DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/28/25 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 7, 17 and 19 have been amended. In view of amendment, all the claim objections have been withdrawn. In view of amendment, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum, in view of Cardillo (details below) and claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 (‘Remarks’, pages 9-21), regarding all claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, the applicant submits that claim 11 is amended to introduce “wherein the engine is located at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above the at least the substantial portion of the track responsive to being mounted to the engine mounting plate". In view of argument and upon further consideration, a new ground of rejections is made under 35 USC § 103 over Mangum in view of Cardillo and further in view of Rioux, details below. Accordingly, based on the teachings of Cardillo and/or that which is known in the art, this limitation does not distinguish the claim from the current art of record as discussed below.
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.
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum (US 20120222908 A1), in view of Cardillo, Jr. et al. (US PAT. 6279923 B1; hereinafter, “Cardillo”).
Regarding claim 11, Mangum teaches an apparatus (100, fig. 1-6) comprising:
a frame (111, fig. 1);
a track (120) mounted at least partially rearward (fig. 1 shows at least partially rearward) of the frame (111, fig. 1);
an engine mounting plate (604, fig. 6, [0044]) mounted above (via 604 on subframe 600, figs. 1 and 6 and [para. 0044 discloses that subframe 600 includes all the necessary mounting points for the back suspension and drive system; note that 604 is the mounting plate that stays on subframe 600 as disclosed by fig. 6]), at least a substantial portion of the track (120; [ shown in fig. 1, engine 103 is positioned above at least a substantial portion of the track 120]);
an engine (“engine drive power 103”, [0008 and 0016]) mounted to the engine mounting plate (604, fig. 6) using stock mounting surfaces (surface of 600 at 604, fig. 6) of the engine, including multiple apertures (apertures at 604, fig. 6) for receiving stock bolts (“bolt on accessory”, [0044]),
Mangum fails to explicitly teach wherein the engine is located at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above the at least the substantial portion of the track responsive to being mounted to the engine mounting plate; however,
Cardillo in another ‘personal winter vehicle’ similar to Magnum teaches that a power source (‘motor or engine 150’; [col. 2, lines 64-66]) mounted at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above (fig. 9 configuration) at least a substantial portion of the track (70; [see fig. 9 ; also, col. 3, lines 1-10 teaches that the drive assembly includes a drive wheel rotatably attached to the rear portion of the frame and coupled to the motivator via mechanical coupling, such as motor or engine; note that as depicted in fig. 9, engine is mounted centrally vertical above at least a substantial portion of the track (70)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a power source, such as engine mounted at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above at least a substantial portion of the track as taught by Cardillo into the invention of Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the increased rear contact pressure and helping the bike float on power rather than digging in which raises the leading portion of the track off the ground to allow for better maneuverability in the snow and easier braking [ col. 3, lines 1-5 of Cardillo].
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum, in view of Cardillo and further in view of Rioux et al. (US 5607026 A1; hereinafter “Rioux”).
Regarding claim 1, Mangum teaches: An apparatus (100, fig. 1-6 and [0002]) comprising:
a frame (111, fig. 1);
a track (120) mounted at least partially rearward (fig. 1 shows rearward) of the frame (111);
Magnum teaches a power source (“engine drive power 103”, [0008 and 0016]) mounted above at least a substantial portion of the track (120) [ shown in fig. 1, engine 103 is positioned above at least a substantial portion of the track 120] but fails to explicitly teach that a power source mounted at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above at least a substantial portion of the track; however,
Cardillo in another ‘personal winter vehicle’ similar to Magnum teaches that a power source (‘motor or engine 150’; [col. 2, lines 64-66]) mounted at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above (fig. 9 configuration) at least a substantial portion of the track (70; [see fig. 9 ; also, col. 3, lines 1-10 teaches that the drive assembly includes a drive wheel rotatably attached to the rear portion of the frame and coupled to the motivator via mechanical coupling, such as motor or engine; note that as depicted in fig. 9, engine is mounted centrally vertical above at least a substantial portion of the track (70)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a power source, such as engine mounted at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above at least a substantial portion of the track as taught by Cardillo into the invention of Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the increased rear contact pressure and helping the bike float on power rather than digging in which raises the leading portion of the track off the ground to allow for better maneuverability in the snow and easier braking [ col. 3, lines 1-5 of Cardillo].
Magnum as modified above teaches the centrifugal clutch action as disclosed by [para.0033 that the drive system is such that a first drive chain (not shown) is provided from engine 103 (fig.1) to the jack shaft 206 inside tunnel 202. The jack shaft transfers engine driving power to the outside left of tunnel 202. A secondary chain (not shown) drives from jack shaft 206 to front track roller and drive sprocket 210 such that the system drives off the front of the track 220]; however, the modified Mangum doesn’t appear to explicitly teach a centrifugal clutch mounted at least partially to a side of the power source and extending laterally outward from the engine; however,
Rioux in another snowmobile similar to the modified Mangum teaches a centrifugal clutch (driving pulley 20 and secondary driven pulley 30 disposed at a second end of the jack shaft, fig. 2B and fig. 3; [ col 4 , line 25-30 teaches: “the driving pulley 20 incorporates a centrifugally operated means that acts to urge the moving flange 26 towards the fixed flange 24 with a force that increases with increasing crankshaft speed so that as the engine speed increases the reduction ratio of the belt drive 16 system decreases”; note that: a driving pulley 20 is fixedly mounted on one end of the jack shaft 31 as shown in figs. 2B and 3, engaged with the belt and to the driven pulley is a “centrifugal clutch” function; also see the teaching of Magnum in para 0033]) mounted at least partially to the side of the power source (engine) and extending laterally outward from the engine [ col 4 line 25-30 teaches: “the driving pulley 20 rotates at the same speed as the crankshaft of the engine”; it should be noted that driving pulley (centrifugal clutch) is mounted on a transversely oriented jack shaft as taught by [fig. 2B and col. 4, line 55-60] that is driven by the engine; thus, positioned least partially to the side of the power source (engine) and extending laterally outward from the engine.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a centrifugal clutch mounted at least partially to the side of the power source and extending laterally outward from the engine as taught by Rioux into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the side-mounted clutches are more exposed to ambient airflow, allowing for better passive cooling and also facilitate clutch guards with open ventilation, thereby allowing more power to the drive track through a drive train under the control of the driver [ col 3 , line 55-60 of Rioux].
Regarding claim 3, Mangum as modified above further teaches an engine mounting plate (604, [0044]) and wherein the track (drive track, 120) is carried by a track assembly (110), the engine mounting plate (604) connecting the track assembly (110 through mounting points 606-208 and 610) with stock mounting surfaces (surface constituted by 600, fig. 6) of the snowmobile engine without requiring modification of the mounting surfaces [ fig. 6 shows solid fixed structure, requiring no modifications].
Magnum’s power source (“engine drive power 103”, [0008 and 0016]) is a snowmobile engine (because the vehicle is capable of moving on snow, see the dictionary definition of “snowmobile” attached as NPL to this Office Action).
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that “snowmobile engine” is intended to convey a different definition of the term, which Magnum’s engine might not meet (so far undetermined) , then Rioux teaches that the power source is a snowmobile engine [ col. 1, line 60-65 teaches: “an engine (22, snowmobile engine, fig. 2B) mounted in said frame and connected via a drive train to deliver propulsion power to said drive track; said drive train including a transversely arranged jack shaft” (equivalent to the centrifugal clutch configuration), thus the power source is a snowmobile engine.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate a more powerful engine performance, the motorcycle engine can be replaced with a more powerful alternative – such as a snowmobile engine and paired with a high energy power source to enhance overall output as taught by Rioux into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design for higher torque and power output, the engine configuration can be enhanced to delivers increased power to the drive track through a drive train under the control of the driver or operator [ Col. 1, line 60-67 of Rioux.]
Regarding claim 6, Mangum as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising a jack shaft (206, [0033]), the jack shaft (206)
comprising:
a centrally located (fig. 2) sprocket (drive sprocket 210, [0028]) for receiving a chain extending to a drive shaft that drives the track (120) [ para. 0021 teaches: “a jack shaft 140 in a sealed case couples the engine power on a chain and sprocket”];
a brake component disposed at one end of the jack shaft [para 0029 teaches: “Jack shaft 206 includes a disc brake]
The modified Mangum doesn’t appear to teach a secondary drive clutch of a centrifugal clutch system disposed at a second end of the jack shaft; however,
Rioux teaches a secondary drive clutch (driven pulley 30, fig. 2B) of a centrifugal clutch system disposed at a second end of the jack shaft (32). See fig. 2B of Rioux; also see the teaching of Magnum in para. 0033 as illustrated in claim rejection 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a secondary drive clutch of a centrifugal clutch system disposed at a second end of the jack shaft as taught by Rioux into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the primary clutch and secondary clutch work as a continuously variable transmission, thereby improving in performance and efficiency of the belt drive transmission [col. 3, line 1-5 of Rioux].
Regarding claim 8, Mangum as modified by Cardillo and Rioux as detailed in the rejection of Claim 3 above, includes the limitation that the power source is a snowmobile engine (in both interpretations discussed above). Note that Claims 3 and 8 are unrelated dependency-wise, but the limitation “power source is a snowmobile engine” is similar.
Regarding claim 9, Mangum as modified above further teaches that the power source is an electric motor (‘electric motor of Cardillo’; [col. 2, line 64-66 of Cardillo teaches that the motivator (power source) may be a pedal crank and pedals, a motor or engine.])
Regarding claim 10, Mangum as modified above further teaches that the frame is taken from a dirt bike [0004], and the track (120 of Mangum) and front ski (108) are taken from a commercially available kit [ para. 0006 teaches: “Kits for converting light motorcycles and dirt bikes into track-driven snow vehicles make use offroad vehicles that would otherwise lay idle during the winter snows”, thus taken from a commercially available kit.]
Further, regarding the limitation “snowmobile engine”, the same considerations apply as detailed in the rejection of Claim 3 above (in both interpretations discussed above). Note that Claims 3 and 10 are unrelated dependency-wise, but the limitation “power source is a snowmobile engine” is similar.
Regarding claim 13, Mangum as modified above further teaches an engine mounting plate (604 on sub assy. 600, fig. 6, [0044]) and wherein the track (drive track, 120) is carried by a track assembly (110), the engine mounting plate (604) connecting the track assembly (110 through mounting points 606-208 and 610) with stock mounting surfaces (surface constituted by 600, fig. 6) of the snowmobile engine without requiring modification of the mounting surfaces [ fig. 6 shows solid fixed structure, requiring no modifications].
Magnum’s power source (“engine drive power 103”, [0008 and 0016]) is a snowmobile engine (because the vehicle is capable of moving on snow, see the dictionary definition of “snowmobile” attached as NPL to this Office Action).
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that “snowmobile engine” is intended to convey a different definition of the term, which Magnum’s in view of Cardillo engine might not meet (so far uncertain, in view of the specification which appears to be lacking an alternative definition of “snowmobile engine”), then Rioux in another snowmobile jack shaft, similar to Mangum teaches: “an engine (22, snowmobile engine, fig. 2B) mounted in said frame and connected via a drive train to deliver propulsion power to said drive track; said drive train including a transversely arranged jack shaft 31 (centrifugal clutch configuration) [ col. 1, line 60-65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate more powerful engine performance, the motorcycle engine can be replaced with a more powerful alternative – such as a ‘snowmobile engine’ and paired with a high energy power source to enhance overall output as taught by Rioux into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design for higher torque and power output, the engine configuration can be enhanced to delivers increased power to the drive track through a drive train under the control of the driver or operator [ Col. 1, line 60-67 of Rioux.]
Regarding claim 16, Mangum as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 11, and further comprising a jack shaft (206, [0033]), the jack shaft (206)
comprising:
a centrally located (fig. 2) sprocket (drive sprocket 210, [0028]) for receiving a chain extending to a drive shaft that drives the track (120) [ para. 0021 teaches: “a jack shaft 140 in a sealed case couples the engine power on a chain and sprocket”];
a brake component disposed at one end of the jack shaft [para 0029 teaches: “Jackshaft 206 includes a disc brake]
The modified Mangum doesn’t appear to teach a secondary drive clutch of a centrifugal clutch system disposed at a second end of the jack shaft; however,
Rioux teaches a secondary drive clutch (driven pulley 30, fig. 2B) of a centrifugal clutch system disposed at a second end of the jack shaft (32). See fig. 2B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a secondary drive clutch of a centrifugal clutch system, disposed at a second end of the jack shaft as taught by Rioux into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the primary clutch and secondary clutch work as a continuously variable transmission, thereby improving in performance and efficiency of the belt drive transmission [col. 3, line 1-5 of Rioux].
Regarding claim 18, Mangum as modified by Rioux as detailed in the rejection of Claim 13 above, includes the limitation that the power source is a snowmobile engine (in both interpretations discussed above). Note that Claims 13 and 18 are unrelated dependency-wise, but the limitation “power source is a snowmobile engine” is similar.
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum in view of Cardillo, in view of Rioux and further in view of Eaton et al. (US PAT 8490731 B2, hereinafter “Eaton”).
Regarding claim 2, Mangum as modified above further teaches the protective cover for the top of the drive track as specified on para. 0017 of Mangum, but doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that a clutch guard having a hardened outer wall at least partially surrounding a periphery of the centrifugal clutch, the clutch guard having an open side directed toward the frame in order to provide simultaneous protection to a rider and cooling of the centrifugal clutch; however,
Eaton in another snowmobile, similar to that of the modified Mangum teaches that a clutch guard (822, [fig. 40 and col 16, line 25-30]) having a hardened outer wall (fig. 12) at least partially surrounding a periphery of the centrifugal clutch [figs. 10, 14 and col 15, line 58-65 teaches that guard 822 is positioned over clutch (CVT-824); intended to contain or support components], the clutch guard having an open side (recess 868, [col 17]) directed toward the frame [fig. 12 shows 822 is directed towards the frame] in order to provide simultaneous protection to a rider and cooling of the centrifugal clutch [It should be understood that the guard is integrated into frame structure above clutch and allows space around clutch for ventilation and rider safety.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a clutch guard having a hardened outer wall at least partially surrounding a periphery of the centrifugal clutch, the clutch guard having an open side directed toward the frame as taught by Eaton into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the guard allows space around clutch for ventilation and rider safety and also protect the variable transmission components [ Col. 15 of Eaton].
Regarding claim 4, Mangum as modified above further teaches that a fuel tank mounted in the frame [shown in fig. 1 of Mangum, the fuel tank is mounted in the frame], but fails to teach that in a recess originally adapted to a power source; however,
Eaton teaches in a recess (868) originally adapted to a power source (engine). See fig. 40 where clutch guard is intended to support fuel tank that includes recess 868; also see col. 17 for the illustration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide protection to the fuel tank with the support and in a recess originally adopted to a power source as taught by Eaton into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the fuel tank being mount through the recess in clutch guard next to the power source is intended to avoid spill and rigid construction away from the transmission [ col 17, line 15-25 of Eaton.]
Regarding claim 7, Mangum as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 1, but doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose a cooling system for cooling the power source, the cooling system comprising: a radiator; a heat exchanger in fluid communication with the radiator; a water jacket on the power source in fluid communication with the radiator; and wherein fluid is pumped from the heat exchanger to the radiator and then to the water jacket in order to cool the power source; however,
Eaton teaches a cooling system (630, [col 7, line 15-20]) for cooling the power source (108), the cooling system (630) comprising:
a radiator (600, fig. 32 and [col. 7, line 15-20]);
a heat exchanger (608) in fluid communication with the radiator (600, fig.31);
a water jacket (tunnel cooler 190 and 191, col. 7, line 15-25]) on the power source (engine) in fluid communication with the radiator (600); and
wherein fluid is pumped from the heat exchanger (608) to the radiator (600) and then to the water jacket in order to cool the power source [ col. 7, line 15-25 teaches that cooling fluid from engine 108 is circulated through front radiator 600, front tunnel cooler 190, and a top tunnel cooler 191 to be cooled and then is provided back to engine 108].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangum to incorporate the teaching of Eaton and provide the cooling system for cooling the power source, such as engine in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where tunnel cooler mainly cool the fluid due to the snow present in the tunnel during operation, thus prevents overheating at low speed and extend engine life, thereby cool the fluids in most riding environment [ col. 7, line 20-30 of Eaton.]
Claims 5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum in view of Cardillo, in view of Rioux, in view of Eaton and further in view of Bullerdick (US 5924514 A).
Regarding claim 5, Mangum as modified above discloses the power source, but fails to teach that a stock fuel tank mounted to the tank, and wherein the stock fuel tank and the fuel tank are in fluid communication to provide continuous fuel to the power source; however,
Bullerdick in another snowmobile, similar to that of the modified Mangum teaches a stock fuel tank (auxiliary tank,25, fig. 7) mounted to the tank (Main fuel tank 19 [fig. 7]), and wherein the stock fuel tank (25) and the fuel tank (19) are in fluid communication to provide continuous fuel to the power source [ shown in figs. 2 and 7, the stock fuel tank and the fuel tank are in fluid communication to provide continuous fuel to the power source; also see ‘Abstract’ and col. 2 for more description.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangum to incorporate the teaching of Bullerduck and provide the stock fuel tank and also the main fuel tank that are in fluid communication to provide continuous fuel to the power source in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the auxiliary fuel tank mounted to the main tank enhances and achieve stable handling over a broad operating range while being readily accessible when cowling covering the engine is opened [ ‘Abstract ‘of Bullerduck].
Regarding claim 19, Mangum teaches: an apparatus (100, fig. 1-6 and [0002]) comprising:
a frame (111 of 110, fig. 1);
a track (120) mounted at least partially rearward (fig. 1 shows rearward) of the frame (111);
Mangum teaches a power source (“engine drive power 103”, [0008 and 0016]), but fails to explicitly teach that the power source mounted at least partially rearward the frame and centrally vertical above at least a substantial portion of the track; however,
Cardillo in another ‘personal winter vehicle’ similar to Magnum teaches that a power source (‘motor or engine 150’; [col. 2, lines 64-66]) mounted at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above (fig. 9 configuration) at least a substantial portion of the track (70; [see fig. 9 ; also, col. 3, lines 1-10 teaches that the drive assembly includes a drive wheel rotatably attached to the rear portion of the frame and coupled to the motivator via mechanical coupling, such as motor or engine; note that as depicted in fig. 9, engine is mounted centrally vertical above at least a substantial portion of the track (70)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a power source, such as engine mounted at least partially rearward outside the frame and centrally vertical above at least a substantial portion of the track as taught by Cardillo into the invention of Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the increased rear contact pressure and helping the bike float on power rather than digging in which raises the leading portion of the track off the ground to allow for better maneuverability in the snow and easier braking [ col. 3, lines 1-5 of Cardillo].
Mangum as modified by Rioux as detailed in the rejection of Claim 1 above, includes the limitation that a centrifugal clutch mounted at least partially to the side of the power source and extending laterally outward from the engine Note that: claims 1 and 19 are separate independent claims, but the limitation “a centrifugal clutch mounted at least partially to the side of the power source and extending laterally outward from the engine” is similar.]
Similarly, Mangum as modified by Eaton as detailed in the rejection of Claim 2 above, includes the limitation that a clutch guard having a hardened outer wall at least partially surrounding a periphery of the centrifugal clutch, the clutch guard having an open side directed toward the frame in order to provide simultaneous protection to a rider and cooling of the centrifugal clutch. Note that claims 3 and 19 are unrelated dependency-wise, but the limitation as specified above is similar].
a stock fuel tank mounted forward of the seat [ fig. 1 of Mangum shows fuel tank is forward of the seat];
a fuel tank mounted in the frame in a recess originally adapted to a power source, the stock fuel tank and the fuel tank in fluid communication with each other [ see claim rejection 15 above; note that claims 15 and 19 are unrelated dependency-wise, but the limitation as specified above is similar along with the fuel tank (Main fuel tank 19 of Bullerdick) in fluid communication with each other [ shown in figs. 2 and 7 of Bullerdick as specified in claim 15, the stock fuel tank and the fuel tank are in fluid communication to each other]
a jack shaft (206, [0033]), the jack shaft (206) comprising:
a centrally located (fig. 2) sprocket (drive sprocket 210, [0028]) for receiving a chain extending to a drive shaft that drives the track (120) [ para. 0021 teaches: “a jack shaft 140 in a sealed case couples the engine power on a chain and sprocket”];
a brake component disposed at one end of the jack shaft [para 0029 teaches: “Jackshaft 206 includes a disc brake]; and
a secondary drive clutch of a centrifugal clutch system disposed at a second end of the jack shaft [ Magnum as modified by Rioux teaches a secondary drive clutch (driven pulley 30, fig. 2B) as outlined in claim 1 above of a centrifugal clutch system disposed at a second end of the jack shaft (32). See fig. 2B of Rioux. Note that claims 1 and 19 are unrelated dependency-wise, but the limitation as specified above is included in claim rejection 1 above];
a snowmobile engine (Magnum’s power source (“engine drive power 103”, [0008 and 0016]) is a snowmobile engine because the vehicle is capable of moving on snow, see the dictionary definition of “snowmobile” attached as NPL to this Office Action); also Mangum as modified by Rioux as detailed in the rejection of Claim 3 above, includes the limitation that the power source is a snowmobile engine (in both interpretations discussed above). Note that Claims 3 and 19 are unrelated dependency-wise, but the limitation “power source is a snowmobile engine” is similar.
an engine mounting plate (604, [0044 of Mangum]), wherein the track (120) is carried by a track assembly (110), the engine mounting plate (604) connecting the track assembly (110 through mounting points 606-208 and 610) with stock mounting surfaces (surface constituted by 600, fig. 6) of the snowmobile engine without requiring modification of the mounting surfaces [ fig. 6 shows solid fixed structure, requiring no modifications];
a cooling system for cooling the power source, the cooling system comprising:
a radiator;
a heat exchanger in fluid communication with the radiator;
a water jacket on the power source in fluid communication with the radiator; and wherein fluid is pumped from the heat exchanger to the radiator and then to the water jacket in order to cool the power source [Mangum as modified by Eaton as detailed in the rejection of Claim 7 above, includes all the limitations covered by claim 19. Note that claims 7 and 19 are unrelated dependency-wise, but the limitations are similar.]
Regarding claim 20, Mangum as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the snowmobile engine is in gaseous communication with an exhaust pipe, and wherein the exhaust pipe is mounted forward of the snowmobile engine and rearward of the fuel tank; however,
Eaton teaches that the snowmobile engine (108) is in gaseous communication with an exhaust pipe (550, fig. 13), and wherein the exhaust pipe is mounted forward of the snowmobile engine [col. 13, line 34-36] and rearward of the fuel tank [ col. 13, line 30-40 teaches: “the exhaust system includes an exhaust intake 550 which is coupled to the engine (not shown) to receive exhaust gases from the engine. The exhaust intake 550 is coupled to exhaust conduit 552 which extends forward from the engine 35 and wraps around”; also see fig. 13, where exhaust pipe in positioned rearward of the fuel tank.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangum to incorporate the teaching of Eaton and provide the snowmobile engine that is in gaseous communication with an exhaust pipe, and wherein the exhaust pipe is mounted forward of the snowmobile engine and rearward of the fuel tank in order to advantageously optimize the efficient exhaust system that includes an exhaust intake which is coupled to the engine to receive exhaust gasses from the engine, thereby maintaining ideal backpressure and improving engine efficiency [ “col. 13, line 30 to 35 of Eaton].
Claims 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum in view of Cardillo and further in view of Eaton.
Regarding claim 12, Mangum as modified above further teaches the protective cover for the top of the drive track as specified on para. 0017, but doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that a clutch guard having a hardened outer wall at least partially surrounding a periphery of the centrifugal clutch, the clutch guard having an open side directed toward the frame in order to provide simultaneous protection to a rider and cooling of the centrifugal clutch; however,
Eaton in another snowmobile, similar to that of the modified Mangum teaches that a clutch guard (822, [fig. 40 and col 16, line 25-30]) having a hardened outer wall (fig. 12) at least partially surrounding a periphery of the centrifugal clutch [figs. 10, 14 and col 15, line 58-65 teaches that guard 822 is positioned over clutch (CVT-824); intended to contain or support components], the clutch guard having an open side (recess 868, [col 17]) directed toward the frame [fig. 12 shows 822 is directed towards the frame] in order to provide simultaneous protection to a rider and cooling of the centrifugal clutch [It should be understood that the guard is integrated into frame structure above clutch and allows space around clutch for ventilation and rider safety.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a clutch guard having a hardened outer wall at least partially surrounding a periphery of the centrifugal clutch, the clutch guard having an open side directed toward the frame as taught by Eaton into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the guard allows space around clutch for ventilation and rider safety and also protect the variable transmission components [ Col. 15 of Eaton].
Regarding claim 14, Mangum as modified above further teaches a fuel tank mounted in the frame [ shown in fig. 1, the fuel tank is mounted in the frame], but fails to teach that in a recess originally adapted to a power source; however,
Eaton teaches in a recess (868) originally adapted to a power source (engine). See fig. 40 where clutch guard is intended to support fuel tank that includes recess 868; also see col. 17 for the illustration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide protection to the fuel tank with the support and in a recess originally adopted to a power source as taught by Eaton into the invention of the modified Mangum with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the fuel tank being mount through the recess in clutch guard next to the power source is intended to avoid spill and rigid construction away from the transmission [ col 17, line 15-25 of Eaton.]
Regarding claim 17, Mangum as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 11, but doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose a cooling system for cooling the power source, the cooling system comprising: a radiator; a heat exchanger in fluid communication with the radiator; a water jacket on the power source in fluid communication with the radiator; and wherein fluid is pumped from the heat exchanger to the radiator and then to the water jacket in order to cool the power source; however,
Eaton teaches a cooling system (630, [col 7, line 15-20]) for cooling the power source (108), the cooling system (630) comprising:
a radiator (600, fig. 32 and [col. 7, line 15-20]);
a heat exchanger (608) in fluid communication with the radiator (600, fig.31);
a water jacket (tunnel cooler 190 and 191, col. 7, line 15-25]) on the power source (engine) in fluid communication with the radiator (600); and
wherein fluid is pumped from the heat exchanger (608) to the radiator (600) and then to the water jacket in order to cool the power source [ col. 7, line 15-25 teaches that cooling fluid from engine 108 is circulated through front radiator 600, front tunnel cooler 190, and a top tunnel cooler 191 to be cooled and then is provided back to engine 108].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Mangum to incorporating the teaching of Eaton and provide the cooling system for cooling the power source, such as engine in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where tunnel cooler mainly cool the fluid due to the snow present in the tunnel during operation, thus prevents overheating at low speed and extend engine life, thereby cool the fluids in most riding environment [ col. 7, line 20-30 of Eaton.]
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum in view of Cardillo, in view of Eaton and further in view of Bullerdick.
Regarding claim 15, Mangum as modified above teaches the power source, but fails to teach that a stock fuel tank mounted to the tank, and wherein the stock fuel tank and the fuel tank are in fluid communication to provide continuous fuel to the power source; however,
Bullerdick in another snowmobile, similar to that of the modified Mangum teaches a stock fuel tank (auxiliary tank,25, fig. 7) mounted to the tank (Main fuel tank 19 [fig. 7]), and wherein the stock fuel tank (25) and the fuel tank (19) are in fluid communication to provide continuous fuel to the power source [ shown in figs. 2 and 7, the stock fuel tank and the fuel tank are in fluid communication to provide continuous fuel to the power source; also see ‘Abstract’ and col. 2 for more description.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangum to incorporate the teaching of Bullerduck and provide the stock fuel tank and also the main fuel tank that are in fluid communication to provide continuous fuel to the power source in order to advantageously optimize the snow bike design where the auxiliary fuel tank mounted to the main tank enhances and achieve stable handling over a broad operating range while being readily accessible when cowling covering the engine is opened [ ‘Abstract ‘of Bullerduck].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4204581 A to Royce discloses: A power driven ski-bob comprising a front steerable ski and a motor driven propulsion unit which are connected to the rest of the ski-bob's structure by struts, so that the rider and motor move above the snow to minimize the drag of the snow on the ski-bob.
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 extension fee 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 NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Neacsu, Valentin 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611