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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species C, Fig. 4 in the reply filed on July 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 14, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2 line 1 after “for” the following should be inserted for clarity: -- receiving --. 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 1-8 and 12-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, both at lines 8-9 recite: “…and having no sensor for calculating the steering angle…”. While the examiner generally understands this statement in light of the specification appears to address the fact that there are no direct and/or mechanical sensors that directly measure/calculate the steering angle, the actual claim limitation appears to be contradictory to the claimed yaw rate sensor that in essence calculates the steering angle via the control unit (5) interface. In order to be consistent with the applicant’s intent in light of the specification, examiner recommends changing the above noted claim limitation with the following: -- and having no direct or mechanical sensors operatively associated with the steering unit for calculating the steering angle --.
Re-claim 8, it is unclear whether the recitations of the two steerable wheels and non-steerable wheels are part of the previously recited plurality of wheels in claim 1. The examiner recommends the following to clarify that the steerable and non-steerable wheels are part of the plurality of wheels: in claim 8 line 1 replace the term “with” with the following: – and the plurality of wheels comprises --.
Claims 2-7 and 13-16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s admitted prior art of Fig. 1 (herein referenced as “prior art Fig 1”) in view of US PG pub 2016/0303485 to Kawamura et al.
Regarding claim 1, prior art Fig 1 discloses: a toy vehicle (1’) comprising: a plurality of wheels (2,3); a steering unit having a steering drive (4) configured to act on at least one first wheel (2) of said plurality of wheels (2,3) and a control unit (5) configured to act on said steering drive (4); wherein said at least one first wheel (2) is steerably mounted on a chassis (16) of the toy vehicle with a changeable steering angle. The steering in the prior art Fig 1 device is controlled via a sensor integrated therein via a mechanical potentiometer 15 and steering transmission 17 interconnection with the pinon 18 of steering rack 19. However prior art of Fig 1 fails to specifically disclose: said steering unit (4) further having a yaw rate sensor for calculating a yaw rate of the toy vehicle about a vertical axis of the toy car and having no sensor for calculating the steering angle; and, said steering drive, said control unit, and said yaw rate sensor together forming a regulating loop for setting the yaw rate to a predetermined target value.
Kawamura et al discloses an electronic steering stability system (ESS, 400) for a model vehicle having a yaw rate sensor that communicates with the steering drive via a steering servo (406) and said control unit (404) based on steering control inputs from the user and/or curvature estimator involving gyros and speed sensors to control the vehicle’s steering angles and speed to provide a controlled operation of the model vehicle traversing a desired path (see Fig. 4 and described in paragraphs [0027]- [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have utilized and substituted the mechanical steering sensor control using the potentiometer 15 in the device of prior art Fig 1 with the electronically controlled yaw rate sensors to control the steering device in a model vehicle as taught by Kawamura et al in order to reduce the number of parts required to control the steering thereby reducing the overall weight on the model vehicle and to provide a more efficient and quicker method to adjust/correct steering angles during a desired steering direction.
Re-claim 2 the prior art Fig 1 as modified and reference to Kawamura et al discloses: the toy vehicle of claim 1, wherein said control unit (404- Kawamura et al) includes a receiver (202- Kawamura et al) for control signals of a remote control (100-see Figs 1 and 4 of Kawamura et al); and, said control unit is configured to derive the target value for the yaw rate from the control signals received in said receiver (see Kawamura etal [0027] and [0032].
Re-claim 8 note prior art Fig 1 discloses wherein the toy vehicle is a replica car with at least two steerable wheels (2) and with at least two non-steerable wheels (3).
Claims 3-7 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s admitted prior art of Fig. 1 (herein referenced as “prior art Fig 1”) in view of US PG pub 2016/0303485 to Kawamura et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pg pub 2010/0304640 to Sofman et al.
Regarding claim 3, prior art Fig 1 as modified discloses all the features of claim 1 except for said control unit includes at least one track sensor for detecting a predetermined track; and, said control unit is configured to derive the target value for the yaw rate from sensor signals calculated by said track sensor.
Sofman et al discloses a toy vehicle (2) with a control unit (40) that includes at least one track sensor (3) for detecting a predetermined track (see Fig 1 of Sofman et al) and the control unit (40) is configured to derive the target value for the yaw rate from sensor signals (paragraph [0128] recites: “A microcontroller 40 is the main computer on each vehicle 2. It performs all the control functions necessary to allow vehicle 2 to drive, sense, and communicate with base station 22 and monitor its current state (like position in the drivable surface, speed, battery voltage, etc.). Desirably, microcontroller 40 is low cost, consumes little power but is powerful enough to intelligently deal with large amounts of sensor data, communications requirements, and perform high speed steering and speed control.” Note this sensor data would inherently have yaw rate sensors to provide steering control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have applied the teachings of the track sensor for detecting a predetermined track as taught by Sofman et al into the device of prior art Fig 1 as modified by Kawamura et al to provide a particular desired road/track for the model vehicle to specifically traverse during play. While examiner had noted the inherent use of a yaw rate sensor as part of the steering control in Sofman et al, note Kawamura et al as discussed above already sets forth the specific use of yaw rate sensors as part of the overall steering control. Therefore, prior art Fig 1 as modified by Kawamura et al and Sofman et al would have the control unit configured to derive the target value for the yaw rate from sensor signals calculated by the track sensor.
Re-claim 4 prior art Fig 1 as modified, discloses: the toy vehicle of claim 3, wherein said control unit is configured to derive the target value for the yaw rate from the sensor signals calculated by said track sensor such that the toy vehicle follows the predetermined track (note the controller 40 in Sofman et al as disclosed in paragraph [00128] performs high speed steering of the vehicle 2 and in paragraph [0162] further recites “Each vehicle 2 needs to be able to steer precisely and at high speeds to follow a lane (e.g., without limitation, center line 10) on a road piece 6. Microcontroller 40 on vehicle 2 uses imaging system 3 to not only identify markings from the road pieces 6, but also to compute their horizontal position within the field of view of the imaging sensor 46 of imaging system 3 at a high frequency. Unless otherwise instructed by base station 22, microcontroller 40 is programmed to try to keep vehicle 2 centered over center-line 10 as seen in an immediately preceding scan by imaging system 3. Microcontroller 40 will compute the position of markings 12 relative to the center of vehicle 2, and if vehicle 2 is not centered, will cause vehicle 2 to steer as needed to move the markings 12 toward the center of vehicle 2.”).
Re-claims 5 and 6 note the claimed features are readily apparent in the device of prior art Fig 1 as modified, during the toy vehicle traversing on the track which would create derived specific driving events from sensor signals of the toy vehicle to maintain its position on the track as explained above. Further the control of the vehicle speed in traversing the track would inherently require the specific driving events including at least one of braking, acceleration, and affecting the yaw rate.
Re-claim 7, prior art Fig 1 as modified and with references to Sofman et al: the toy vehicle of claim 3, wherein said track sensor for detecting the predetermined track is an IR sensor with an IR emitter and with an IR receiver (see paragraph [0133-0134] of Sofman et al which recites: “The imaging system 3 of vehicle 2 allows the vehicle 2 to determine its location in the drivable surface. A 1D/2D CMOS imaging sensor 46 (shown in FIG. 12A) inside vehicle 2 facing the surface of the drivable road piece underneath is used to take images of the surface at high frequencies (at times up to 500 Hz or more). As described above, road pieces 6 include a structured pattern of optical markings 12 that are desirably visible only in the near infrared spectrum (NIR), in the IR (infrared) spectrum or in the UV (ultra violet) spectrum, and are completely invisible to the human eye.”).
Re-claim 12 prior art Fig 1 discloses all the features of the instant claim except for: said steering unit further having a yaw rate sensor for calculating a yaw rate of the toy vehicle about a vertical axis of the toy car and having no sensor for calculating the steering angle; said steering drive, said control unit, and said yaw rate sensor together forming a regulating loop for setting the yaw rate to a predetermined target value; a track for said toy vehicle; said control unit including at least one sensor for detecting said track.
Kawamura et al discloses an electronic steering stability system (ESS, 400) for a model vehicle having a yaw rate sensor that communicates with the steering drive via a steering servo (406) and said control unit (404) based on steering control inputs from the user and/or curvature estimator involving gyros and speed sensors to control the vehicle’s steering angles and speed to provide a controlled operation of the model vehicle traversing a desired path (see Fig. 4 and described in paragraphs [0027]- [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have utilized and substituted the mechanical steering sensor control using the potentiometer 15 in the device of prior art Fig 1 with the electronically controlled yaw rate sensors to control the steering device in a model vehicle as taught by Kawamura et al in order to reduce the number of parts required to control the steering thereby reducing the overall weight on the model vehicle and to provide a more efficient and quicker method to adjust/correct steering angles during a desired steering direction.
Sofman et al discloses a toy vehicle (2) with a control unit (40) that includes at least one track sensor (3) for detecting a predetermined track (see Fig 1 of Sofman et al) and the control unit (40) is configured to derive the target value for the yaw rate from sensor signals (see paragraph [0128] recites: “A microcontroller 40 is the main computer on each vehicle 2. It performs all the control functions necessary to allow vehicle 2 to drive, sense, and communicate with base station 22 and monitor its current state (like position in the drivable surface, speed, battery voltage, etc.). Desirably, microcontroller 40 is low cost, consumes little power but is powerful enough to intelligently deal with large amounts of sensor data, communications requirements, and perform high speed steering and speed control.” Note this sensor data would inherently have yaw rate sensors to provide steering control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have applied the teachings of the track sensor for detecting a predetermined track as taught by Sofman et al into the device of prior art Fig 1 as modified by Kawamura et al to provide a particular desired road/track for the model vehicle to specifically traverse during play. While examiner had noted the inherent use of a yaw rate sensor as part of the steering control in Sofman et al, note Kawamura et al as discussed above already sets forth the specific use of yaw rate sensors as part of the overall steering control. Therefore, prior art Fig 1 as modified by Kawamura et al and Sofman et al would have the control unit configured to derive the target value for the yaw rate from sensor signals calculated by the track sensor.
Re-claim 13, note the above discussions and note the claimed features are readily apparent in the device of prior art Fig 1 as modified.
Re-claims 14 and 15 prior art Fig 1 as modified and references to Sofman et al discloses: the toy vehicle system of claim 13, wherein said IR-sensitive orientation pattern includes a pattern of alternating light and dark line sections extending transversely over said track (as seen in Figures 2 and 15 of Sofman et al). Sofman further teaches in paragraph [0320] “For example, the user can develop large-format (e.g. 12 ft.times.30 ft) drivable surfaces that use custom designed drivable segments. Users can specify any road piece shape they desire that includes combinations of straight segments and arcs of circles (each segment could be required to be of some minimum length) or even more complex shapes like splines etc.”. Note Sofman et al does indicate the road piece shape could be a combination of straight segments which would read on a “triangle” however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have provided the triangular shapes extending over the track in the device of prior art Fig 1 as modified, and as taught by Sofman et al since such a modification is merely a design choice dependent upon the desired indicator shape to delineate a particular command by the user for the IR sensor.
Re-claim 16 prior art Fig 1 as modified and reference to Sofman et al discloses: the toy vehicle system of claim 13, wherein said IR-sensitive orientation pattern is covered by an IR-permeable and visually opaque covering layer (paragraphs [0316-0317] of Sofman et al recites the following: “[0316] As described above, a series of markings 12 enables vehicles 2 to identify their unique positions in the drivable surface. A technique described above for encoding markings in a way not visible to humans relied upon printing the markings in an ink or dye that is not visible (transparent) to the human eye and absorbs light in the IR, NIR, or UV spectrum. By using a light source of the same light wavelength, these markings appear black to the optical sensor but are nearly or completely invisible to humans.
[0317] Alternatively, markings 12 can be printed in standard visible ink or dye, for example used in commercial inkjet printers, laser printers or professional offset or silk screen printing machines After the markings are printed, a second layer is applied to cover those markings. This second layer includes an ink or dye or a thin plastic film that is transparent above or below human visible wavelengths, but appears opaque in the human visible spectrum.” .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pg pub 2017/0269586 discloses the use of an invisible track for a toy vehicle to traverse via the use of sensors.
US Patent no 10,537,817 to Musliner discloses a toy playscape having a printed track.
DK 2435149T3 to Sofman et al and US Pg pub 2006/0276102 to Dieckmann discloses related toy vehicles on toy tracks.
US Patent no 3,314,189 to Carroll discloses related rc vehicle steering components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6891. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 8am to 2pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Thomas, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8004. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights