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 8/4/2026, Applicant amended the title, abstract, Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 17-19, and canceled claim 14. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “to top side” should read “to a top side”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vetuskey et al. US Pub. No. 2021/80101085.
In Reference to Claim 1
Vetuskey teaches:
A chassis for a toy vehicle (toy vehicle chassis 10, Fig. 1-23) comprising:
a body with a front, back, top and bottom (chassis body 10/25 has a front end, back end, top side, and bottom side);
a pivot axis located within the body (a pivotal axis is located within case 25 of the body);
a first articulating arm with a first proximal end pivotally coupled to the body at the pivot axis and extending towards the front of the body to a first distal end configured to receive a first axle;
a compression spring coupled between the bottom of the body and a top of the first articulating arm at the first distal end and configured to bias the first distal end away from the body (first articulating arm 18 has two compression springs 35/37 extending between the bottom side of the body 10 and the top of the articulating arm assembly to bias the front wheel assembly and arm distal end away from the bottom of the body, ex. Fig. 2); and
a second articulating arm coupled to the body at a second proximal end with a ball and socket joint and extending towards the back of the body to a second distal end configured to receive a second axle (second articulating arm 22 extends from a pivot in case 25 at the bottom of the body having a ball and socket joint (same as 20 of arm 18, [0037]) at a proximal end and receives axle 14 within a distal end near the rear end of the body).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetuskey as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tilbor et al. US Pat. No. 6,793,555.
In Reference to Claim 2
Vetuskey teaches:
The chassis of claim 1, wherein the first proximal end forks into two portions that each couple to the pivot axis (first arm 18 connects to the axle 11 at end 17, and further includes support arm portions 50/51 which have portions 54/55 that further support the axle 11 therein, these additional supports 54/55 may be considered distinct, spaced, forked ends of the first wheel suspension assembly of the first arm 18, Fig. 1-4).
Further, Tilbor teaches:
A chassis for a toy vehicle (toy vehicle 10 having a main body/chassis 11, Fig. 1-9) comprising:
a body with a front, back top and bottom (body/chassis 11 has a top (side opposite the wheels 12), bottom (side facing the wheels 12), front (side in front of front wheels 12a/c), and back (side behind rear wheels 12b/d, Fig. 1-9);
a pivot axis located within the body (front pivot axis 23 and rear pivot axis 50, each positioned within the body 11, Fig. 1-9);
a first articulating arm with a first proximal end pivotally coupled to the body at the pivot axis and extending towards the front of the body to a first distal end configured to receive a first axle (first pivotal articulating arm assembly 24 extends towards the front of the body from pivot axis 23 receiving an axle of the front wheels 12a/c in a distal end thereof, Fig. 1-9);
a spring coupled between the body and the first articulating arm and configured to bias the first distal end away from the body (suspension spring 60 is positioned near the axis 23 between the body and the first arm assembly 24 to bias the arm away from the body/chassis 11, Col. 5 lines 16-30); and
a second articulating arm coupled to the body at a second proximal end with a pivotal joint and extending towards the back of the body to a second distal end configured to receive a second axle (second rear swing arm assembly 30 extends from the body at a first pivot joint at axis 50 towards a back of the body/chassis to a distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein, Fig. 1-9),
wherein the first proximal end forks into two portions that each couple to the pivot axis (front swing arm 24 has a pair of forks/arms 22a-d that respectively couple to the front axis near the front wheels 12a/c, Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have formed the first proximal end of the first articulating arm as a “fork” or being generally Y or triangular in shape with two portions that each couple to the front axis extending from a central pivot point as these are commonly known and used shapes of articulating/suspension arms in the art as taught by Tilbor and the shape of these portions does not materially change the function or purpose of the articulating arms and therefore one having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to change the shapes of the arms as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the particular shape does not provide unique or different function of the articulating arms and further, this type of arrangement/shape of articulated arms is known and commonly used as taught by Tilbor and other similar prior art.
In Reference to Claim 3
Vetuskey teaches:
The chassis of claim 1, wherein the second articulating arm has a shape with a tip at the second proximal end and a base at the second distal end (Vetuskey: the second arm 22 extends from a ball and socket pivot point at the proximal end and connects to the second axle 14 at the distal end 21, and further includes support arm portions 52/53 which have portions 56/57 that further support the axle 13 therein, these additional supports 56/57 may be considered distinct, spaced, forked ends of the second wheel suspension assembly of the second arm 22, Fig. 1-4).
Further, Tilbor teaches:
A chassis for a toy vehicle (toy vehicle 10 having a main body/chassis 11, Fig. 1-9) comprising:
a body with a front, back top and bottom (body/chassis 11 has a top (side opposite the wheels 12), bottom (side facing the wheels 12), front (side in front of front wheels 12a/c), and back (side behind rear wheels 12b/d, Fig. 1-9);
a pivot axis located within the body (front pivot axis 23 and rear pivot axis 50, each positioned within the body 11, Fig. 1-9);
a first articulating arm with a first proximal end pivotally coupled to the body at the pivot axis and extending towards the front of the body to a first distal end configured to receive a first axle (first pivotal articulating arm assembly 24 extends towards the front of the body from pivot axis 23 receiving an axle of the front wheels 12a/c in a distal end thereof, Fig. 1-9);
a spring coupled between the body and the first articulating arm and configured to bias the first distal end away from the body (suspension spring 60 is positioned near the axis 23 between the body and the first arm assembly 24 to bias the arm away from the body/chassis 11, Col. 5 lines 16-30); and
a second articulating arm coupled to the body at a second proximal end with a pivotal joint and extending towards the back of the body to a second distal end configured to receive a second axle (second rear swing arm assembly 30 extends from the body at a first pivot joint at axis 50 towards a back of the body/chassis to a distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein, Fig. 1-9),
wherein the second articulating arm has the shape of an isosceles triangle with a tip at the second proximal end and a base at the second distal end (Tilbor: second rear swing arm assembly 30 extends from the body at a first pivot joint at axis 50 from a pointed/thin end towards a back of the body/chassis in an even triangular shape to a wide base distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein, Fig. 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have formed the distal end of an articulating arm as a “fork” or being generally Y or triangular in shape with two wide portions that each couple to the axle extending from a central pivot point tip as these are commonly known and used shapes of articulating/suspension arms in the art as taught by Tilbor and the shape of these portions does not materially change the function or purpose of the articulating arms and therefore one having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to change the shapes of the arms as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the particular shape does not provide unique or different function of the articulating arms and further, this type of arrangement/shape of articulated arms is known and commonly used as taught by Tilbor and other similar prior art.
In Reference to Claim 4
Vetuskey as modified by Tilbor teaches:
The chassis of claim 3, wherein the base of the isosceles triangle is configured to receive the second axle parallel to the base (Vetuskey: the rear axle 14 is held parallel to the back end of the base 10 by forked supports 21/56/57 and Tilbor shows the wide base distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein parallel to the base rear end, Fig. 1-9).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetuskey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allmendinger US Pat. No. 7,578,721.
In Reference to Claim 5
Vetuskey teaches:
The chassis of claim 1 as rejected above.
Vetuskey fails to teach:
A detachable rear axle extension coupled to the second distal end of the second articulating arm at a rear axle extension first proximal end wherein the rear axle extension comprises at least one location aft of the second distal end configured to receive the second axle.
Further, Allmendinger teaches:
A similar toy vehicle having a detachable (via clip 118) rear end extension member (100), coupled to the body at one end and having an axle for supporting wheels therein (axle 144 for wheels 136) at adjustable positions (arm 132 movable to different locations on the extension to provide an adjustable range/position of the extension member, Fig. 1, 14-15) aft of the rear end of the body (Fig. 1), and may be added to four wheel vehicles as well as two wheel vehicles as desired (Col. 5 lines 11-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have further a rear extension member one the second articulating arm in order to provide a rear engagement portion of the toy that can modify the range of movement of the wheels and/or chassis and prevent crashing or roll over during use as is known and common in the art as taught by Allmendinger (Col. 1 lines 11-33, Col. 3 lines 8-19, Col. 4 lines 36-65, Col. 5 lines 11-41). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exact position or location of the extension to have been coupled to the distal end of the articulating arm as Allmendinger teaches the position of the extension and location of attachment of the extension may be modified/varied and further as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 6
Vetuskey as modified Allmendinger teaches:
The chassis of claim 5, wherein the rear axle extension has a rear axle extension first distal end that extends past the back and above the body and terminates in a platform (Allmendinger: extension 100 has a platform portion 112 and is movable to be above parts of the body).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exact position or location of the extension to have been above the body as Allmendinger teaches the position may already by varied and as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 7
Vetuskey as modified by Allmendinger teaches:
The chassis of claim 5, wherein the rear axle extension comprises multiple locations aft of the second distal end configured to received the second axle (Allmendinger: arm 132 movable to different locations on the extension to provide an adjustable range/position of the extension member, Fig. 1, 14-15) aft of the rear end of the body (Fig. 1)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetuskey as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Miles US Pat. No. 5,338,247.
In Reference to Claim 8
Vetuskey teaches:
The chassis of claim 1, wherein a first spring end is coupled to the bottom of the body towards the front and a second spring end opposite to the first spring end is coupled to a top side of the first distal end and wherein the spring extends along a center line of the body (Vetuskey: springs 36/37 are positioned between the bottom of the body 10 and the top of the arm assembly at the front end and springs 39/41 are positioned between the bottom of the body 10 and the top of the arm assembly 22 wherein a line may be drawn through the body and the springs to form a shared longitudinal axis or “center line”).
Further, Miles teaches:
A similar toy vehicle chassis, wherein a first spring end is coupled to the bottom of the body towards the front and a second spring end opposite to the first spring end is coupled to a topside of the first distal end and wherein the spring extends along a center line of the body (Miles: biasing spring in strut 68/102 is coupled at one end to the body at 70/104 and coupled at a second end to a distal end of the articulated arm 60 along a centerline of the body 18, Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Vetuskey to have included an additional centerline spring and/or repositioned the spring biasing means of the first articulating arm to have been positioned between bottom of the body and a top of the distal end of the first articulating arm along a centerline of the body as this is a known and commonly used biasing means to provide the suspension/biasing force on the wheel assembly in the art, and the exact positioning of the biasing means between the body and the arm assembly would be an obvious choice for one having ordinary skill in the art and different locations and coupling points and spring types are known and biasing means for pivotal/articulated arms of toy vehicles in the art and the claimed arrangement is known and taught by Miles (Col. 4 lines 4-36). Further, it has been held that duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included a centerline spring in order to allow the suspension to have more balanced force management during use and as Miles teaches that centerline springs are known and commonly used as biased suspension means in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetuskey et al. US Pub. No. 2021/80101085 in view of Allmendinger US Pat. No. 7,578,721.
In Reference to Claim 10
Vetuskey teaches:
A chassis for a toy vehicle (toy vehicle chassis 10, Fig. 1-23) comprising:
a body with a front, back, top and bottom (chassis body 10/25 has a front end, back end, top side, and bottom side);
a pivot axis located within the body (a pivotal axis is located within case 25 of the body);
a first articulating arm with a first proximal end pivotally coupled to the body at the pivot axis and extending towards the front of the body to a first distal end configured to receive a first axle (first articulating arm 18 extends from the pivotal axis at proximal end 20 within the case 25 to a distal end 17 that receives the front wheel axle 11 therein near the front end of the chassis body);
a compression spring coupled between the bottom of the body and a top of the first articulating arm at the first distal end and configured to bias the first distal end away from the body (first articulating arm 18 has two compression springs 35/37 extending between the bottom side of the body 10 and the top of the articulating arm assembly to bias the front wheel assembly and arm distal end away from the bottom of the body, ex. Fig. 2);
a second articulating arm coupled to the body at a second proximal end with a ball and socket joint and extending towards the back of the body to a second distal end configured to receive a second axle (second articulating arm 22 extends from a pivot in case 25 at the bottom of the body having a ball and socket joint (same as 20 of arm 18, [0037]) at a proximal end and receives axle 14 within a distal end near the rear end of the body).
Vetuskey fails to teach:
A detachable rear axle extension coupled to the second distal end of the second articulating arm at a rear axle extension first proximal end wherein the rear axle extension comprises at least one location aft of the second distal end configured to receive the second axle.
Further, Allmendinger teaches:
A similar toy vehicle having a detachable (via clip 118) rear end extension member (100), coupled to the body at one end and having an axle for supporting wheels therein (axle 144 for wheels 136) at adjustable positions (arm 132 movable to different locations on the extension to provide an adjustable range/position of the extension member, Fig. 1, 14-15) aft of the rear end of the body (Fig. 1), and may be added to four wheel vehicles as well as two wheel vehicles as desired (Col. 5 lines 11-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have further a rear extension member one the second articulating arm in order to provide a rear engagement portion of the toy that can modify the range of movement of the wheels and/or chassis and prevent crashing or roll over during use as is known and common in the art as taught by Allmendinger (Col. 1 lines 11-33, Col. 3 lines 8-19, Col. 4 lines 36-65, Col. 5 lines 11-41). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exact position or location of the extension to have been coupled to the distal end of the articulating arm as Allmendinger teaches the position of the extension and location of attachment of the extension may be modified/varied and further as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claims 11-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetuskey and Allmendinger as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Tilbor et al. US Pat. No. 6,793,555.
In Reference to Claim 11
Vetuskey as modified by Allmendinger teaches:
The chassis of claim 10, wherein the first proximal end forks into two portions that each couple to the pivot axis (Vetuskey: first arm 18 connects to the axle 11 at end 17, and further includes support arm portions 50/51 which have portions 54/55 that further support the axle 11 therein, these additional supports 54/55 may be considered distinct, spaced, forked ends of the first wheel suspension assembly of the first arm 18, Fig. 1-4).
Further, Tilbor teaches:
A chassis for a toy vehicle (toy vehicle 10 having a main body/chassis 11, Fig. 1-9) comprising:
a body with a front, back top and bottom (body/chassis 11 has a top (side opposite the wheels 12), bottom (side facing the wheels 12), front (side in front of front wheels 12a/c), and back (side behind rear wheels 12b/d, Fig. 1-9);
a pivot axis located within the body (front pivot axis 23 and rear pivot axis 50, each positioned within the body 11, Fig. 1-9);
a first articulating arm with a first proximal end pivotally coupled to the body at the pivot axis and extending towards the front of the body to a first distal end configured to receive a first axle (first pivotal articulating arm assembly 24 extends towards the front of the body from pivot axis 23 receiving an axle of the front wheels 12a/c in a distal end thereof, Fig. 1-9);
a spring coupled between the body and the first articulating arm and configured to bias the first distal end away from the body (suspension spring 60 is positioned near the axis 23 between the body and the first arm assembly 24 to bias the arm away from the body/chassis 11, Col. 5 lines 16-30); and
a second articulating arm coupled to the body at a second proximal end with a pivotal joint and extending towards the back of the body to a second distal end configured to receive a second axle (second rear swing arm assembly 30 extends from the body at a first pivot joint at axis 50 towards a back of the body/chassis to a distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein, Fig. 1-9),
wherein the first proximal end forks into two portions that each couple to the pivot axis (front swing arm 24 has a pair of forks/arms 22a-d that respectively couple to the front axis near the front wheels 12a/c, Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have formed the first proximal end of the first articulating arm as a “fork” or being generally Y or triangular in shape with two portions that each couple to the front axis extending from a central pivot point as these are commonly known and used shapes of articulating/suspension arms in the art as taught by Tilbor and the shape of these portions does not materially change the function or purpose of the articulating arms and therefore one having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to change the shapes of the arms as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the particular shape does not provide unique or different function of the articulating arms and further, this type of arrangement/shape of articulated arms is known and commonly used as taught by Tilbor and other similar prior art.
In Reference to Claim 12
Vetuskey as modified by Allmendinger teaches:
The chassis of claim 10, wherein the second articulating arm has a shape with a tip at the second proximal end and a base at the second distal end (Vetuskey: the second arm 22 extends from a ball and socket pivot point at the proximal end and connects to the second axle 14 at the distal end 21, and further includes support arm portions 52/53 which have portions 56/57 that further support the axle 13 therein, these additional supports 56/57 may be considered distinct, spaced, forked ends of the second wheel suspension assembly of the second arm 22, Fig. 1-4).
Further, Tilbor teaches:
A chassis for a toy vehicle (toy vehicle 10 having a main body/chassis 11, Fig. 1-9) comprising:
a body with a front, back top and bottom (body/chassis 11 has a top (side opposite the wheels 12), bottom (side facing the wheels 12), front (side in front of front wheels 12a/c), and back (side behind rear wheels 12b/d, Fig. 1-9);
a pivot axis located within the body (front pivot axis 23 and rear pivot axis 50, each positioned within the body 11, Fig. 1-9);
a first articulating arm with a first proximal end pivotally coupled to the body at the pivot axis and extending towards the front of the body to a first distal end configured to receive a first axle (first pivotal articulating arm assembly 24 extends towards the front of the body from pivot axis 23 receiving an axle of the front wheels 12a/c in a distal end thereof, Fig. 1-9);
a spring coupled between the body and the first articulating arm and configured to bias the first distal end away from the body (suspension spring 60 is positioned near the axis 23 between the body and the first arm assembly 24 to bias the arm away from the body/chassis 11, Col. 5 lines 16-30); and
a second articulating arm coupled to the body at a second proximal end with a pivotal joint and extending towards the back of the body to a second distal end configured to receive a second axle (second rear swing arm assembly 30 extends from the body at a first pivot joint at axis 50 towards a back of the body/chassis to a distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein, Fig. 1-9),
wherein the second articulating arm has the shape of an isosceles triangle with a tip at the second proximal end and a base at the second distal end (Tilbor: second rear swing arm assembly 30 extends from the body at a first pivot joint at axis 50 from a pointed/thin end towards a back of the body/chassis in an even triangular shape to a wide base distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein, Fig. 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have formed the distal end of an articulating arm as a “fork” or being generally Y or triangular in shape with two wide portions that each couple to the axle extending from a central pivot point tip as these are commonly known and used shapes of articulating/suspension arms in the art as taught by Tilbor and the shape of these portions does not materially change the function or purpose of the articulating arms and therefore one having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to change the shapes of the arms as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the particular shape does not provide unique or different function of the articulating arms and further, this type of arrangement/shape of articulated arms is known and commonly used as taught by Tilbor and other similar prior art.
In Reference to Claim 13
Vetuskey as modified by Allmendinger and Tilbor teaches:
The chassis of claim 12, wherein the base of the isosceles triangle is configured to receive the second axle parallel to the base (Vetuskey: the rear axle 14 is held parallel to the back end of the base 10 by forked supports 21/56/57 and Tilbor shows the wide base distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein parallel to the base rear end, Fig. 1-9).
In Reference to Claim 15
Vetuskey as modified by Allmendinger and Tilbor teaches:
The chassis of claim 13, wherein the rear axle extension has a rear axle extension first distal end that extends past the back and above the body and terminates in a platform (Allmendinger: extension 100 has a platform portion 112 and is movable to be above parts of the body).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exact position or location of the extension to have been above the body as Allmendinger teaches the position may already by varied and as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 16
Vetuskey as modified by Allmendinger and Tilbor teaches:
The chassis of claim 12, wherein the rear axle extension comprises multiple locations aft of the second distal end configured to receive the second axle (Allmendinger: arm 132 movable to different locations on the extension to provide an adjustable range/position of the extension member, Fig. 1, 14-15) aft of the rear end of the body (Fig. 1))
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetuskey as modified by Allmendinger as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Miles US Pat. No. 5,338,247.
In Reference to Claim 17
Vetuskey as modified by Allmendinger teaches:
The chassis of claim 10, wherein a first spring end is coupled to the bottom of the body towards the front and a second spring end opposite to the first spring end is coupled to a top side of the first distal end and wherein the spring extends along a center line of the body (Vetuskey: springs 36/37 are positioned between the bottom of the body 10 and the top of the arm assembly at the front end and springs 39/41 are positioned between the bottom of the body 10 and the top of the arm assembly 22 wherein a line may be drawn through the body and the springs to form a shared longitudinal axis or “center line”).
Further, Miles teaches:
A similar toy vehicle chassis, wherein a first spring end is coupled to the bottom of the body towards the front and a second spring end opposite to the first spring end is coupled to a topside of the first distal end and wherein the spring extends along a center line of the body (Miles: biasing spring in strut 68/102 is coupled at one end to the body at 70/104 and coupled at a second end to a distal end of the articulated arm 60 along a centerline of the body 18, Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Vetuskey to have included an additional centerline spring and/or repositioned the spring biasing means of the first articulating arm to have been positioned between bottom of the body and a top of the distal end of the first articulating arm along a centerline of the body as this is a known and commonly used biasing means to provide the suspension/biasing force on the wheel assembly in the art, and the exact positioning of the biasing means between the body and the arm assembly would be an obvious choice for one having ordinary skill in the art and different locations and coupling points and spring types are known and biasing means for pivotal/articulated arms of toy vehicles in the art and the claimed arrangement is known and taught by Miles (Col. 4 lines 4-36). Further, it has been held that duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included a centerline spring in order to allow the suspension to have more balanced force management during use and as Miles teaches that centerline springs are known and commonly used as biased suspension means in the art.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetuskey or Vetuskey and Allmendinger as applied to claim 1/10 above, and further in view of Arriola et al. US Pub. No. 2009/0075557.
In Reference to Claims 9 and 18
Vetuskey or Vetuskey/Allmendinger teaches:
The chassis of claim 1/10 as rejected above.
Vetuskey fails to teach:
A light coupled to the top of the body and in electrical communication with a switch located on the bottom of the body.
Further, Arriola teaches:
A similar toy vehicle having main body having a top, bottom, front, and back, the body including a light coupled to the top of the body and in electrical communication with a switch located on the bottom of the body (the body 101 may include numerous lights 150, including a spoiler light 160 on spoiler 150 which is coupled to the top of the body, [0022], Fig. 1, headlights 188, [0026], etc., operable in communication with a switch 210 on the bottom of the body, Fig. 2, [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have further included a light on the body with an operable switch in order to make the toy more interactive, fun, and interesting to play with as adding lights to toy vehicles is widely known and common in the art to more the toy more interesting and fun for the user to play with and as taught by Arriola ([0002]-[0003], [0013]-[0015]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetuskey et al. US Pub. No. 2021/80101085 in view of Tilbor et al. US Pat. No. 6,793,555 and Allmendinger US Pat. No. 7,578,721.
In Reference to Claim 19
Vetuskey teaches:
A chassis for a toy vehicle (toy vehicle chassis 10, Fig. 1-23) comprising:
a body with a front, back, top and bottom (chassis body 10/25 has a front end, back end, top side, and bottom side);
a pivot axis located within the body (a pivotal axis is located within case 25 of the body);
a first articulating arm with a first proximal end pivotally coupled to the body at the pivot axis and extending towards the front of the body to a first distal end configured to receive a first axle (first articulating arm 18 extends from the pivotal axis at proximal end 20 within the case 25 to a distal end 17 that receives the front wheel axle 11 therein near the front end of the chassis body);
a compression spring coupled between the bottom of the body and a top side of the first articulating arm at the first distal end and configured to bias the first distal end away from the body (first articulating arm 18 has two compression springs 35/37 extending between the bottom side of the body 10 and the top of the articulating arm assembly to bias the front wheel assembly and arm distal end away from the bottom of the body, ex. Fig. 2);
a second articulating arm in a shape and coupled to the body at a second proximal end at a tip with a ball and socket joint and extending towards the back of the body to a second distal end at a base and configured to receive a second axle (second arm 22 extends from a ball and socket pivot point in case 25 at the bottom of the body at the proximal end (in the same manner as 20 of arm 18, [0037]) and connects to the second axle 14 at the distal end 21, and further includes support arm portions 52/53 which have portions 56/57 that further support the axle 13 therein, these additional supports 56/57 may be considered distinct, spaced, forked base ends of the second wheel suspension assembly of the second arm 22, Fig. 1-4)).
Vetuskey fails to teach:
The second articulating arm being an isosceles triangular shape and a detachable rear axle extension coupled to the second distal end of the second articulating arm at a rear axle extension first proximal end wherein the rear axle extension comprises at least one location aft of the second distal end configured to receive the second axle.
Further, Tilbor teaches:
A chassis for a toy vehicle (toy vehicle 10 having a main body/chassis 11, Fig. 1-9) comprising:
a body with a front, back top and bottom (body/chassis 11 has a top (side opposite the wheels 12), bottom (side facing the wheels 12), front (side in front of front wheels 12a/c), and back (side behind rear wheels 12b/d, Fig. 1-9);
a pivot axis located within the body (front pivot axis 23 and rear pivot axis 50, each positioned within the body 11, Fig. 1-9);
a first articulating arm with a first proximal end pivotally coupled to the body at the pivot axis and extending towards the front of the body to a first distal end configured to receive a first axle (first pivotal articulating arm assembly 24 extends towards the front of the body from pivot axis 23 receiving an axle of the front wheels 12a/c in a distal end thereof, Fig. 1-9);
a spring coupled between the body and the first articulating arm and configured to bias the first distal end away from the body (suspension spring 60 is positioned near the axis 23 between the body and the first arm assembly 24 to bias the arm away from the body/chassis 11, Col. 5 lines 16-30); and
a second articulating arm coupled to the body at a second proximal end with a pivotal joint and extending towards the back of the body to a second distal end configured to receive a second axle (second rear swing arm assembly 30 extends from the body at a first pivot joint at axis 50 towards a back of the body/chassis to a distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein, Fig. 1-9),
wherein the second articulating arm has the shape of an isosceles triangle with a tip at the second proximal end and a base at the second distal end (Tilbor: second rear swing arm assembly 30 extends from the body at a first pivot joint at axis 50 from a pointed/thin end towards a back of the body/chassis in an even triangular shape to a wide base distal second end that holds axle 13 of rear wheels 12b/d therein, Fig. 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have formed the distal end of an articulating arm as a “fork” or being generally Y or triangular in shape with two wide portions that each couple to the axle extending from a central pivot point tip as these are commonly known and used shapes of articulating/suspension arms in the art as taught by Tilbor and the shape of these portions does not materially change the function or purpose of the articulating arms and therefore one having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to change the shapes of the arms as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the particular shape does not provide unique or different function of the articulating arms and further, this type of arrangement/shape of articulated arms is known and commonly used as taught by Tilbor and other similar prior art.
Further, Allmendinger teaches:
A similar toy vehicle having a detachable (via clip 118) rear end extension member (100), coupled to the body at one end and having an axle for supporting wheels therein (axle 144 for wheels 136) at adjustable positions (arm 132 movable to different locations on the extension to provide an adjustable range/position of the extension member, Fig. 1, 14-15) aft of the rear end of the body (Fig. 1), and may be added to four wheel vehicles as well as two wheel vehicles as desired (Col. 5 lines 11-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Vetuskey to have further a rear extension member one the second articulating arm in order to provide a rear engagement portion of the toy that can modify the range of movement of the wheels and/or chassis and prevent crashing or roll over during use as is known and common in the art as taught by Allmendinger (Col. 1 lines 11-33, Col. 3 lines 8-19, Col. 4 lines 36-65, Col. 5 lines 11-41). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exact position or location of the extension to have been coupled to the distal end of the articulating arm as Allmendinger teaches the position of the extension and location of attachment of the extension may be modified/varied and further as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 20
Vetuskey as modified by Tilbor and Allmendinger teaches:
The chassis of claim 19, wherein the rear axle extension has a rear axle extension first distal end that extends past the back and above the body and terminates in a platform (Allmendinger: extension 100 has a platform portion 112 and is movable to be above parts of the body).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exact position or location of the extension to have been above the body as Allmendinger teaches the position may already by varied and as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 8/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 (Tilbor/Miles) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the objections and rejections have generally been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vetuskey.
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, Chu (10,413,838), Hippely (9,375,648), Houlahan (2013/0309938), Lee (7,033,241), Agostini (6,764,376), Hollis (6,749,482), Thrasher (6,565,412), Rauch (6,383,054), and D’Andrade (4,696,655) teach similar toy vehicles and chassis.
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
