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 .
Claims 10-12, 26, and 46-81 have been canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 41-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 8, 2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampson ‘665 (USPN 8,191,665) in view of Beavis (PGPub 2012/0205902) and CA2012024 to Jacques.
Regarding claim 1, Sampson ‘665 teaches a tunnel 22 configured to cover at least a portion of an endless track 12 of a snow vehicle 10 (figure 1), the tunnel comprising: a top plate (center panel and top plates of heat exchangers 82, 86; See Figure 10) extending longitudinally (see Figure 9). The top plate has a first flange 104 extending from a first side edge and a second flange 102 (as seen in Figure 10) extending from a second side edge; a first sidewall 52 coupled to the first flange 104 extending generally parallel with the first flange; and a second sidewall 56 coupled to the second flange extending generally parallel with the second flange.
Sampson ‘665 lacks a teaching of forming the tunnel top plate, first sidewall and second sidewall each with a sheet of molded composite and forming a wall with portions of different thickness of composite material where the portions include a reinforcing area.
Beavis teaches a snowmobile chassis 100 with tunnel 102 made from sheets (upper panel 126, left side panel 128, and right side panel 130; see para [0023]) and various parts of the tunnel can be made from plastics or composites (para [0024], last 3 lines). Beavis does not specifically teach molding the plastic or composite material, however, that is the conventional way of forming composite and plastic articles.
Jacques teaches forming a snowmobile chassis, including the tunnel, from fiber reinforced composite material (Jacques, page 2, lines 22-27). It teaches that the thickness of chassis walls is approximately 1/8 of an inch except that the thickness is increased by adding extra layers in highly stressed locations, such as at the steel cross member 17 (page 5, lines 11-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mold the sheets that make up the Sampson ‘665 tunnel from composite materials, as taught by Beavis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong and light weight tunnel. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the thickness of the walls at high stress areas, as taught by Jacques, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide reinforcement at high stress areas where the composite is subjected to high loads, including the area where the tunnel attached to the front frame.
Regarding claim 2, the first flange 104 comprises a first inner surface (seen in Figures 10-12) and the first sidewall 52 comprises a first outer surface coupled to the first inner surface (see Figures 10 and 11), and wherein the second flange comprises a second inner surface and the second sidewall comprises a second outer surface coupled to the second inner surface (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 3, the first flange is coupled to the first sidewall and the second flange is coupled to the second sidewall with fasteners (rivets, screws, bolts; see col. 5, lines 52-54).
Regarding claim 4, the first flange is coupled to the first sidewall and the second flange is coupled to the second sidewall with adhesive and fasteners (“adhesive, rivets, machine screws, bolt, any combination thereof; col. 5, lines 53-54).
Regarding claim 82, it is old and well known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a composite incorporating a tape in order to facilitate layup of the composite material.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima (USPN 6,926,107) in view of Beavis (PGPub 2012/0205902) and CA2012024 to Jacques.
Regarding claim 1, Nishijima teaches a tunnel 134 configured to cover at least a portion of an endless track 70 of a snow vehicle 20 (figure 2), the tunnel comprising: a top plate 136 (Figure 11) extending longitudinally. The top plate has a first flange 152 extending from a first side edge 154 and a second flange 152 extending from a second side edge 154 (as seen in Figure 11); a first sidewall 142 coupled to the first flange extending generally parallel with the first flange; and a second sidewall 142 coupled to the second flange extending generally parallel with the second flange.
Nishijima lacks a teaching of forming the tunnel top plate, first sidewall and second sidewall each with a sheet of molded composite and forming a wall with portions of different thickness of composite material where one portion includes a reinforcing area.
Beavis teaches a snowmobile chassis 100 with tunnel 102 made from sheets (upper panel 126, left side panel 128, and right side panel 130; see para [0023]) and various parts of the tunnel can be make from plastics or composites (para [0024], last 3 lines).
Jacques teaches forming a snowmobile chassis, including the tunnel, from fiber reinforced composite material (Jacques, page 2, lines 22-27). It teaches that the thickness of chassis walls is approximately 1/8 of an inch except that the thickness is increased by adding extra layers in highly stressed locations, such as at the steel cross member 17 (page 5, lines 11-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mold the sheets that make up the Nishijima tunnel from composite materials, as taught by Beavis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong and light weight tunnel. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the thickness of the walls at high stress areas, as taught by Jacques, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide reinforcement at high stress areas where the composite is subjected to high loads, including the area where the tunnel attached to the front frame.
Regarding claim 2, the first flange 142 comprises a first inner surface (seen in Figures 10-11) and the first sidewall 142 comprises a first outer surface coupled to the first inner surface (see Figure 10), and wherein the second flange comprises a second inner surface and the second sidewall comprises a second outer surface coupled to the second inner surface (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 3, the first flange is coupled to the first sidewall and the second flange is coupled to the second sidewall with fasteners (rivets, screws, bolts; see col. 7, lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 29, Nishijima teaches the first sidewall has a first front portion having a first thickness and a rear portion having a second thickness, said first thickness greater than the second thickness (Nishijima, in col. 7, lines 16-26, teaches side panels that have increased thickness at their front end in order to provide greater strength near the engine), but it fails to teach a thicker portion of the top plate. However, the teaching to provide thicker side walls near the engine applies equally to the top wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to thicken the top wall toward its front end in order to provide greater strength near the engine.
Claim(s) 1-3, 17-25 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampson ‘707 (PGPub 2014/0251707) in view of Beavis (PGPub 2012/0205902) and CA2012024 to Jacques.
Regarding claim 1, Sampson ‘707 teaches a tunnel 39 configured to cover at least a portion of an endless track 16 of a snow vehicle 10 (figure 1A), the tunnel comprising: a top plate 38 extending longitudinally (see Figure 36). The top plate has a first flange (Figure 38) extending from a first side edge and a second flange (as seen in Figure 37) extending from a second side edge; a first sidewall 310 coupled to the first flange (see Figure 38) extending generally parallel with the first flange; and a second sidewall 310 coupled to the second flange extending generally parallel with the second flange.
Sampson ‘707 lacks a teaching of forming the tunnel top plate, first sidewall and second sidewall each with a sheet of molded composite and forming a wall with portions of different thickness where the portion includes a reinforcing area.
Beavis teaches a snowmobile chassis 100 with tunnel 102 made from sheets (upper panel 126, left side panel 128, and right side panel 130; see para [0023]) and various parts of the tunnel can be make from plastics or composites (para [0024], last 3 lines).
Jacques teaches forming a snowmobile chassis, including the tunnel, from fiber reinforced composite material (Jacques, page 2, lines 22-27). It teaches that the thickness of chassis walls is approximately 1/8 of an inch except that the thickness is increased by adding extra layers in highly stressed locations, such as at the steel cross member 17 (page 5, lines 11-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mold the sheets that make up the Sampson ‘707 tunnel from composite materials, as taught by Beavis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong and light weight tunnel. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the thickness of the walls at high stress areas, as taught by Jacques, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide reinforcement at high stress areas where the composite is subjected to high loads, including the area where the tunnel attached to the front frame.
Regarding claim 2, the first flange comprises a first inner surface (seen in Figures 37 and 38) and the first sidewall 310 comprises a first outer surface coupled to the first inner surface, and wherein the second flange comprises a second inner surface and the second sidewall comprises a second outer surface coupled to the second inner surface (Figure 38).
Regarding claim 3, the first flange is coupled to the first sidewall and the second flange is coupled to the second sidewall with fasteners (Figure 38).
Regarding claim 17, Sampson ‘707 teaches a lower mount (supporting roller 372, as seen in Figure 34A) extending downward from the first sidewall for mounting to a first torque arm 378, said lower mount integrally formed in the first sidewall.
Regarding claim 18, the lower mount is further coupled to a first running board (seen in Figure 34A).
Regarding claim 19, the first running board is coupled to a lower flange of the first sidewall, said lower flange comprising a laterally extending surface coupled to the first running board (see Figure 37, 43; para [0157]).
Regarding claim 20, a first running board coupled to a first lower flange of the first sidewall and a second running board coupled to a second lower flange of the second sidewall (see Figure 43).
Regarding claim 21, a first running board 390 is coupled to a first lower flange of the first sidewall and a second running board coupled to a second lower flange with vertically extending fastener (see Figure 43).
Regarding claim 22, Sampson ‘707 teaches bumper mounts attached to sides of the tunnel along upper edges of the sides such that the bumper 348 are mounted to the flanges extending downwardly from the top plate (see Figures 36 and 37)
Regarding claim 23, Sampson ‘70’ teaches that the bumper 348 is coupled above a flap 346 (see Figure 36).
Regarding claim 24, it is not clear if the flap 346 is disposed in a recess of the top plate of the tunnel, although, in Figure 36 it appears to be. Absent an explicit teaching to do so, it would have been an obvious design selection to recess the flap into the top plate in order to smooth the rear profile of the snowmobile and enhance its appearance.
Regarding claim 25, Sampson ‘707 teaches a lateral wall (see Figure 34A) disposed laterally across the top plate at a distal end thereof, said lateral wall adjacent the top plate.
Regarding claim 87, Sampson teaches a torque arm mount 476 (Figure 34A) in a torque arm mounting area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a thicker wall thickness at the torque arm mounting area, in view of Jacques, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide reinforcement at the torque arm connection that is a high stress area of the chassis.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampson ‘665, Beavis, and Jacques as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Sampson ‘707 (PGPub 2014/0251707).
Regarding claim 5, the combination lacks the first flange and the first sidewall forming a first channel therebetween and the second flange and the second sidewall forming a second channel therebetween and wherein adhesive is disposed in the first channel and the second channel.
Sampson ‘707 teaches various structures that are adhesively connected together. In Figure 46B, applicant shows adhesive cavities or channels 433 between two relatively fixed parts in order to accommodate a specified volume of adhesive for greater strength (para [0165], lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide adhesive channels between the side walls and flange of the combination snowmobile, in view of Sampson ‘707, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate a specified volume of adhesive for greater strength of the connection.
Regarding claim 6-8, Sampson ‘707 shows, in Figures 46A and 46B that the cavity is integrally formed by spacers formed in an offset portion of side wall of element 398 (see Figure 46A).
Regarding claim 9, the channel appears in Figures 46A and 46B of Sampson ‘707’ are illustrated to be uniform in depth longitudinally.
Claim(s) 13-16 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampson ‘707, Beavis, and Jacques as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Bergman (USPN 5,791,429).
Regarding claims 13-16 and 33, the combination is silent regarding bearing carriers integrally molded into the side walls.
Bergmann teaches several elements, including bearings, bushings and other suitable mountings, integrally molded into the sides of the tunnel (see col. 4, lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the sides of Sampson ‘707 by integrally molding in bearing elements, in view of Bergman, in order to seamlessly support the drive shaft and jackshaft of Sampson ‘707.
Regarding claim 33, Bergman shows, in Figure 6, a front portion of the first sidewall comprises a pocket 134 integrally molded therein.
Claim(s) 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampson ‘707, Beavis, and Jacques as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Vezina et al. (USPN 10,215,083).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, the combination lacks a vertical cooler assembly extending from the first sidewall to the second sidewall with fasteners extending through the first sidewall and the vertical cooler.
Vezina teaches a snowmobile with a tunnel 18 having side portions 18a and vertical cooler assembly 1000 (Figures 4 and 7; col. 7, lines 50-60) extending from the first sidewall to the second sidewall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combination snowmobile with a vertical cooler at the front end of the tunnel, as taught by Vezina, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase engine efficiency. It is not clear that fasteners for attaching the cooler extend though sides of the tunnel, however, it would have been obvious to attach the cooler to the tunnel using fasteners through sides of the tunnel to ensure the secure attachment of the cooler.
Claims 83-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampson ‘707, Beavis, and Jacques as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of WO2018093520.
The combination lacks a teaching to overmold components of the tunnel.
WO 2018/093520 teaches overmolding structural components, such as enclosures, housings and panels, of snowmobiles. Sampson
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the tunnel of the combination by overmolding components of the tunnel, in view of WO’520, in order to provide a secure and seemless bond between the composite panels and meals components, such as bearing and mounts, that are connected to the panels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-32 and 34-38 are allowed.
Claims 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s1-9, 13-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights