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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 4/20/26 including claim amendments is acknowledged and entered. Examiner notes that claims 1,2,7,11,15 have been amended, claims 6, 19-23 have been cancelled, and claims 24-29 are new. Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 24-29 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 24-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0400157 A1 to Vezina et al (hereinafter Vezina)
Regarding claim 1, Vezina discloses clutch guard (70) for a CVT (50) in a snow vehicle (10) (Figs. 1 and 12 & Abstract, [0179]-[0180]), comprising:
a shield body portion (112) (Fig. 12 & [0197]-[0198]); and
a torque control link portion (110), … including one or more engine mounting features (162,164) and one or more chassis mounting features (151) (Figs. 15-19 & [0205], [0209]-[0211]),
wherein the torque control link portion includes a jackshaft aperture (126) for receiving a jackshaft (56) (Figs. 9-12 & [0177], [0201]), and an output shaft clearance component (124), in proximity to an output shaft (62) (Figs. 9-12, 18-20 & [0201]), and wherein the torque control link portion secures a distance between the jackshaft and the output shaft (62) (Figs. 15-20 & [208] and [0213] disclose the driven shaft opening is rigidly connected to the engine through ribs 135 and the output shaft is form fit into the drive opening, which because the apertures 126 and 124 do not move relative to each other, they are interpreted as securing a distance between the jackshaft and the output shaft.).
Vezina does not appear to explicitly disclose a torque control link portion, integrated with the shield body portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have integrated the torque control link portion with the shield body portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (b); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) stating "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Vezina further discloses wherein the torque control link portion includes at least one of (1) one or more recessed portions; and (2) one or more cutout portions (Figs. 12-20 depicts both recessed and cutout portions, e.g., cutout portions 126 and 124).
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, Vezina further discloses one or more compression limiters (170) positioned at least partially within the one or more engine mounting features (162,164) (Fig. 16 & [0210]).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, Vezina further discloses a metal or metal alloy liner assembly (132) affixed to the shield body portion (112), wherein the liner (132) assembly includes a curved portion configured to provide structural support to the clutch guard (Figs. 12-15 & [0205] disclose the middle plate member is made of metal and includes curved portions, e.g., see curved lines in Fig. 15 in particular).
Regarding claim 24, depending on claim 1, Vezina further discloses wherein the shield body portion (112) and the torque control link portion (110) are integrated as a single piece (see above rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 25, depending on claim 1, Vezina further discloses wherein the torque control link portion (110) is formed of a composite material (Fig. 13 & [0205] disclose the top and bottom portions are made of plastic and the middle portion 132 is made of metal. Because the control link portion is made of multiple materials as a whole it is interpreted as being of composite material).
Vezina does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the shield body portion (112) is formed of a metal material.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice and thus it is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the shield body portion to be made of metal. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 26, depending on claim 1, Vezina further discloses including one or more support components (118) coupled with the shield body portion (112), wherein the one or more support components (118) include an arm (210) having a retention member (210) (Figs. 13, 24-25 & [0200], [0203], [0216]-[0217] disclose the outer cover which is interpreted as being a support component because it supports ventilation of the pulleys and includes quick connect arms 210 that connect the cover 118 to the clutch guard 110 which is integrated with shield body 112 as modified in claim 1 and thus is interpreted as being coupled with the shield body portion).
Regarding claim 28, Vezina disclose a clutch guard (70) for a CVT (50) in a snow vehicle (10) (Figs. 1 and 12 & Abstract, [0179]-[0180]), comprising:
a shield body portion (112) including a lip (112), and a torque control link portion (110) formed of a composite material (Fig. 13 & [0205] disclose the top and bottom portions are made of plastic and the middle portion 132 is made of metal. Because the control link portion is made of multiple materials as a whole it is interpreted as being of composite material), wherein the torque control link portion (110) includes one or more engine mounting features (162,164), one or more chassis mounting features (151) (Figs. 15-19 & [0205], [0209]-[0211]), a jackshaft aperture (126) configured for receiving a jackshaft (56) (Figs. 9-12 & [0177], [0201]), and an output shaft clearance component (124) (Figs. 9-12, 18-20 & [0201]).
Vezina does not appear to disclose wherein the shield body portion is formed of a metal material, and the torque control link portion (110) integrated with the shield body portion.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice and thus it is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the shield body portion to be made of metal. See MPEP 2144.07.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have integrated the torque control link portion with the shield body portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (b); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) stating "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
Regarding claim 29, Vezina discloses a clutch guard (70) for a CVT (50) in a snow vehicle (10) (Figs. 1 and 12 & Abstract, [0179]-[0180]), comprising:
a shield body portion (112) including one or more exhaust engagement features (113) (Figs. 10-12 & [0191], [0195]-[0196], and [0198] disclose the shield body 112 includes a vent 113, which is part of the drivetrain air outlet, that engages with heated air discharging from the drivetrain, i.e., drivetrain exhaust, and thus is interpreted as being an exhaust engagement feature); and
wherein the torque control link portion (110) includes one or more engine mounting features (162,164) (Figs. 15-19 & [0205], [0209]-[0211]), a jackshaft aperture (126) configured for receiving a jackshaft (56) (Figs. 9-12 & [0177], [0201]), and an output shaft clearance component (124) (Figs. 9-12, 18-20 & [0201]).
Vezina does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the shield body portion is formed of a metal material, and the torque control link portion (110) integrated with the shield body portion
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice and thus it is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the shield body portion to be made of metal. See MPEP 2144.07.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have integrated the torque control link portion with the shield body portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (b); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) stating "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina in view of PolymerWorld, “Polymer Matrix Composite,” YouTube, published July 28, 2001 (available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrIfsIoqe8s) (hereinafter PolymerWorld).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, while Vezina recognizes that portions of the torque control link portion (110) may be plastic, Vezina does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the shield body portion and the torque control link portion comprise a polymer matrix composite.
PolymerWorld teaches that it was old and well known in the art of material science, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a chosen plastic to be a polymer matrix composite (6:15-6:45 teaches that polymer matrix composites can be a type of plastic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of material selection before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shield body portion and the torque control link portion of the clutch guard disclosed by Vezina to be a polymer matrix composite as taught by PolymerWorld in order to select a high strength material with excellent properties that are heat resistant, e.g., see PolymerWorld 1:00-1:30 and 6:15-6:45, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina in view of US 6,860,826 B1 to Johnson.
Regarding claim 11, Vezina discloses a snowmobile (10) (Fig. 1 & Abstract) comprising:
a chassis (16) (Figs. 1-4 & [0157]);
an engine (42) coupled to the chassis (16) (Fig. 2A & [0173]);
an output shaft (62) coupled to the engine (42) (Fig. 18 & [0176]);
a continuously variable transmission (50) including a drive [pulley] (52), a driven clutch (54), and an endless belt (58) extending therebetween, wherein the drive [pulley] (52) is coupled to the output shaft (62) (Figs. 9-11 & [0177] and [0179]);
a jackshaft (56) coupled to the driven clutch (54) (Figs. 9-11 & [0177] and [0179]); and
a [pulley] guard (70) secured to both the chassis and the engine, the [pulley] guard including:
a shield body (112) (Fig. 12 & [0197]-[0198]);
a torque control link section (110), … including one or more engine mounting features (162,164) and one or more chassis mounting features (151) (Figs. 15-19 & [0205], [0209]-[0211]);
wherein the torque control link section includes a jackshaft aperture (126) for receiving the jackshaft (56) (Figs. 9-12 & [0177], [0201]), and an output shaft clearance component (124), in proximity to an output shaft (62) (Figs. 9-12, 18-20 & [0201]), and wherein the torque control link section secures a distance between the jackshaft and the output shaft (62) (Figs. 15-20 & [208] and [0213] disclose the driven shaft opening is rigidly connected to the engine through ribs 135 and the output shaft is form fit into the drive opening, which because the apertures 126 and 124 do not move relative to each other, they are interpreted as securing a distance between the jackshaft and the output shaft.).
Vezina does not appear to disclose where the pulleys include a clutch and thus does not explicitly disclose a drive clutch, driven clutch, and a clutch guard, and further a torque control link portion, integrated with the shield body portion.
Johnson teaches that it was old and well known in the art of CVT driven snowmobiles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a drive pulley and a driven pulley to be a drive clutch and a driven clutch (Figs. 1-3 & col 1 lns 19-35 and col 3 lns 57-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of CVT driven snowmobiles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CVT driven snowmobiles disclosed by Vezina to incorporate for the drive pulley and the driven pulley to be a drive clutch and a driven clutch as taught by Johnson in order to provide a transmission that does not require shifting through a series of gears, e.g., see col 1 lns 19-35, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have integrated the torque control link portion with the shield body portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (b); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) stating "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
Regarding claim 18, depending on claim 11, the modified combination of Vezina/Johnson wherein the clutch guard (Vezina -70) further includes a liner (Vezina -132) assembly affixed to the shield body (Vezina -112), the liner assembly (Vezina - 132) including: a frame connection feature (another one of the several depicted frame connections 151) configured to secure to the chassis (43) (Figs. 15-19 & [0205], [0209]-[0211]), and a curved portion configured to partially surround the driven clutch (Vezina – 54/Johnson - 330) (Figs. 12-15 & [0205] disclose the middle plate member 132 includes curved portions, e.g., see curved lines in Fig. 15 in particular, and at least partially surrounds the driven clutch).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina in view of Johnson and further in view of US 9,174,702 B1 to Gauthier et al (hereinafter Gauthier).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 11, although Vezina likely depicts an exhaust manifold connected to the engine (42) in Fig. 6, Vezina does not appear to explicitly disclose an exhaust system in contact with the engine (42).
Gauthier teaches that it was old and well known in the art of snowmobiles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for an exhaust system (150) to be in contact with the engine (24) (Figs. 3, 5, 6, 8 & col 8 lns 39-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of snowmobiles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the snowmobile disclosed by the modified combination of Vezina/Johnson to incorporate for an exhaust system to be in contact with the engine as taught by Gauthier in order to move hot exhaust from the engine away from the engine, reduce noise, and cool/clean the exhaust prior to reintroducing to atmosphere, e.g., see col 1 lns 42-65, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 12, Vezina further discloses one or more compression limiters (170) positioned at least partially within the one or more engine mounting features (162,164) (Fig. 16 & [0210]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina in view of Johnson and further in view of PolymerWorld.
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 12, while Vezina recognizes that portions of the torque control link portion (110) may be plastic, the modified combination of Vezina/Johnson does not wherein the shield body and the torque control link section comprise a polymer matrix composite.
PolymerWorld teaches that it was old and well known in the art of material science, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a chosen plastic to be a polymer matrix composite (6:15-6:45 teaches that polymer matrix composites can be a type of plastic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of material selection before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shield body portion and the torque control link portion of the clutch guard disclosed by Vezina to be a polymer matrix composite as taught by PolymerWorld in order to select a high strength material with excellent properties that are heat resistant, e.g., see PolymerWorld 1:00-1:30 and 6:15-6:45, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7, 10, 13, 15-16, and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights