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 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 10-29 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.
With respect to claim 10, further clarification is require regarding “a first link having a first end connected to said second bell crank and a second end connected to said second central bell crank; a first mount of a second member connected to said second bell crank;”, as claim 10 related to “a second central bell crank-to-second bell crank”.
Claims 11-28 rejected based upon their dependency, directly or indirectly, from claim 10.
With respect to claim 29, same issues as discussed above with respect to claim 10.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 3-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,083,973 (“ ‘973 “). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, claim 1 of ‘973, recites all the limitations of above claim 1, “a toy vehicle, comprising: a first central bell crank pivotally mounted on a vehicle chassis, said first central bell crank mounted to axially pivot along a longitudinal axis of said vehicle chassis; a first bell crank pivotally mounted on said vehicle chassis, said first bell crank mounted to transversely pivot along a transverse axis of said vehicle chassis; a first link having a first end connected to said first bell crank and a second end connected to said first central bell crank; a first mount of a first member connected to said first bell crank; a second mount of said first member connected to a first vertical suspension assembly pivotally coupled to said vehicle chassis; and a first wheel interconnected to said first vertical suspension assembly, wherein operative interconnection of said first central bell crank, said first bell crank and said first member move said first wheel.”. Every limitations in the above claim 1 is recited in claim 1 of ‘973, and thus claim 1 anticipated by claim 1 of ‘973
Claim 2 recite similar limitations as claim 3 of the ‘973.
Claim 3 recite similar limitations as claim 4 of the ‘973.
Claim 4 recite similar limitations as claim 5 of the ‘973.
Claims 5 and 6 recite similar limitations as claim 6 of the ‘973.
Claims 7 and 8 recite similar limitations as claim 7 of the ‘973.
Claims 1-3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,957,993 (“ ‘993 “). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of above claim recites in claim 1 of ‘993. Independent claim 1 of the ‘99 recites as a method forming a vehicle suspension for a toy, whereas the above claims recites as an apparatus. Nonetheless, the method of claim 1 includes the structure, within the above claim 1, namely “a toy vehicle, comprising: a first central bell crank pivotally mounted on a vehicle chassis, said first central bell crank mounted to axially pivot along a longitudinal axis of said vehicle chassis; a first bell crank pivotally mounted on said vehicle chassis, said first bell crank mounted to transversely pivot along a transverse axis of said vehicle chassis; a first link having a first end connected to said first bell crank and a second end connected to said first central bell crank; a first mount of a first member connected to said first bell crank; a second mount of said first member connected to a first vertical suspension assembly pivotally coupled to said vehicle chassis; and a first wheel interconnected to said first vertical suspension assembly, wherein operative interconnection of said first central bell crank, said first bell crank and said first member move said first wheel.”. Every limitations in the above claim 1 is recited in claim 1 of ‘993, and thus claim 1 anticipated by claim 1 of ‘993
Claim 2 recite similar limitations as claim 3 of the ‘993.
Claim 3 recite similar limitations as claim 4 of the ‘993.
Examiner’s Comments
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is not specific nor render it obvious to form a toy vehicle, that among other things comprising “a first central bell crank pivotally mounted on a vehicle chassis, said first central bell crank mounted to axially pivot along a longitudinal axis of said vehicle chassis; a first bell crank pivotally mounted on said vehicle chassis, said first bell crank mounted to transversely pivot along a transverse axis of said vehicle chassis”, as claimed within independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 7/13/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights