DETAILED ACTION
In the reply filed 11/7/2025, claims 1-5, 9-14, 17-18, and 21 are amended. Claims 1-14, 16-22 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/7/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14, 16-22 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.
Claim 14 requires “a first upper body panel” (in the third line of the claim), “the upper body panel” (in the fourth line of the claim), and “the integral upper body panel” (in the fifth line of the claim). Do each of these body panels correspond to the same component? Clarification is needed. Applicant is reminded to use consistent terminology for claimed elements to ensure definiteness and clarity.
Claim 14 recites: “a separately formed side panel”. The metes and bounds of “separately formed” are not understood. Separate from what? The confusion is compounded because “separately formed” is not found in the original disclosure. Claim 18 is indefinite for similar reasons.
Claim 18 recites: “the slope of the side body panel immediately below the face of the air intake not having significantly less slope”. The recitation is unclear because it does not put forth what the slope of the side body panel is compared to. The slope of the side body panel does not have a slope significantly less than what?
Claim 21 recites: “an engine air intake” and “the air intake”. Applicant is reminded to use consistent terminology for claimed elements to ensure definiteness and clarity. The air intake should be corrected to read “the engine air intake” for sufficient/proper antecedent basis.
Claim 21 recites: “the engine air intake having a cover with an outer surface; wherein the air intake includes a face with a smooth transition to the side body panel”. It is understood that the outer surface of the cover corresponds to a surface defined by element 34. What is face of the air intake? It appears that the outer surface of the cover and the face of the air intake may refer to the same component. Claims 1 and 9 suggest that the face of the intake may correspond to a multifaceted screen. However, the screen does not have a smooth transition to the side body panel. What is the claimed face of the air intake? Clarification is needed. Due to the nature of indefiniteness of claims 21-22, determination of whether prior art reads on claims 21-22 cannot be made.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 7,870,920) in view of Lemieux (US 12,188,439).
Regarding claim 14, Dahlgren teaches: an assembly for a snowmobile comprising:
a first upper body panel (A);
a headlight assembly (B) positioned at least partially above the upper body panel; and
an engine air intake (including at least element 160) positioned below at least a portion of the integral upper body panel,
the engine air intake having an outer face (defined by element 160), the outer face facing generally laterally relative to the longitudinal centerline of the snowmobile (as shown in Figs. 1 and 28);
a separately formed side panel (E) extending below the first upper body panel and extending below the engine air intake, the slope of the side panel being substantially the same or greater than a slope of the outer face of the engine air intake;
wherein the first upper body panel includes a first outboard surface extending therefrom, to a furthermost outboard edge at which the body panel ends and interfaces with the engine air intake that is formed separate from the first upper body panel;
wherein at least a portion of the air intake opening is positioned outboard of the entire first upper body panel including the furthermost outboard edge and outboard of the tunnel (22).
It is noted that the claims include the terms “integral” and “separately formed”. The claims do not describe that the upper body panel is integral with. The claims do not describe what the side panel is separately formed from. The claims have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 2 and the annotated version of Fig. 1, from Dahlgren, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Dahlgren does not specifically label the headlight, those having ordinary skill in the art would, upon review of the drawings, recognize that this feature is a headlight. Additionally/alternatively, headlights are taught by Lemieux; see elements 500H,L in at least Fig. 4. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to provide headlights on the snowmobile taught by Dahlgren; the motivation being: for safety and visibility.
Regarding claim 17, the combination further teaches: an upper edge of the side panel (E) is positioned immediately adjacent to a lower edge of the outer face of the engine intake, the outer face having a smooth transition to the upper edge of the side panel. See the annotated version of Fig. 1 from Dahlgren, above.
Regarding claim 18, Dahlgren teaches: an assembly for a snowmobile comprising:
a first upper body panel (A);
a headlight assembly (B) positioned at least partially above the upper body panel;
a separate, removable side body panel (E) positioned below the first upper body panel; and
an engine air intake (160) positioned between, and separately formed apart from, the upper body panel and the side body panel, the air intake being separately formed apart from the side body panel and being secured separately from the side body panel;
wherein the air intake includes a face with a smooth transition to the side body panel, the slope of the side body panel immediately below the face of the air intake not having significantly less slope.
See the annotated version of Fig. 1, above (included in the discussion of claim 14).
While Dahlgren does not specifically label the headlight, those having ordinary skill in the art would, upon review of the drawings, recognize that this feature is a headlight. Additionally/alternatively, headlights are taught by Lemieux; see elements 500H,L in at least Fig. 4. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to provide headlights on the snowmobile taught by Dahlgren; the motivation being: for safety and visibility.
Regarding claim 19, the combination further teaches: wherein the first upper body panel includes a first surface that slopes downward and outward from a longitudinal centerline of the vehicle toward the engine air intake (as shown by Dahlgren in Fig. 1), and wherein the engine air intake is positioned at least partially outboard of the first surface of the first upper body panel (as shown by Dahlgren in Fig. 1); further comprising a second upper body panel (C) positioned at least partially below the first body panel, wherein the second body panel defines the engine air intake; and wherein the engine air intake is provided with a cover (inlets 154 are covered by screens 160) that defines a surface that extends from an upper end of the engine air intake that is positioned adjacent the upper body panel downward and outward to a lower end of the engine air intake that is positioned adjacent the side body panel. See the annotated version of Fig. 1, above (included in the discussion of claim 14).
Regarding claim 20, the combination further teaches: wherein the side body panel includes an upper end and a lower end, wherein the upper end is positioned adjacent the lower end of engine air intake, wherein the side body panel includes a surface extending from the upper end of the side body panel to the lower end of the side body panel, and the surface of the engine air intake cover and the surface of the side body panel define a substantially continuous surface extending from the upper end of the air intake to the lower end of the side body panel. See the annotated version of Fig. 1, above (included in the discussion of claim 14).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 7,870,920) and Lemieux (US 12,188,439), as applied above, in further view of Vistad (US 10,358,187).
Regarding claim 16, the combination further teaches: wherein the air intake opening is positioned forward of a tunnel (22) of the snowmobile. See Figs. 1 and 2 from Dahlgren.
The combination fails to teach: wherein the air intake opening is positioned rearward of a headlight of the headlight assembly and laterally to the side of a steering column of the snowmobile.
Vistad teaches: wherein the air intake opening (60) is positioned rearward of a headlight of the headlight assembly, forward of a tunnel of the snowmobile and laterally to the side of a steering column of the snowmobile. See Figs. 5 and 8. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to position the intake opening as claimed, as suggested by Vistad; The motivation being: such positioning would reduce/prevent debris from entering the intake during use.
Furthermore, such a modification would require a mere change in location of parts. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the air intake opening positioned rearward of a headlight of the headlight assembly, forward of a tunnel of the snowmobile and laterally to the side of a steering column of the snowmobile as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification is a change of location of parts. The rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Examiner note:
At least some of the claims include limitations relating to relative location of components (including body panels, intake, headlight, etc.). The claims also include limitations relating to the shape of claimed elements (such as slope, smooth transition(s), etc.).
A modification which requires a mere change in the location of parts is an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results. The rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
A modification which requires a mere change in the shape of parts is an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results. A change in shape is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claims 1-13 are allowed for at least the reasons expressed in Applicant’s reply. See especially pages 8-10 of the reply filed 11/7/2025.
None of the prior art, alone or in combination, anticipates or renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1-13. To modify any of the prior art of record to arrive at the invention set forth by claims 1-13 would be unobvious and improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the previously applied prior art rejection of claims 1-13 have been considered and are persuasive. Claims 1-13 are allowed, as indicated above.
Additional remarks are made with regard to the previously applied rejections under 35 USC § 103. Applicant's arguments were made with respect to the claims, as amended, and have been rejected/addressed as provided above. Please see the discussion above, which provides detailed explanation of how the prior art reads on the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights