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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 03, 2026, regarding the 103 rejections of amended independent claims 1, 19, and 20 (page 6) have been fully considered but are not persuasive, see the related 103 rejections based on VAISANEN and YATAGAI as well as alternate rejections based on VAISANEN, YATAGAI, and HAAVIKKO below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 103 rejections of claims 1, 19, and 20 (page 6, 2nd to last para.- page 7, para. 7) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, and have therefore been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 7, paras. 2-4) that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed invention because, in part, it does not teach the compact layout of the instant invention, the examiner disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the compact layout which constrains the electric motor and transmission sizes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145(VI). Although limitations have been added to the claims in the latest and previous amendments that the examiner understands to be intended to add these features (i.e. the bulkhead of the latest amendment), the examiner does not consider these features to necessarily require such a compact arrangement as argued. The examiner points to the disclosure of HAAVIKKO, referenced below, in which an electric motor and transmission mechanism are arranged in a sub-frame cavity forward of a tunnel and including a bulkhead, all arranged similar to the claimed invention.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 7, paras. 2-4) that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed invention because the claimed ratios are not recognized as result-effective variables, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the claimed ratios relate to the relative sizes between a rotor and/ or stator of an electric motor and one or more transmission sprockets. a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a rotor and/ or stator size is directly related to an electric motor’s size or power/ torque capability, and a sprocket size to be directly related to its power or torque capacity. Both of these, and their relative relationship to each other, are well known variables in the art of an electric snowmobile or any other sort of electric motor driven device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be highly motivated to try or consider a broad range of motor and transmission sizes in order to optimize performance when developing an electric snowmobile, and therefore such ratios, or at least the ratios resulting from an optimization effort of a skilled artisan, are understood by the examiner to be results-effective variables known in the art.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAISANEN (US20220411018A1) in view of YATAGAI (JP-2007182137-A) (note: bold underlined portions below correspond to the latest amendment, for Applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, VAISANEN teaches an electric snowmobile (Abstract), comprising:
a frame (Frame 16, Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis (Centerline 28, Fig. 4) between a front end (Froward End 12, Fig. 1) and a rear end (Rearward End 14, Fig. 1) of the frame (16) the frame (16) having a tunnel (Tunnel 18, Fig. 2A) and a sub-frame (Cradle 20, Figs. 2A & 2B) disposed forward of the tunnel (Para. [0074] and Fig. 2A teach that Cradle 20 is connected to the front of Tunnel 18), the sub-frame (20) having a bulkhead (“BLKHD”, Fig. 2B Annotated), the sub-frame (20) connected to the tunnel (18) via the bulkhead (Bulkhead BLKHD forming a least a part of the connection between Cradle 20 and Tunnel 18 as illustrated in Fig. 2B Annotated and Figs. 2A- 2C);
PNG
media_image1.png
703
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a drive track assembly (Drive Track 30, Fig. 1) having:
a drive track (30) for engaging a ground, the drive track (30) received within the tunnel (18) of the frame (Para. [0075]); and
a sprocket (Track Drive Sprocket 110, Fig. 5) rotationally engaged to the frame (16) and meshed with the drive track (30) (Para. [0085]);
an electric motor (Electric Motor 32, Fig. 2B) positioned forwardly of the tunnel (18) and the drive track (30) (as understood by Figs. 3 & 5), the drive track assembly (30) and the electric motor (32) disposed on respective opposite sides of the bulkhead (Drive Track 30 being disposed on a rearward side and Electric Motor 32 being disposed on a forward side of Bulkhead BLKHD as illustrated in Fig. 2B Annotated and Figs. 2A- 5); and
a transmission (Mechanical Drive 98, Fig. 5) mounted to the frame (16), the transmission (98) drivingly engaging the electric motor (32) to the drive track (30) (Para. [0084]), the transmission (16) having an input (Drive Sprocket 102, Fig. 5) drivingly engaged by the electric motor (32) and an output (Driven Sprocket 104, Fig. 5) drivingly engaging the sprocket (110), the transmission (16) having a speed ratio defined as a rotational speed of the input (102) to a rotational speed of the output (104) (Para. [0113]).
VAISANEN does not teach that the electric motor is mounted within a cavity of the sub-frame, or that the electric motor axially overlaps the sprocket.
YATAGAI teaches, in another electric snowmobile (Abstract), an electric motor (Electric Motor 32, Figs. 3 & 4) mounted within a cavity (a cavity being formed under Vehicle Body Cover 12 as illustrated in Figs. 3 & 4) of a sub-frame (a front frame being implied to support Vehicle Body Cover 12) and positioned forwardly of a tunnel (illustrated near Steps 11, Fig. 3) and a drive track (Crawler Mechanism 4, Figs. 3 & 4) (as illustrated in Figs. 3 & 4), the electric motor (32) axially overlapping a sprocket (Drive Wheel 5, Figs. 3 and 4) relative to a rotation axis of the sprocket (Electric Motor 32 and Drive Wheel 5 axially overlapping each other as illustrated in Figs. 3 & 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of VAISANEN and YATAGAI in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify VAISANEN’s electric snowmobile such that the electric motor is mounted within a cavity of the sub-frame and overlapping a sprocket as suggested by YATAGAI. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging the motor within the body of the snowmobile that would beneficially make a more compact assembly.
Furthermore, any one of, or any combination of the following considerations (A)-(D) below applies:
(A) A person with reasonable skill in the art might reasonably estimate that the diameter of a rotor of the electric motor (32) (a rotor being an inherent component of a typical electric motor that is well known in the art) and the diameter of the sprocket (110) of the electric snowmobile taught by VAISANEN form a rotor-to-sprocket ratio ranging from 0.65 to 1.30 based on the illustrated sizes of the electric motor (32) and the sprocket (110) in Fig. 5. However, VAISANEN does not teach a specific rotor-to-sprocket ratio.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations because the rotor-to-sprocket ratio is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that although the Applicant recites a criticality to the rotor-to-sprocket ratio (Para. [0096]- [0105] of the original Specification), the Applicant does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art or in what way the claimed limitation achieves the desired improvements. Therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of: a rotor-to-sprocket ratio ranging from 0.65 to 1.30 would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious. MPEP 2144.05.II.A & III.A.
(B) A person with reasonable skill in the art might reasonably estimate that the diameter of a rotor of the electric motor (32) and the diameters of the input (102) and output (104) of the transmission (98) of the electric snowmobile taught by VAISANEN form a rotor-to-transmission ratio ranging from 52 mm to 180 mm based on the illustrated sizes of the electric motor (32) and the input (102) and output (104) in Fig. 5. However, VAISANEN does not teach a specific rotor-to-transmission ratio.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor-to-transmission ratio according to the claimed limitations because the rotor-to-transmission ratio is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that although the Applicant recites a criticality to the rotor-to-transmission ratio (Para. [0096]- [0105] of the original Specification), the Applicant does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art or in what way the claimed limitation achieves the desired improvements. Therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of: a rotor-to-transmission ratio ranging from 52 mm to 180 mm would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious. MPEP 2144.05.II.A & III.A.
(C) A person with reasonable skill in the art might reasonably estimate that the length of a stator of the electric motor (32) (a stator being an inherent component of a typical electric motor that is well known in the art) and the diameter of the sprocket (110) of the electric snowmobile taught by VAISANEN form a stator-to-sprocket ratio ranging from 0.20 to 0.58 based on the illustrated sizes of the electric motor (32) and the sprocket (110) in Fig. 5. However, VAISANEN does not teach a specific stator-to-sprocket ratio.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the stator-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations because the stator-to-sprocket ratio is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that although the Applicant recites a criticality to the stator-to-sprocket ratio (Para. [0096]- [0105] of the original Specification), the Applicant does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art or in what way the claimed limitation achieves the desired improvements. Therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of: a stator-to-sprocket ratio ranging from 0.20 to 0.58 would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious. MPEP 2144.05.II.A & III.A.
(D) A person with reasonable skill in the art might reasonably estimate that the diameter of a rotor and length of a stator of the electric motor (32), and the diameter of the sprocket (110) of the electric snowmobile taught by VAISANEN form a rotor size-to-sprocket ratio ranging from 0.65 to 1.30 based on the illustrated sizes of the electric motor (32) and the sprocket (110) in Fig. 5. However, VAISANEN does not teach a specific rotor size-to-sprocket ratio.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations because the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that although the Applicant recites a criticality to the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio (Para. [0096]- [0105] of the original Specification), the Applicant does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art or in what way the claimed limitation achieves the desired improvements. Therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of: rotor size-to-sprocket ratio ranging from 25 mm to 105 mm would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious. MPEP 2144.05.II.A & III.A.
Regarding Claim 2, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.65 to 1.30 and the rotor-to-transmission ratio ranges from 52 mm to 180 mm (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 3, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.65 to 1.30 and the stator-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.20 to 0.58 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 4, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.65 to 1.30 and the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 25 mm to 105 mm (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 5, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-transmission ratio ranges from 52 mm to 180 mm and the stator-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.20 to 0.58 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 6, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-transmission ratio ranges from 52 mm to 180 mm and the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 25 mm to 105 mm (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 7, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the stator-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.20 to 0.58 and the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 25 mm to 105 mm (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 8, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.65 to 1.30.
VAISANEN, as modified above, does not teach that the rotor-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.70 to 1.23.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations for the same reasons stated in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above; further noting that although the instant claim is more specific than the preceding claim it is no less obvious as the Applicant again does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.70 to 1.23.
VAISANEN, as modified above, does not teach that the rotor-to-sprocket ratio is about 0.85.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations for the same reasons stated in the 103 rejections of claims 1 & 9 above; further noting that although the instant claim is more specific than the preceding claims it is no less obvious as the Applicant again does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 10, VAISANEN, as best understood in light of the 112b issue discussed above, and as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-transmission ratio ranges from 52 mm to 180 mm.
VAISANEN, as modified above, does not teach that the rotor-to-transmission ratio ranges from 56 mm to 170 mm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor-to-transmission ratio according to the claimed limitations for the same reasons stated in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above; further noting that although the instant claim is more specific than the preceding claim it is no less obvious as the Applicant again does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 11, VAISANEN, as best understood in light of the 112b issue discussed above, and as modified above, teaches that the rotor-to-transmission ratio ranges from 56 mm to 170 mm.
VAISANEN, as modified above, does not teach that the rotor-to-transmission ratio is about 66 mm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor-to-transmission ratio according to the claimed limitations for the same reasons stated in the 103 rejections of claims 1 & 10 above; further noting that although the instant claim is more specific than the preceding claims it is no less obvious as the Applicant again does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 12, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the stator-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.20 to 0.58.
VAISANEN, as modified above, does not teach that the stator-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.23 to 0.51.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the stator-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations for the same reasons stated in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above; further noting that although the instant claim is more specific than the preceding claim it is no less obvious as the Applicant again does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the stator-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 0.23 to 0.51.
VAISANEN, as modified above, does not teach that the stator-to-sprocket ratio is about 0.30.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the stator-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations for the same reasons stated in the 103 rejections of claims 1 & 12 above; further noting that although the instant claim is more specific than the preceding claims it is no less obvious as the Applicant again does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 25 mm to 105 mm.
VAISANEN, as modified above, does not teach that the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 31 mm to 87 mm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations for the same reasons stated in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above; further noting that although the instant claim is more specific than the preceding claim it is no less obvious as the Applicant again does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 15, VAISANEN, as modified above, teaches that the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio ranges from 31 mm to 87 mm.
VAISANEN, as modified above, does not teach that the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio is about 46 mm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor size-to-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations for the same reasons stated in the 103 rejections of claims 1 & 14 above; further noting that although the instant claim is more specific than the preceding claims it is no less obvious as the Applicant again does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, VAISANEN teaches the speed ratio (Para. [0113]; see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
VAISANEN does not teach that the speed ratio is about 2.375.
A person with reasonable skill in the art might reasonably estimate that the speed ratio taught by VAISANEN is about 2.375 (2.1375-2.6125, see Claim Interpretation above) based on the illustrated sizes of the input (102) and output (104) of the transmission (98) in Fig. 5. However, VAISANEN does not teach a specific speed ratio.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the speed ratio according to the claimed limitations because the speed ratio is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that although the Applicant recites a criticality to the speed ratio (Para. [0096]- [0105] of the original Specification), the Applicant does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art or in what way the claimed limitation achieves the desired improvements. Therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of: a speed ratio of about 2.375 would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious. MPEP 2144.05.II.A & III.A.
Regarding Claim 18, VAISANEN further teaches that a battery pack (Batteries 152 and 154, Fig. 3) extends over the tunnel (18) and at least partially overlaps the electric motor (32) (Fig. 3 shows Batteries 152 mounted on or over the Tunnel 18 and Batteries 154 mounted above the Electric Motor 32), the battery pack (152 & 154) at least partially overlapping the transmission (98) (as the Mechanical Drive 98 is connected to the Electric Motor 32 and the Batteries 154 at least partially overlap the Electric Motor 32 as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 17 above, it can be said that the Batteries 154 at least partially overlap the Mechanical Drive 98).
Regarding Claim 19, VAISANEN teaches an electric snowmobile (Abstract), comprising:
a frame (Frame 16, Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis (Centerline 28, Fig. 4) between a front end (Froward End 12, Fig. 1) and a rear end (Rearward End 14, Fig. 1) of the frame (16) the frame (16) having a tunnel (Tunnel 18, Fig. 2A) and a sub-frame (Cradle 20, Figs. 2A & 2B) disposed forward of the tunnel (Para. [0074] and Fig. 2A teach that Cradle 20 is connected to the front of Tunnel 18), the sub-frame (20) having a bulkhead (“BLKHD”, Fig. 2B Annotated), the sub-frame (20) connected to the tunnel (18) via the bulkhead (Bulkhead BLKHD forming a least a part of the connection between Cradle 20 and Tunnel 18 as illustrated in Fig. 2B Annotated and Figs. 2A- 2C);
a drive track assembly (Drive Track 30, Fig. 1) having:
a drive track (30) for engaging a ground, the drive track (30) received within the tunnel (18) of the frame (Para. [0075]); and
a sprocket (Track Drive Sprocket 110, Fig. 5) rotationally engaged to the frame (16) and meshed with the drive track (30) (Para. [0085]);
an electric motor (Electric Motor 32, Fig. 2B) positioned forwardly of the tunnel (18) and the drive track (30) (as understood by Figs. 3 & 5), the drive track assembly (30) and the electric motor (32) disposed on respective opposite sides of the bulkhead (Drive Track 30 being disposed on a rearward side and Electric Motor 32 being disposed on a forward side of Bulkhead BLKHD as illustrated in Fig. 2B Annotated and Figs. 2A- 5); and
a transmission (Mechanical Drive 98, Fig. 5) mounted to the frame (16), the transmission (98) drivingly engaging the electric motor (32) to the drive track (30) (Para. [0084]), the transmission (16) having a drive wheel (Drive Sprocket 102, Fig. 5) engaged to the electric motor (32) and a driven wheel (Driven Sprocket 104, Fig. 5) engaged to the drive wheel (102) and engaging the sprocket (110), the transmission (16) having a speed ratio defined as a driven diameter of the driven wheel (104) to a drive diameter of the drive wheel (102) (Para. [0113]).
VAISANEN does not teach that the electric motor is mounted within a cavity of the sub-frame, or that the electric motor axially overlaps the sprocket. but YATAGAI teaches these limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of YATAGAI and motivation to combine them with the VAISANEN’s electric snowmobile).
Furthermore, any one of, or any combination of the following considerations (A)-(E) below applies:
VAISANEN does not teach a rotor-to-sprocket ratio (A), a rotor-to-transmission ratio (B), a stator-to-sprocket ratio (C), or a rotor size-to-sprocket ratio (D). See the 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
(E) A person with reasonable skill in the art might reasonably estimate that the diameter of a rotor of the electric motor (32) (a rotor being an inherent component of a typical electric motor that is well known in the art), the diameter of the driven wheel (104), and the diameter of the sprocket (110) of the electric snowmobile taught by VAISANEN form a rotor-to-driven-and-sprocket ratio ranging from 166 mm to 231 mm based on the illustrated sizes of the electric motor (32), the driven wheel (104), and the sprocket (110) in Fig. 5. However, VAISANEN does not teach a specific rotor-to-driven-and-sprocket ratio.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor-to-driven-and-sprocket ratio according to the claimed limitations because the rotor-to-driven-and-sprocket ratio is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that although the Applicant recites a criticality to the rotor-to-driven-and-sprocket ratio (Para. [0096]- [0105] of the original Specification), the Applicant does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art or in what way the claimed limitation achieves the desired improvements. Therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of: a rotor-to-driven-and-sprocket ratio ranging from 166 mm to 231 mm would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious. MPEP 2144.05.II.A & III.A.
Regarding Claim 20, VAISANEN teaches an electric snowmobile (Abstract), comprising:
a frame (Frame 16, Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis (Centerline 28, Fig. 4) between a front end (Froward End 12, Fig. 1) and a rear end (Rearward End 14, Fig. 1) of the frame (16), the frame (16) having a tunnel (Tunnel 18, Fig. 2A) and a sub-frame (Cradle 20, Figs. 2A & 2B) disposed forward of the tunnel (Para. [0074] and Fig. 2A teach that Cradle 20 is connected to the front of Tunnel 18), the sub-frame (20) having a bulkhead (“BLKHD”, Fig. 2B Annotated), the sub-frame (20) connected to the tunnel (18) via the bulkhead (Bulkhead BLKHD forming a least a part of the connection between Cradle 20 and Tunnel 18 as illustrated in Fig. 2B Annotated and Figs. 2A- 2C);
a drive track assembly (Drive Track 30, Fig. 1) having:
a drive track (30) for engaging a ground, the drive track (30) received within the tunnel (18) of the frame (Para. [0075]); and a sprocket (Track Drive Sprocket 110, Fig. 5) rollingly engaged to the frame (16) and meshed with the drive track (30) (Para. [0085]);
an electric motor (Electric Motor 32, Fig. 2B) positioned forwardly of the tunnel (18) and the drive track (30) (as understood by Figs. 3 & 5), the drive track assembly (30) and the electric motor (32) disposed on respective opposite sides of the bulkhead (Drive Track 30 being disposed on a rearward side and Electric Motor 32 being disposed on a forward side of Bulkhead BLKHD as illustrated in Fig. 2B Annotated and Figs. 2A- 5); and
a transmission (Mechanical Drive 98, Fig. 5) mounted to the frame (16), the transmission (98) drivingly engaging the electric motor (32) to the drive track (30) (Para. [0084]), the transmission (16) having an input (Drive Sprocket 102, Fig. 5) drivingly engaged by the electric motor (32) and an output (Driven Sprocket 104, Fig. 5) drivingly engaging the sprocket (110), the transmission (16) having a speed ratio defined as a rotational speed of the input (102) to a rotational speed of the output (104) (Para. 0113).
VAISANEN does not teach that the electric motor is mounted within a cavity of the sub-frame, or that the electric motor axially overlaps the sprocket. but YATAGAI teaches these limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of YATAGAI and motivation to combine them with the VAISANEN’s electric snowmobile).
A person with reasonable skill in the art might reasonably estimate that the diameter of a rotor of the electric motor (32) (a rotor being an inherent component of a typical electric motor that is well known in the art) multiplied by the speed ratio of the transmission (98) multiplied by the diameter of the sprocket (110) of the electric snowmobile taught by VAISANEN form an overall value ranging from 17940 to 90000 mm2 based on the illustrated sizes of the electric motor (32), the input (102), the output (104), and the sprocket (110) in Fig. 5. However, VAISANEN does not teach a specific overall value.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the overall value according to the claimed limitations because the overall value is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that although the Applicant recites a criticality to the overall value (Para. [0096]- [0105] of the original Specification), the Applicant does not recite the claimed limitation producing any results that would be unexpected to a person with reasonable skill in the art or in what way the claimed limitation achieves the desired improvements. Therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of: an overall value ranging from 17940 to 90000 mm2 would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious. MPEP 2144.05.II.A & III.A.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAISANEN and YATAGAI in view of HAAVIKKO (US-20200140037-A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 20, Additionally and alternatively to the USC 103 rejections based on VAISANEN and YATAGAI above, if an argument may be made that the bulkhead (BLKHD) of VAISANEN could not be considered a bulkhead or is not arranged as claimed:
HAAVIKKO teaches, in another electric snowmobile (Abstract), a sub-frame (“SBF-H”, Fig. 6 Annotated) having a bulkhead (“BLKHD-H”, Fig. 6 Annotated), the sub-frame (SBF-H) connected to a tunnel (“TNL-H”, Fig. 6 Annotated) via the bulkhead (Sub Frame SBF-H being connected to Tunnel TNL-H at least by Bulkhead BLKHD-H as illustrated in Fig. 6 Annotated); a drive track assembly (a drive track understood to be disposed underneath Tunnel TNL-H based on Fig. 2 and Fig. 6 Annotated) and an electric motor (Electric Motor 1, Fig. 6) disposed on respective opposite sides of the bulkhead (a drive track being disposed on a lower side and Electric Motor 1 being disposed on an upper side of Bulkhead BLKHD-H as illustrated in Fig. 6 Annotated); and the electric motor (1) axially overlapping a sprocket (Drive Axle 90 being understood to comprise a sprocket or other drive track driving means based on Fig. 2 and Para. [0043]) relative to a rotation axis of the sprocket (Electric Motor 1 and Primary Drive Axle 90 axially overlapping each other as understood by Figs. 3 & 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
477
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of VAISANEN, YATAGAI and HAAVIKKO in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify VAISANEN’s electric snowmobile, as modified, to include a bulkhead arranged between the electric motor and the drive track as suggested by HAAVIKKO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing protection for an electric motor from flying debris thrown by a drive track, or other hazards, that would beneficially make a more robust electric snowmobile.
Due to the additional USC 103 rejections of claims 1, 19, and 20 based on VAISANEN and YATAGAI in view of HAAVIKKO above, Claims 2-16 and 18 are also additionally and alternatively rejected based on VAISANEN and YATAGAI in view of HAAVIKKO.
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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights