Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/507,056

Model Car

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 12, 2023
Examiner
HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Guangdong Meijiaxin Innovative Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 1067 resolved
-23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1111
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1067 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
-DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5 the “a” before “car shell frame” should be replaced with a “the” since the car shell frame was previously disclosed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim limitation of “and the decorative part is in part exposed to the car shell, and the decorative part in part passes through the avoidance opening and is connected to the connecting base” would be clearer as “the decorative part is positioned on the car shell and includes a part that passes through the avoidance opening and connects to the connecting base”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6 after “connect the” delete “other one, thereof” and insert “upper slider and the lower slider” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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. Claim 1 recites the limitations "the end of the car shell frame" in line 5 and “the end of the car shell assembly” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Also the claim seems to be disclosing a location of the limiting part and locking mechanism relative to each other at respective ends but relates the ends separately to the frame and then the assembly as a whole which is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “ a limiting part is arranged at a first end of the car shell frame in the length direction; and a locking mechanism, the locking mechanism being located at a second end of the car shell frame away from the limiting part”. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the side of the main holder" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 discloses that first reinforcing ribs are arranged on the surface of the connector “close to the car shell” which is unclear as to what surface is considered “close to the car shell” in order to meet the limitations of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the ribs being arranged on a surface of the plug-in connector facing the car shell. The claim also discloses “a clearance slot is formed between adjacent second reinforcing ribs” in line 7 then in lines 8-9 the claim discloses that “each of the first reinforcing ribs is inserted into the corresponding clearance slot” which is unclear since a single slot and a plurality of corresponding slots appears to be disclosed simultaneously making what is intended by the claim unclear. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as “clearance slots are formed between adjacent second reinforcing ribs; and in the state that the plug-in connector is plugged into the first bayonet, each of the first reinforcing ribs is inserted into a corresponding clearance slot, respectively”. Claim 6 discloses that the model car includes “a second bayonet” but the claim is disclosed as depending “according to any one of claims 1 to 5” where a first bayonet is not disclosed until claim 2 and further claim 7 which depends from this claim discloses a second holder part and a vault frame wherein a first holder part and vault frame are not introduced until claim 3 making what is intended to be encompassed by the claims unclear. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 3. Claim 7 discloses that the car shell frame includes a vault frame but claim 3 also references a vault frame making it unclear if the vault frames from each of the claims is the same part or different parts and as such the scope of the claim is unascertainable. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the main holder of the car shell frame further includes a second holder part. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of Allmendinger (10894218) discloses a model car having a car body (Fig. 1B) with first (104) and second (106) locking fitting frames respectively arranged at the ends of the car body in a length direction, a car shell assembly with a car shell frame and a car shell arranged on the car shell frame (Fig. 3B) with a limiting part arranged on the car shell frame at an end of the car shell frame in the length direction (300) and a locking mechanism (302) located at another end of the car shell assembly away from the limiting part wherein the limiting part clamps the first locking fitting frame (Fig. 3F) and the locking mechanism engages the second locking fitting frame (Fig. 3R). However, the locking mechanism of Allmendinger is formed as an upper pivoting lever that activates a pivoting lower jaw mechanism to lock with the second locking fitting frame and as such fails to disclose the locking mechanism having an inner slider connected to an outer slider such that the sliders are respectively arranged at both sides of the car shell in a thickness direction wherein the inner slider is slidably connected to the car shell frame and the outer slider is enabled to slide bidirectionally in the length direction of the car body to drive the inner slider to be clamped on or disengaged from the second locking fitting frame. While bidirectional sliding locking mechanisms that move along a length direction of a toy vehicle are known as shown in 2757482, 3176429 and 5380231, the sliding mechanisms are horizontal members with aligned outer and inner portions that extend laterally from the car body not the car shell which is configured in a plurality of distinct and separable parts and as such does not teach having outer and inner sliders arranged on both sides of a car shell in the thickness direction such that bidirectional movement of the outer slider drives the inner slider to clamp or disengage from a second locking fitting frame of the car body while also including with the toy vehicle a limiting part that engages a first locking fitting frame and trying to reconfigure the locking mechanism of Allmendinger with a sliding mechanism would take considerable rework with structural changes only provided with the benefit of applicant’s own disclosure. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00. 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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. /A.M.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 12, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569779
BUBBLE-BLOWING TOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551813
Modular Block System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544683
DRAG RACING STABILITY MANAGEMENT FOR A MODEL VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528023
COMBINATION ARTICLES OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPRISING COMPLEMENTARY ACTION FIGURE AND RECONFIGURABLE CASE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12496532
REMOVABLE STRUCTURE OF SIMULATED APPEARANCE OF MUZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+30.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1067 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month