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 Claims
In an amendment filed 6/2/2026, Applicant amended claims 1-12. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelley US Pat. No. 2,940,211.
Kelley teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
A toy (toy vehicle 10, Fig. 1-3) comprising:
a toy part (toy block body 10) comprising a first surface (left side surface), a second surface opposite to the first surface (right side surface), at least three sides extending from the first surface to the second surface (front, upper, and rear surfaces extend between the left and right side surfaces of the body, Fig. 2), and at least one open-ended groove that opens downward toward a bottom of the toy part (two open-ended grooves 19/20 (open left and right sides and open bottom) are formed in the bottom surface of the toy block body, Fig. 2-3); and
a toy wheel assembly (wheel assemblies 13) comprising:
a first wheel having a first surface and a second surface (first left wheel 31 has left first and right second surfaces);
a second wheel having a third surface and a fourth surface (first right wheel 31 at the opposite end of the axle has a third left and fourth right surface); and
a cylindrical shaft having a first edge and a second edge, wherein the first wheel is connected to the second wheel by the cylindrical shaft, wherein the cylindrical shaft is perpendicularly mounted to a center of the second surface of the first wheel by the first edge, and the cylindrical shaft is perpendicularly mounted to a center of the third surface of the second wheel by the second edge (cylindrical shaft axle 30 is rigidly attached to the center of each wheel inner surface, Fig. 2, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9), wherein the cylindrical shaft is directly affixed to the first wheel and the second wheel to form and maintain a predetermined gap between the second surface and the third surface, wherein a width of the predetermined gap is larger than a width of the first wheel and a width of the second wheel by at least a first predetermined value (shaft axles 30 are rigidly affixed to each wheel to form and maintain a gap between the inner wheel surfaces, wherein the distance between the wheels is larger than a width of each wheel 31, Fig. 2), and wherein the first wheel and the second wheel rotate around a joint axis in unison (the wheels 31 rotate with the shaft in unison about a joint axis extending therethrough, Fig. 1-3, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9),
wherein the toy wheel assembly is fully assembled and defines the predetermined gap prior to engagement with the toy part (Fig. 2, wheels 31 are rigidly joined to the axle to define the predetermined wheel gap before engagement with the toy body, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9),
wherein the toy part is configured to be placed on the cylindrical shaft such that the open-ended groove rests on the cylindrical shaft (the toy body 10 is placed on the axle 30 and is held within the groove via gravity, Fig. 1-3, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9),
wherein the toy part is maintained on the cylindrical shaft only by gravity (the axle 30 is held within the groove which is slightly wider than the diameter of the shaft and therefore the toy body is maintained on the shaft only using gravity, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9),
wherein the cylindrical shaft is not inserted into an enclosed opening of the toy part (shaft 30 is not inserted into an enclosed opening as the groove is open, Fig. 1-3), and
wherein the at least three sides of the toy part have an identical predetermined fourth width which is smaller than the width of the predetermined gap by a second predetermined value (the front, top, bottom, and rear surfaces of the body 11 each have the same width as the body is a rectangular block which is smaller than the width of the wheel inner surfaces which allows the body to sit on the shaft between the wheels, Fig. 1-3, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9, the second predetermined value is an inherent value taught by the prior art as the wheel assemblies are the same size to allow interchangeable use).
In Reference to Claim 2
The toy of claim 1, wherein the width of the predetermined gap, formed and maintained by the cylindrical shaft directly affixed to the first wheel and the second wheel, is adapted to accept a toy part having at least one groove by a first groove of the at least one groove, so that the cylindrical shaft of the toy wheel assembly rotate rotates freely within the open-ended groove of the at least one groove of the toy part (the axle 30 is held and journaled within a first groove 19 which is slightly wider than the diameter of the shaft and therefore the toy body is maintained on the shaft only using gravity, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9, Fig. 1-3).
In Reference to Claim 5
The toy of claim 2, wherein the predetermined gap is larger than a width of a side of the toy part that includes the first groove of the at least one open-ended groove of the toy part by a second predetermined value (the bottom of the body 11 has the same width as the other sides as the body is a rectangular block which is smaller than the width of the wheel inner surfaces which allows the body to sit on the shaft between the wheels, Fig. 1-3, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9, the second predetermined value is an inherent value taught by the prior art as the wheel assemblies are the same size to allow interchangeable use)
In Reference to Claim 7
The toy of claim 5, wherein the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value are different (as best understood, the first predetermined value = the gap distance between the inner surfaces of the wheels – the wheel width. The second predetermined value = the gap distance between the inner sides of the wheels – the toy body width. Based on Fig. 1-3, the first predetermined value would be larger and different than the second predetermined value).
In Reference to Claim 9
The toy of claim 2, wherein the at least one open-ended groove of the toy part has at least one opening at a side of the toy part (grooves 19/20 have open bottom ends to allow the wheel axle 30 to be journaled and received therein and open left and right sides, Fig. 1-3, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9).
In Reference to Claim 10
The toy of claim 2, wherein the toy part does not establish a permanent connection with the toy wheel assembly (the toy assembly (rigidly formed wheels 31 and axle 30) are not permanently connected to the toy part 10 as they are loosely held within a chosen groove 19/20, Fig. 1-3, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9).
In Reference to Claim 11
The toy of claim 1, wherein there is no permanent connection between the toy wheel assembly and the toy part (the wheel assembly (rigidly formed wheels 31 and axle 30) are not permanently connected to the toy part 10 as they are loosely held within a chosen groove 19/20, Fig. 1-2, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9).
In Reference to Claim 12
The toy of claim 1, wherein an outer cylindrical surface of the cylindrical shaft is only partially surrounded by the open-ended groove (cylindrical shaft 30 is partially surrounded by and placed and rotatably journaled within the respective groove 19/20, Fig. 1-3, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9 as each groove 19/20 has an open bottom end formed therein).
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 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) 3-4 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley as applied to claim 1/5 above, and further in view of Manning US Pat. No. 3,835,583.
In Reference to Claim 3-4
Kelley teaches:
The toy of claim 1, wherein the cylindrical shaft is rigidly mounted to the center of the second surface and the center of the third surface (axle 30 is rigidly mounted to the center of each wheel surface, Fig. 1-3, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9, Fig. 1-3) and wherein at least one of the centers of the second surface and the center of the third surface includes a socket, wherein the socket is adapted to receive an edge of the cylindrical shaft by insertion (the axle appears to extend through the center of each wheel (outline shown of the axle at the center of the wheel 31) wherein the axle is held in an inherent socket and is rigidly attached, Fig. 2, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9, Fig. 1-3).
The toy wheel assembly of claim 1, wherein the cylindrical shaft is mounted to the center of the second surface and the center of the third surface (the axle shaft 18 is integrally mounted to the center of the inner surfaces of the wheels 20, Fig. 1-4).
Kelley fails to teach:
Wherein the cylindrical shaft is mounted to the center of the second surface and the center of the third surface by at least one of: gluing and screwing or wherein at least one of the centers of the second surface and the center of the third surface includes specifically a socket, wherein the socket is adapted to receive an edge of the cylindrical shaft by insertion.
Manning teaches:
A similar toy wheel assembly, wherein the cylindrical shaft is mounted to the center of the second surface and the center of the third surface by at least one of: gluing and screwing (axle shaft 26 is mounted into the center of the inner surfaces of the wheels 13/14 via to the hub 22/28 and may include adhesive to secure the hub 22/28 in the wheels, Fig. 1-2, Col. 3 lines 60-66, Col. 3 lines 27-45), and wherein at least one of the center of the second surface and the center of the third surface includes a socket, wherein the socket is adapted to receive an edge of the cylindrical shaft by insertion (each end of the shaft 26 is received in hub/socket 22/28 in the center of the inner surface of each wheel 13/14, Fig. 2, Col. 3 lines 60-66, Col. 3 lines 27-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wheel assembly of Kelley to have connected the axle shaft to the wheels via sockets receiving ends of the axle therein and by other known fastening means, such as gluing or screwing, as these are known and commonly known fastening means in the art as taught by Manning (Col. 3 lines 60-66, Col. 3 lines 27-45). Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179) and it has been held that integral is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding (In re Hotte (CCPA) 177 USPQ 326).
In Reference to Claim 6
Kelley teaches:
The toy of claim 5, wherein the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value are identical (as best understood, the first predetermined value = the gap distance between the inner surfaces of the wheels – the wheel width. The second predetermined value = the gap distance between the inner sides of the wheels – the toy body width. Based on Fig. 1-3, the first predetermined value would be larger than the second predetermined value).
Further, Manning teaches:
A similar toy wheel assembly (as previously described) wherein the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value are identical (as best understood, the first predetermined value = the gap distance between the inner surfaces of the wheels – the wheel width. The second predetermined value = the gap distance between the inner sides of the wheels – the toy body width. Based on Fig. 2, the first predetermined value would be larger than the second predetermined value).
Though Kelley appears to show these two arbitrary measurements being different, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the toy body and wheel shapes/sizes as desired to vary the aesthetics of the toy vehicle as taught by Manning (Col. 3 lines 3-26, Col. 5 lines 25-38, Fig. 5-6 appears to show that the first and second predetermined values would be identical or similar). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape and size of the toy body, wheels, and gaps as these are all matters of obvious design choice and only aesthetically change the look of the toy, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley as applied to claim 2 above.
In Reference to Claim 8
Kelley teaches:
The toy of claim 2, wherein the at least one open-ended groove of the toy part has a depth deeper than a radius of the cylindrical shaft (the width of the groove 19/20 ‘y’ is wider than the diameter of the shaft 30, and groove 19/20 appears to have the same depth as width (which would also be the same as ‘y’ and therefore the groove 19/20 would appear to be deeper than the diameter of the cylindrical shaft to fully hold and journal the shaft therein, however the figures don’t exactly clearly show the shaft within the groove to definitively show this (even though it very clearly appears to be true and is discussed in the specification, col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9, Fig. 1-3).
Further, though Kelley appears to show this relationship as claimed it further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the toy body groove and wheel shapes/sizes as desired to allow the shaft to be fully supported and held within the groove as desired by Kelley (col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 9, Fig. 1-3). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape and size of the toy body, grooves, wheels, and gaps as these are all matters of obvious design choice and only aesthetically change the look of the toy, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 102 (Peake) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments that define newly presented claim limitations defining three sides of the toy part having identical widths. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kelley.
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Maxam (3,321,863), Carter (3,473,259), Nielsen (3,711,989), D’Andrade (4,601,519), Becker (4,597,743), Becker (4,850,924), Alskog (4,861,311), Kennedy (2011/0014850), and Kwan (11,701,597) teach similar toy vehicle wheel assemblies. Further, Kelderhouse (2007/0238390) teaches grooves with an open end in the bottom of the toy part and passages with openings at sides of the toy part are both known and commonly used interchangeable arrangements to secure a wheel assembly to a toy body part (Fig. 1-2, [0041]-[0043]).
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights