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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 7, “at least one wheel of caboose” should read –at least one wheel of the caboose--. Claim 15, line 1, “is supported by an upright” is believed to be missing a word. This limitation will be interpreted as any upright support. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 20 is an exact duplicate of claim 6, both of which are dependent upon claim 5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 2-6, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph , as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “essentially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ essentially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear due to the use of “essentially” whether the cross-sections are able to only be X, Y, square, or triangle shaped, or if another shape such as “W” would be considered . Claims 3-6, and 20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 2. The term “essentially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ essentially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear due to the use of “essentially” whether the cross-sections are able to only be X, Y, square, or triangle shaped, or if another shape such as “W” would be considered . Claims 13-16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1) and Eichhorn (US 5427561 A) . In regards to claim 1 , Doepner teaches a toy vehicle and track system comprising; a track defined by a railway, each railway defined by two adjacent rails (10) (Fig. 3) , wherein each rail (10) of the two adjacent rails (10) is defined at the tip or edge of a block (12) (as seen in Fig. 4) ; and, a toy vehicle (41) (Fig. 1) defined by a two-wheeled guide-car (47) and a two-wheeled caboose (48) coupled together via a joint (49) ; and, wherein a wheel (51-53) (Fig. 3) of the toy vehicle (41) that is provided with the axle (as seen in Fig. 3, wheels 51, 52 have axles) is engaged at a midsection (as seen in Fig. 3) of the wheel (51-53) with one of the rails (10) of the railway such that the guide-car (47) ( Fig. 1) is rolled around the joint (col. 5, lines 62-65) by any non-zero degree relative to the caboose (48). Doepner does not teach the track having at least three railways. Cornwell teaches the track (10) (Fig. 1) having at least three railways (as seen in Fig. 1, the railways formed by rails 12, 16; 12, 14; 14, 18; and 16, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track of Doepner to include at least three railways defined by two adjacent trails as taught by Cornwell with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the capacity of the system and flexibility of vehicle orientation ( see Cornwell, col. 7, lines 4-16). Doepner does not teach said caboose featuring a motor to drive an axle provided to at least one wheel of caboose. Eichhorn teaches said caboose (20) (Fig. 1) featuring a motor (32) to drive an axle (42) provided to at least one wheel (38-40) of caboose (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caboose of Doepner to include a motor to drive an axle as taught by Eichhorn with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling the vehicle to be self-propelled without external forces ( see Eichhorn, col. 1, lines 49-51). In regards to claim 2 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell and Eichhorn above teaches t he toy vehicle and track system of claim 1 wherein the block (12) ( Doepner , Fig. 4) is defined by a cross-section selected from the group consisting essentially of an X ( Doepner , as seen in Fig. 4) , Y, square, triangle. In regards to claim 3 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell and Eichhorn above teaches t he toy vehicle and track system of claim 2 wherein the guide-car (47) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) and caboose (48) are coupled (49) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) together via a rotary ( Doepner , col. 5, lines 62-65) or ball joint. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1), Eichhorn (US 5427561 A), and Desourdy (US 4007693 A). In regards to claim 4 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell and Eichhorn above teaches t he toy vehicle and track system of claim 3 . Doepner does not teach wherein the at least one wheel of the caboose that is provided with an axle is a grooved wheel. Desourdy teaches wherein the at least one wheel is a grooved wheel (29) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheels of Doepner to include a groove as taught by Desourdy with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of decreasing the risk of derailment since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.0 6(II) . Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1), Eichhorn (US 5427561 A), Desourdy (US 4007693 A), and Yoon (KR 20120027611 A). In regards to claim 5 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell, Eichhorn, and Desourdy above teaches t he toy vehicle and track system of claim 4 wherein the block (12) ( Doepner , Fig. 3) has a coaxial hole (as seen in Fig. 3, central hole of block 12), and said at least three railways are extended (as seen in Fig. 1, rails 10 continue from the block on the right to the left) from the block (12) ( Doepner , on the right) to an adjacent block (12) ( Doepner , on the left). Doepner does not teach wherein the coaxial hole is fitted with a center post that joins the block to a second block . Yoon teaches a center post (see annotated Fig. 8 below) that joins the block (see annotated Fig. 8 below) to a second block (see annotated Fig. 8 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Doepner to include a center post joining blocks as taught by Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the ease of constructing tracks ( see machine translation, pg. 5, lines 11-13). Claim(s) 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1), Eichhorn (US 5427561 A), Desourdy (US 4007693 A), Yoon (KR 20120027611 A), and Han (US 20030136857 A1). In regards to claim 6 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell, Eichhorn, and Desourdy , and Yoon above teaches the toy vehicle and track system of claim 5 . Doepner does not teach wherein the at least three railways are extended to the adjacent block via a mortise and tenon joint. Han teaches wherein railways are extended via a mortise (5) (Fig. 2C) and tenon (3, 4) (Fig. 2B) joint. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railways of Doepner to include a mortise and tenon joint as taught by Han with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the structural integrity of the railways ( see Han, para. [0016]). In regards to claim 20 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell, Eichhorn, and Desourdy , and Yoon above teaches t he toy vehicle and track system of claim 5 . Doepner does not teach wherein the at least three railways are extended to the adjacent block via a mortise and tenon joint. Han teaches wherein railways are extended via a mortise (5) (Fig. 2C) and tenon (3, 4) (Fig. 2B) joint. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railways of Doepner to include a mortise and tenon joint as taught by Han with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the structural integrity of the railways ( see Han, para. [0016]). Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 626 9750 B1) , and Yoon (KR 20120027611 A) . In regards to claim 7 , Doepner teaches a method of constructing a track for a toy vehicle, comprising the steps of: a. positioning a first block (12, on the right) (as seen in Fig. 1) with a railway , where each railway is defined by two adjacent rails (10) (as seen in Fig. 3) ; b. a second block (12, on the left) (as seen in Fig. 1) with a railway , wherein each of the railways is defined by two other adjacent rails (10) (as seen in Fig. 3) ; c. the railways of the first block (12, on the right) (as seen in Fig. 1) merge (as seen in Fig. 1, rails 10 continue from the first block to the second block) with the other railways of the second block (12, on the left) ; and, d. positioning a wheel (51-53) (Fig. 3) of a caboose (48) (Fig. 1) of the toy vehicle (41) against one of the railways (as seen in Fig. 3) of the first block (12, on the right) and positioning a wheel (51-53) of a guide-car (47) of the toy vehicle (41) against one of the other railways (as seen in Fig. 1) of the second block (12, on the left) . Doepner does not teach the first and second block having at least three railways. Cornwell teaches the track (10) (Fig. 1) having at least three railways (as seen in Fig. 1, the railways formed by rails 12, 16; 12, 14; 14, 18; and 16, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Doepner to include at least three railways defined by two adjacent trails as taught by Cornwell with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the capacity of the system and flexibility of vehicle orientation ( see Cornwell, col. 7, lines 4-16). Doepner does not teach the second block being adjacent to the first block and coupling an axle of the first and second block via a center post. Yoon teaches the second block (see annotated Fig. 8 above) being adjacent to the first block (see annotated Fig. 8 above) and coupling an axle of the first and second block via a center post (see annotated Fig. 8 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Doepner to include a center post joining blocks as taught by Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the ease of constructing tracks ( see machine translation, pg. 5, lines 11-13). Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1) , Yoon (KR 20120027611 A) , and Han (US 20030136857 A1). In regards to claim 8 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell and Yoon above teaches the method of claim 7 . Doepner does not teach wherein when the railways of the first block are merged with the other railways of the second block at least one mortise of the railways is coupled to a cooperating tenon of the second railways. Han teaches wherein when the railways of the first block are merged with the other railways of the second block (as seen in Fig. 2B) at least one mortise (5) of the railways is coupled to a cooperating tenon (3, 4) of the second railways. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railways of Doepner to include a mortise and tenon joint as taught by Han with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the structural integrity of the railways ( see Han, para. [0016]). Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1) , Yoon (KR 20120027611 A) , Han (US 20030136857 A1) , and Eichhorn (US 5427561 A). In regards to claim 9 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell , Yoon, and Han above teaches the method of claim 8 . Doepner does not teach wherein the caboose is motorized. Eichhorn teaches wherein the caboose (20) (Fig. 1) is motorized (32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caboose of Doepner to include a motor to drive an axle as taught by Eichhorn with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling the vehicle to be self-propelled without external forces ( see Eichhorn, col. 1, lines 49-51). Claim(s) 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1) , Yoon (KR 20120027611 A) , Han (US 20030136857 A1) , Eichhorn (US 5427561 A) , and Desourdy (US 4007693 A) . In regards to claim 1 0 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell , Yoon, Han, and Eichhorn above teaches the method of claim 9 . Doepner does not teach wherein the wheel of the caboose is a grooved wheel. Desourdy teaches wherein the wheel is a grooved wheel (29) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheels of Doepner to include a groove as taught by Desourdy with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of decreasing the risk of derailment since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.0 6(II) . In regards to claim 1 1 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell , Yoon, Han, Eichhorn, and Desourdy above teaches the method of claim 10 where a hyperbolic wheel of the caboose is positioned against the one railway of the first block at a midsection of the hyperbolic wheel. In regards to claim 1 2 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell , Yoon, Han, Eichhorn, and Desourdy above teaches t he method of claim 11 where the caboose (48) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) and guide car (47) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) of the toy vehicle (41) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) are rotatably ( Doepner , col. 5, lines 62-65) joined together via a joint (49) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) . In regards to claim 1 3 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell , Yoon, Han, Eichhorn, and Desourdy above teaches t he method of claim 12 wherein the first (12, on the right) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) and second (12, on the left) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) blocks are defined by a cross- section selected from the group consisting essentially of an X ( Doepner , as seen in Fig. 4) , Y, square, triangle. In regards to claim 1 4 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell , Yoon, Han, Eichhorn, and Desourdy above teaches t he method of claim 13 wherein the guide-car (47) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) is rolled ( Doepner , col. 5, lines 62-65) around the joint (49) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) by any non- zero degree relative to the caboose (48) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) . In regards to claim 1 5 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell , Yoon, Han, Eichhorn, and Desourdy above teaches t he method of claim 14 wherein the first block (12, on the right) ( Doepner , Fig. 1) is supported by an upright (43-45) ( Doepner , as seen in Fig. 2) . In regards to claim 1 6 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell , Yoon, Han, Eichhorn, and Desourdy above teaches the method of claim 15 . While Doepner does not explicitly teach removing the wheel of the caboose from its position against one of the railways of the first block; removing the wheel of the guide-car from its position against one of the other railways of the second block; positioning the wheel of the caboose against a different one of the railways of the first block; and, positioning the wheel of the guide-car against a different one of the other railways of the second bloc k. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system to remove the caboose and guide-car from one position on the railway and position the caboose and guide-car at a different position on the railways , since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new or unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Lindberg , 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) . See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A). Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1) In regards to claim 1 7 , Doepner teaches a toy vehicle and track system comprising; a track defined by a railway, each railway defined by two adjacent rails (10) (Fig. 3) , wherein each rail (10) of the two adjacent rails (10) is defined at the tip of an arm (14) of a block (12) with an X-shaped section (as seen in Fig. 3) ; and, a toy vehicle (41) featuring an axle (as seen in Fig. 3) provided to at least one wheel (51-53) and wherein the at least one wheel (51-53) is engaged at a midsection (as seen in Fig. 3) with one of the rails (10) of the railway. Doepner does not teach the track defined by at least three railways Cornwell teaches the track (10) (Fig. 1) having at least three railways (as seen in Fig. 1, the railways formed by rails 12, 16; 12, 14; 14, 18; and 16, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track of Doepner to include at least three railways defined by two adjacent trails as taught by Cornwell with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the capacity of the system and flexibility of vehicle orientation ( see Cornwell, col. 7, lines 4-16). Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1) and Desourdy (US 4007693 A) . In regards to claim 1 8 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell above teaches t he toy vehicle and track system of claim 17 . Doepner does not teach wherein the at least one wheel is a hyperbolic wheel. Desourdy teaches wherein the at least one wheel is a hyperbolic wheel (29) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheels of Doepner to include being shaped as hyperbolic wheels as taught by Desourdy with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of decreasing the risk of derailment since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.0 6(II) . Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doepner (US 6746298 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 6269750 B1) , Desourdy (US 4007693 A) , and Yoon (KR 20120027611 A) . In regards to claim 1 9 , the combination of Doepner as modified by Cornwell and Desourdy above teaches t he toy vehicle and track system of claim 18 , wherein the block (12) ( Doepner , Fig. 3) has a coaxial hole ( Doepner , as seen in Fig. 3) , and said at least three railways are extended (as seen in Fig. 1, rails 10 continue from the block on the right to the left) from the block (12) ( Doepner , on the right) to an adjacent block (12) ( Doepner , on the left). Doepner does not teach a center post that joins the block to a second block . Yoon teaches a center post (see annotated Fig. 8 above ) that joins the block (see annotated Fig. 8 above ) to a second block (see annotated Fig. 8 above ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Doepner to include a center post joining blocks as taught by Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the ease of constructing tracks ( see machine translation, pg. 5, lines 11-13). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lian (CN 204428820 U) teaches a mortise and tenon joint for a flat track, but does not teach a center post used to join adjacent blocks. Burger (US 20160250560 A1) teaches a track system for an amusement ride, in particular for a roller coaster or suspension railway. Kitchen (US 20130092043 A1) teaches a tower ride with railways formed by two adjacent rails. Cai (WO 2009100595 A1) discloses a toy vehicle track convenient for model building. Man (US 20030017782 A1) discloses a roller coaster toy with a motorized vehicle. Kessler (US 6286283 B1) discloses a modular structural system. Glickman (US 5421762 A) discloses a vehicle track for a construction toy system. Wilson (US 4034678 A) discloses a toy car and track system. William (US 2196257 A) discloses a track system for toy trains utilizing a mortise and tenon joint. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7063 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 11am-7pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Samuel Morano can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6684 . 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. /JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615