DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informalities: Lines 10-11 should read “wherein a center mass of the battery pack is located rearwardly”
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.
Claims 7-9 and 14-16 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 Claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the rear tunnel”. Regarding Claim 14-16, their scope is unclear, in view of their dependence being unclear, so a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. See related discussion under 35 USC 112d, below.
Claims 8-9 are indefinite as depending from a rejected parent claim, see above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 14-16 depend from claim 13 which has been cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 10-12,and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (WO 2018/167859).
In regards to claim 1: Suzuki teaches an electric vehicle (Shown generally in Figure 1), comprising:
a chassis comprising a rear portion (see annotated Figure 1) and a front portion (see annotated Figure 1), the front portion comprising a mid-bay (See annotated Figure 1) and a front brace structure (59);
a suspension system comprising a front suspension (51) coupled to the front portion of the chassis (See Figure 1) and a rear suspension (9, 15, 13A, and 33) coupled to the rear portion of the chassis (see Figure 1) and partially on the front portion of the chassis (15 and 13A);
a battery pack (29) mounted at least partially on top of the rear portion of the chassis (mounted on top of 13 under seat 21); and
an electric motor (23), powered by the battery pack, mounted within the mid-bay and positioned underneath the battery pack and between the rear portion of the chassis and a front end of the vehicle (See Figure 1 where motor 23 is in the mid-bay section of the front of the chassis, it is underneath the battery in a vertical direction), wherein a center of mass of the battery pack is located rearwardly of a drive shaft of the electric motor (See Figure 1 where battery is rearward and above the motor).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2: The electric vehicle of claim 1 is taught by Suzuki. Suzuki further teaches a transmission mounted to the rear portion of the chassis and coupled to the electric motor (Paragraph 18 of the description, under “Manipulation of Snow Vehicles”: “As a result, each electric motor 23 is driven, the rotational power of each electric motor 23 is transmitted to the endless track zone 37 via a power transmission vehicle (not shown), and the endless track zone 37 is driven, whereby the snow vehicle 1 Runs.”). Examiner notes that a transmission between motor 23 and track system 37 would necessarily be in the rear portion of the chassis shown in annotated Figure 1 above).
In regards to claim 10: The electric vehicle of claim 1 is taught by Suzuki. Suzuki further teaches a straddle-seat (21) coupled to the battery pack (See Figure 1 where straddle seat 21 sits on battery 29).
In regards to claim 11: The electric vehicle of claim 1 is taught by Suzuki. Suzuki further teaches wherein the electric vehicle is a snowmobile (See Figure 1 and paragraph 1 under description).
In regards to claim 12: Suzuki teaches an electric snowmobile (Shown generally in Figure 1), comprising:
a chassis comprising a rear tunnel (see annotated Figure 1 and 13) and a mid-bay (See annotated Figure 1) and a front brace structure (59), the mid-bay being located between the rear tunnel and the front brace structure (see annotated Figure 1);
a battery pack (29) mounted to the rear tunnel (mounted on top of 13 under seat 21) and at least partially over the mid-bay (See Figure 1 where battery pack 29 is higher than or over the mid-bay in a vertical direction); and
an electric motor (23), powered by the battery pack, mounted underneath the battery pack within the mid-bay and in front of the rear tunnel, (See Figure 1 where motor 23 is in the mid-bay section of the front of the chassis, it is underneath the battery in a vertical direction), wherein a center of mass of the battery pack is located rearwardly of a drive shaft of the electric motor (See Figure 1 where battery is rearward and above the motor).
In regards to claim 17: The electric vehicle of claim 12 is taught by Suzuki. Suzuki further teaches a transmission mounted to the rear portion of the chassis and coupled to the electric motor (Paragraph 18 of the description, under “Manipulation of Snow Vehicles”: “As a result, each electric motor 23 is driven, the rotational power of each electric motor 23 is transmitted to the endless track zone 37 via a power transmission vehicle (not shown), and the endless track zone 37 is driven, whereby the snow vehicle 1 Runs.”). Examiner notes that a transmission between motor 23 and track system 37 would necessarily be in the rear portion of the chassis shown in annotated Figure 1 above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-6 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Coats (GB 2390837, previously provided by examiner).
In regards to claims 3 and 18: The electric vehicle/snowmobile of claims 2 and 17 respectively is taught by Suzuki. Suzuki is silent as to if the electric motor is positioned substantially horizontally relative to the transmission. However, Coats teaches a battery powered snow mobile where the motor (22) is positioned substantially horizontal relative to the transmission (24, see Figure 1) to provide a more compact arrangement that optimizes weight distribution (Last paragraph of description before claims). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transmission and motor of Suzuki be horizontal to each other as in Coats so as to provide a compact arrangement with optimized weight distribution as in Coats thereby increasing the comfort and safety of the vehicle for a user.
In regards to claims 4 and 19: The electric vehicle/snowmobile of claims 2 and 17 respectively is taught by Suzuki. Suzuki is silent as to what structure is used to couple the transmission to the electric motor. However, Coats teaches a drive linkage 26 coupling a motor to a transmission of a snow mobile to provide a more compact arrangement that optimizes weight distribution (Last paragraph of description before claims). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transmission and motor of Suzuki be connected via a drive chain as in Coats so as to provide a compact arrangement with optimized weight distribution as in Coats thereby increasing the comfort and safety of the vehicle for a user.
In regards to claims 5 and 20: The electric vehicle/snowmobile of claims 4 and 19 respectively is taught by Suzuki in view of Coats. The combination further teaches wherein an angle of a portion of the drive linkage extending between the electric motor and the transmission with respect to a substantially horizontal longitudinal axis of the electric vehicle is between 11.3 degrees and -11.3 degrees (See Figure 1 of Coats wherein the angle of the drive linkage is approximately 0 degrees, well within the range between 11.3 and -11.3 degrees.
In regards to claim 6: The electric vehicle of claim 4 is taught by Suzuki in view of Coats. The combination further teaches wherein the drive linkage comprises a drive chain (26 of Coats).
Claims 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Anderson (US 2016/0167722 A1).
In regards to claim 7: The electric vehicle of claim 1 is taught by Suzuki. Suzuki appears to show a transmission plate where the motor is connected however the description is silent and the figure shows minimal structure of a transmission plate coupled to the electric motor; and a first end of the transmission plate is connected to the rear tunnel and a second end of the transmission plate is connected to the front brace structure. However, Anderson teaches a snowmobile with a transmission plate (21) coupled to a motor (via jackshaft 22); and a first end of the transmission plate is connected to a front brace structure of the snowmobile (Shown not labeled in Figure 13 where 21 connects to the front of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally have a transmission plate as in Anderson with the snowmobile of Suzuki to provide for rider protection from snow and the rotating components of the vehicle (Paragraph 0061 of Anderson) thereby creating a safer and more comfortable vehicle for the user.
In regards to claims 8 and 15: The electric vehicle/snowmobile of claims 7 and 14 respectively are taught by Suzuki in view of Anderson. The combination further teaches wherein the first and second end of the transmission plate are spaced apart along a substantially horizontal longitudinal axis of the electric vehicle (See annotated Figure 13 of Anderson ).
PNG
media_image2.png
373
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 9 and 16: The electric vehicle/snowmobile of claims 7 and 14 respectively are taught by Suzuki in view of Anderson. The combination further teaches wherein the transmission plate comprises a slot (Figures 3 and 5 upper of the two slots containing bearings 24) extending downwards (Examiner notes that at least a portion of the slot containing bearing 24 extends from top to bottom of the slot in a vertical direction) from a top side of the transmission plate (see upper of the two slots containing bearings 24 on upper side of transmission plate 21 in Figures 3 and 5), and drive shaft (22, Examiner notes that the transmission plate of Anderson is relied upon but that Anderson does not teach an electric motor. However, the transmission plate of Anderson is capable of receiving a drive shaft as shown at 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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. Specifically, the Achard reference is not relied upon in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 at (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.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611