re Kahn it must be supported by an articulated reason why a POSITA would have combined the references with a reasonable expectation of success. I supply that reason for each combination rather than asserting obviousness from element-by-element hindsight.

One inherency point that does real work. The D1/D2 limitation (claim 1) and the "same vertical height VH" limitation (claim 16) are relative-position/property limitations. Where a prior-art device possesses the same structure, the property is inherent and need not have been recognized. In re Best; In re Crish. US 10,633,010 B1 states outright that "the height of the trailer … does not change after folding" — the '178's stated point of novelty is therefore an inherent property of a pre-critical-date structure, not a new discovery.

2. Where each claim-1 element lives (gap map)

Cross-referencing the Prior Art section's disclosures; this table isolates only the gaps.

Observation that drives the whole § 103 case: the '178's claim 1 is a five-part aggregation — a constant-height sliding-sleeve frame, a hub-and-four-spoke floor, a pliable liner, four wheels, and a tow handle — and each part is disclosed verbatim in a pre-2020-03-25 reference, but no single reference carries all five. That is the classic KSR posture, not a § 102 posture.

3. The combinations

Combination I (primary) — US 10,633,010 B1 + US 10,399,586 B1 + US 9,073,564 B2 → claims 1 and 10

Motivation (articulated, not assumed):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. US 10,633,010 B1 and US 10,399,586 B1 are both foldable wheeled carriers with X-frame side walls, corner posts, and bottom folding structures. US 10,633,010 B1's express object — "the volume after folding is smaller than that of the prior trailer" — is identical to the '178's stated object ("the volume of the wagon when in the collapsed configuration is relatively smaller in comparison to conventional foldable wagons"). A POSITA starting from US 9,073,564 B2 (a wagon with a telescoping pole) and tasked with reducing collapsed volume would look directly to US 10,633,010 B1.
2. KSR rationale (a) — combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The frame, the floor, the liner, the wheels, and the handle each perform exactly their own known function; there is no asserted synergy, and the '178's own specification describes them as independent assemblies.
3. KSR rationale (c)/(f) — use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Swapping a telescoping-pole fold (US 9,073,564 B2) for a fixed-pole/sliding-sleeve fold (US 10,633,010 B1) is the known alternative in the art, changes nothing about the principle of operation of the scissor walls, and yields the predictable result of constant height.
4. KSR rationale (d)/(e) — simple substitution of one known element for another. US 10,399,586 B1's radial "central base + four bottom rods" is a known, off-the-shelf collapsible floor; substituting it for a folding-leaf floor is a substitution of parts having the same function (carrying a downward load while collapsing).
5. Finite, identified, predictable options. If the patentee argues the answer was not "obvious to try," the record shows exactly two competing fold mechanisms in this art — telescoping posts vs. fixed posts with sliding sleeves — and two floor types — radial hub-and-spoke vs. hinged leaf. That is a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions," which KSR holds cuts toward obviousness.

Combination II — CN202806814U + US 10,633,010 B1 + US 9,073,564 B2 → claim 1 (with cl. 6)

This is the combination the Prior Art section underestimated. Now verified, CN202806814U (浙江西域户外用品有限公司; app. CN201220408471.2, filed 2012-08-17, published 2013-03-20; § 102(a)(1) printed publication) claims, literally:

双X组件包括至少两组并排对称设置的X组件和多个与X组件相连的铰接头；X组件包括通过设置在自身中间的铰接轴铰接的第一斜梁和第二斜梁；第一斜梁的一端通过铰接头与另一X组件中的第一斜梁铰接；第二斜梁的一端通过另一铰接头与另一X组件中的第二斜梁铰接。 (claim 1) … 包括前X组件、后X组件和两个铰接头，前X组件通过铰接头与后X组件相连。 (claim 2)

That is, a double-X assembly: two X-arms side-by-side, each X being first and second oblique beams pivotally joined at their centers, and the first beam of one X hinged to the first beam of the other X — and the second beam of one X hinged to the second beam of the other X, at two hinge joints. Stack that against the '178's specification: "the right upper leg end of one scissor bar assembly is connected with left upper leg end of the other scissor bar assembly, and the right lower leg end of one scissor bar assembly is connected with the left lower leg end of the other scissor bar assembly." The structural correspondence is near-verbatim. CN202806814U therefore discloses claim 1's "pair of folding bar assemblies" per side, and claim 6's "single pair of crossed bars" per assembly.

Motivation: CN202806814U states its own reason to substitute — it replaces the prior four-bar linkage, eliminates the diagonal brace, short beam and upper cross beam, "简化了组件的结构 … 减少行李车的零件种类和数量，并简化行李车操作" (simplifies the assembly, reduces part count, simplifies operation). That is KSR rationale (c) in the reference's own words: a known technique, applied to improve a similar device in the same way, for an articulated benefit. A POSITA lengthening or widening a wagon side to gain capacity (a KSR design incentive, rationale (g)) would use the modular double-X rather than a single X.

Relationship flag (relevant to the parties, not to the merits). The CN202806814U applicant is 浙江西域户外用品有限公司, whose 法人 (legal representative) is listed as 杨宝庆 — Yang Baoqing, the sole named inventor of the '178. Sources: https://shuidi.cn/company-7e9bae015691ff9626da9daf05d4cb7b.html and https://m.tianyancha.com/zhuanli/d1b670e6a4414e2a914585468f6928b3. Two consequences: (a) the double-X side frame is part of the inventor's own technological lineage, which materially strengthens the obviousness case; (b) no grace-period or common-ownership escape is available — the reference was published 2013-03-20, more than six years before the 2020-03-25 critical date, and it is a foreign utility model publication, i.e., § 102(a)(1) printed-pub art, not § 102(a)(2) art, so § 102(b)(2)(C) (common ownership) cannot reach it and § 102(b)(1)(A) does not apply. (Its named inventors are 程新欢 and 严学良, a different inventive entity — so the § 102(b)(1)(A) "inventor's own disclosure" exception fails on that ground as well.)

Combination III — US 10,633,010 B1 + US 10,099,711 B1 / US 10,099,712 B1 + US 10,399,586 B1 → claims 1 and 10 (alternative route)

Now verified (Prior Art section gap closed):

• US 10,099,711 B1 ("Translational collapsible wagon," Blue Ridge Recreational Gear, LLC; inventor Benlong Sun; app. 15/806,864 filed 2017-11-08 — the '178's face-of-patent table lists "2017-06-09," evidently a provisional date; issued 2018-10-16): frame assembly with a bottom frame, front frame, rear frame, and collapsible side frames; "each side frame includes coplanar X-shaped cross tube assemblies," each with a first oblique tube, two second oblique tubes and a hollow seat, the tubes being hinge-mounted in the hollow seat's front/rear tube connectors and intersecting in an X. Source: https://golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_10099711_Translational_collapsible_wagon-3V55GY3
• US 10,099,712 B1 ("Single-cross translational wagon," Blue Ridge; inventor Benlong Sun; app. 15/833,642 filed 2017-12-06, issued 2018-10-16): a single-cross folding assembly (cross inner frame + cross outer frame "hinged … in an X shape," claim 5) plus a bottom frame folding assembly whose front and rear assemblies "can be turned downwards by 90 degrees to be hinged together" (claim 7). Sources: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10099712](/patent/10099712) and https://wiki.golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_10099712_Single-cross_translational_wagon-EK55YMN

Motivation: both references are folding wagons (same field), both were cited by the examiner on the face of the '178 (asterisked), and the word "translational" in both titles denotes a fold that compresses rather than grows — the same objective as US 10,633,010 B1. Where Combination II's double-X is a bare frame unit, US 10,099,711 B1 supplies the same "multiple X assemblies per side, joined by a connector" teaching in a complete wheeled wagon. This combination is the safer of the two for claim 1 because it avoids the analogous-field argument that CN202806814U is merely a luggage-cart side frame.

Combination IV — US 10,633,010 B1 or Combination I/II frame + US 9,073,564 B2 / US 9,738,298 B1 → claim 3 (and 17–18)

Claim 3 requires the tow handle be connected to two poles via two connecting members, each with a first end pivotally connected to the frame adjacent the pole's bottom end portion and an opposite second end pivotally connected to the handle. As the Prior Art section established, US 9,073,564 B2 and US 9,738,298 B1 disclose this linkage nearly verbatim — including the mirrored wording in the '178's own specification — but their connecting members slope upward and their poles telescope. So claim 3 is not anticipated. The § 103 case is:

• KSR rationale (b) — simple mechanical inversion. Reversing the slope of a two-link pivoting handle brace from upward to downward is a change in orientation/position of a known mechanism with a predictable result (the handle drops below the deck as the frame collapses). The '178's own specification recites the downward slope as a consequence of the collapse, not as a new structure.
• Claim 5's "handle top does not protrude substantially above the remainder of the wagon" is squarely directed at a problem US 9,073,564 B2 already solved ("does not extend above the frame 12") and that US 10,633,010 B1 solves with a telescopic handle assembly.

Combination V — the dependents

4. Why one of ordinary skill would combine — the consolidated KSR rationale set

1. Common problem, common field, common solution space. Every primary reference is a folding wheeled carrier (wagon, trolley, luggage cart, trailer) with X-scissor walls. All of them — US 10,633,010 B1, US 10,399,586 B1, US 10,099,711 B1, US 10,099,712 B1, US 9,073,564 B2, US 9,738,298 B1, and the examiner-cited US 2003/0025301 A1 — are prima facie analogous art under both the field-of-endeavor and reasonably-pertinent-to-the-problem tests.
2. The problem was expressly identified in pre-critical-date art. US 10,633,010 B1 (published via CN109305205A on 2019-02-05) states the object in terms the '178 repeats: fold without increasing height and reduce folded volume. A post-dating Chinese application (CN202322076697, 2023) independently criticizes CN202806814U and CN201712643U on exactly this ground — "由于采用的是可伸缩式的竖撑腿，在折叠后，其整体的高度将大幅升高" ("because telescoping vertical support legs are used, the overall height greatly increases after folding"), http://www.xjishu.com/zhuanli/31/202322076697.html. That document is not prior art against the '178 and I do not rely on it as such; I cite it only as corroboration that the problem was well known in this art, which the pre-2020 art already proves.
3. Predictable art, no unexpected results of record. Nothing in the '178's prosecution or specification asserts an unexpected property. The '178's asserted benefit (smaller collapsed volume, constant height) is exactly the result US 10,633,010 B1 announced.
4. Commercial and design incentives. The field was intensely crowded on the 2020-03-25 critical date: Radio Flyer, Westfield Outdoor, Xiamen Roadzup, Blue Ridge Recreational Gear, Horowitz, Chen/Bam Brokerage, Xiangshan Zhang, and the Hengfeng/Topsun group itself. KSR rationale (g) — "design incentives and other market forces" — supports the inference that reducing collapsed height was an active, recognized design goal.
5. Simultaneous independent invention by competitors. Blue Ridge filed 2017-11-08 and 2017-12-06 on "translational" (non-height-increasing) folding; Zhang filed 2018-09-01/2018-10-26 on "no extra height when folding"; Roadzup filed 2018-07-25 with a sliding-connection frame and radial floor. Four independent actors converged on the same design space within ~18 months. Under KSR ("when a work is available in one field … market demand … and the like, a court must ask whether the improvement … would have been obvious"), near-simultaneous independent solution of the same problem by multiple competitors is suggestive of obviousness, not of nonobviousness. I flag this as a supporting inference, not a dispositive one.
6. The applicant's own prior art / shared drafting lineage. US 9,073,564 B2 names Yang, Baoqing as a co-inventor; US 9,738,298 B1 shares the '178's assignee; CN202806814U issues from a company whose legal representative is the same Yang Baoqing. The '178's specification matches US 9,073,564 B2 and US 9,738,298 B1 nearly paragraph-for-paragraph (hub-limited bottom support, inverted liner pockets, hook-and-loop flaps, accordion stiffening panel, cover with pocket, two swivel + two fixed wheels, two-connecting-member telescoping tow handle). The '178 is, in substance, the same disclosure with a fixed pole and a sliding sleeve instead of a telescoping pole. (Separately, that verbatim overlap is a potential § 112 written-description / new-matter exposure for the CIP sibling — outside this task's scope, flagged only.)
7. Common ownership does not help the patentee. US 9,738,298 B1 is commonly owned with the '178, but it issued 2017-08-22 — § 102(a)(1) art, to which § 102(b)(2)(C) does not apply. The Prior Art section's point stands: common ownership cannot rescue these references.

5. The patentee's best counterarguments — and how they fare

6. Claim-by-claim § 103 verdict

Net assessment. Independent claims 1 and 10 are the commercially important ones, and both are exposed to a well-supported three-to-four-reference § 103 combination built entirely from art already on the face of the patent plus one reference (CN202806814U) the examiner cited as well. Claim 3 is a closer question; claims 4 and 18 are the patent's strongest footing, because the downward-sloping connecting-member direction is the one limitation the closest handle references affirmatively disclose in the opposite orientation. Claims 8 and 14 are survivable on the current record only because no pre-2020-03-25 reference disclosing a spaced lower shelf has been identified — which is an evidentiary gap, not a validity conclusion.

7. Verification steps to convert this analysis into a filing-grade § 103 position

1. Pull the prosecution history of application 17/024,836. The Google Patents Legal Events show a non-final action mailed 2021-12-22 and a response entered 2022-03-04, with allowance on 2022-03-17. The examiner's actual rejections and the applicant's amendments/arguments are the single highest-value artifact available — they reveal the examiner's own § 103 combinations and, critically, whether claim 1 was amended to add the D1/D2 limitation or the hub-and-four-bar bottom support to overcome art. If it was, the prosecution history is a roadmap to the narrowest reading of claims 1, 3 and 10. Not retrieved this session.
2. Fetch full text + figures of US 10,633,010 B1 / CN109305205A / EP 3 845 433 B1 (http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP3845433B1-TROLLEY-WITH-NO-HEIGHT-INCREASE-IN-FOLDED-STATE.html; https://wiki.golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_10633010_Trailer_with_no_extra_height_when_folding-K3WR5RN). Two open questions decide how far Combination I reaches: (a) is the "bottom folding component" a hub-and-four-spoke structure or a hinged leaf? (b) is a pliable liner disclosed? If the answer to (a) is "hub-and-spoke," US 10,399,586 B1 drops out of Combination I and the case gets materially simpler.
3. Fetch CN202806814U's full text and drawings (https://m.tianyancha.com/zhuanli/d1b670e6a4414e2a914585468f6928b3; https://www.patent9.com/search.aspx). I have the claims verified this session but not the figures. Confirming the hinge-joint geometry at the outer leg ends is what converts CN202806814U from a "partial" reference into the teaching that supplies claim 1's "pair of folding bar assemblies" outright.
4. Retrieve the claim text of US 10,399,586 B1 in full and confirm whether a pliable liner / open-top compartment is recited. If it is, claims 1 and 10 become a two-reference case (US 10,633,010 B1 + US 10,399,586 B1).
5. Search for pre-2020-03-25 commercial/on-sale art on a lower shelf below the liner for claims 8 and 14 — the identified weak point. Focus on § 102(a)(1) public use and on-sale evidence (catalogs, retail listings, trade-show materials), which is where this art is most likely to be found rather than in the paper record.
6. Do not import post-2020 art. US 11,685,416 B2 (filed 2021-02-04), US 12,304,544 B2, US 2024/0124040 A1, US 2025/0326417 A1, and the "double-decker wagon" citations on the '178's Cited By table are after the critical date and are not § 102/§ 103 art against the '178. They are useful for portfolio mapping only.
7. Reconcile the date discrepancies already flagged: US 10,399,586 B1 ("priority 2018-04-08" per the face-of-patent table vs. app. 16/045,150 filed 2018-07-25 per Espacenet); US 10,099,711 B1 (face table "2017-06-09" vs. app. 15/806,864 filed 2017-11-08); and the 72-vs-81 citation count. Note both date anomalies are the same pattern — a provisional or foreign priority date shown as "filed." Do not use either date in a filing without reconciling against the printed patent.

Primary sources: US 11,332,178 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11332178/en · US 10,633,010 B1 / EP 3 845 433 B1 — http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP3845433B1-TROLLEY-WITH-NO-HEIGHT-INCREASE-IN-FOLDED-STATE.html · US 10,399,586 B1 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10399586B1](/patent/US10399586B1)/en · CN202806814U — https://m.tianyancha.com/zhuanli/d1b670e6a4414e2a914585468f6928b3 · US 10,099,711 B1 — https://golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_10099711_Translational_collapsible_wagon-3V55GY3 · US 10,099,712 B1 — https://patents.justia.com/patent/10099712 · US 9,073,564 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9073564B2](/patent/US9073564B2)/en · US 9,738,298 B1 — https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[9738298](/patent/9738298).html · US 9,327,749 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9327749B2](/patent/US9327749B2)/en · USPTO Patent Public Search — https://ppubs.uspto.gov/