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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 23, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 claim rejections (pages 7-9) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
Note from the examiner: The applicant indicated that claim 2 was canceled and that claim 18 was presently amended; however claim 2 was previously canceled in the claims filed October 30, 2025, and claim 18 appears to have no changes- either from the October 2025 amendment or the originally presented claims. Unless this is incorrect, or the examiner is mistaken, no corrections are required.
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, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (US-20130032418-A1) in view of AUTOSAVER88 (“6 inches Running Boards...”) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience) (note that the MS Word version of the Office Action shows annotated figures in color, as opposed to in grayscale as printed in the PDF version of the same document).
Regarding Claim 1, Ripley teaches a {not taught: composite} running board for a snow vehicle (Running Board Assembly 304, Figs. 34A, 35-36, and 43-44 of Snowmobile 10, Fig. 1A), comprising:
a first side rail (Marginal Edge 410, Fig. 36) positionable along an outboard side (the side facing out in Fig. 36) of a side panel (Side Wall 310, Fig. 36) of a snowmobile tunnel (Marginal Edge 410 being disposed along the outboard side of Side Wall 310 of Tunnel 39 as illustrated in Fig. 36);
a second side rail (Elongate Member 388, Fig. 36) positionable outboard of the first side rail (Elongate Member 388 being positioned outboard of Marginal Edge 410 as illustrated in Fig. 36) adjacent a support member (Bracket 394, Fig. 36), wherein the second side rail (388) defines a channel (a passage- i.e. channel- extending through Elongate Member 388 as illustrated in Fig. 37 Annotated; hereafter: “CH”), having a downward facing opening (an opening being formed at the front- right in Fig. 36- end of Channel CH of Elongate Member 388, the opening being disposed downwards as illustrated in Fig. 36; hereafter: “OP”) extending a length of the running board (Opening OP extending the length the Running Board Assembly 304 as understood by Figs. 36 and 37) and configured to receive the support member (394) therein (Bracket 394 being received in the Opening OP at the front end of Channel CH as illustrated in Figs. 45A and 46A) and wherein the channel (CH) defines one or more retaining features (“RF”, Fig. 37 Annotated) configured to engage the support member (Retaining Features RF of Elongate Member 388 engaging with Bracket 394 as illustrated in Figs. 45A and 46A); and
PNG
media_image1.png
396
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
one or more cross members (Plate Portion 408, having openings 418, forms cross members, Fig. 36) extending from the first side rail (410) to the second side rail (388) (Plate Portion 408 forming cross members which extend between Marginal Edge 410 and Elongate Member 388 as illustrated in Fig. 36).
Ripley further teaches that the use of carbon fiber for certain members reduces the weight of those members, and therefore, the weight of the snowmobile, which allows a rider easier maneuvering of the snowmobile Para. [0140].
Although Ripley teaches the use of a composite and fiber reinforced polymer material for certain frame components (Paras. [0139]- [0140] teach the use of a carbon fiber material for Overstructure 202, carbon fiber commonly referring to a composite material that is comprised of a fiber reinforced polymer), Ripley does not specifically teach that the running board is made of a composite or fiber reinforced polymer material.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s running board such that the running board is made of a composite or fiber reinforced polymer material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of reducing the weight of the running board by making it of a composite material as taught by Ripley and discussed above.
Ripley does not teach that the channel opening has a portion that is continuously open to the underside.
AUTOSAVER88, in another running board for a vehicle (Title), teaches a channel (“CH-AUTO”, Fig. 5 Annotated) having a downward facing opening extending a length of and having a portion continuously open to an underside (the underside being turn upwards in Fig. 5 Annotated) of the running board (Channel CH-AUTO being open to the underside of the running board as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley and AUTOSAVER88 in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s running board such that e channel opening has a portion that is continuously open to the underside as suggested by AUTOSAVER88. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of reducing the weight of the running board by making the channel open on one side that would beneficially make a lighter and/ or cheaper to manufacture device.
PNG
media_image2.png
1064
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Ripley further teaches that the second side rail (388) extends forward (to the right in Fig. 43) of the first side rail (410) (Elongate Member 388 extending forward of Marginal Edge 410 as illustrated in Fig. 43).
Regarding Claim 10, Ripley teaches a snow vehicle (Snowmobile 10, Fig. 1A), comprising:
a tunnel (Tunnel 39, Fig. 36) including top panel (Top Wall 308, Fig. 36) and a side panel (Side Wall 310, Fig. 36), the side panel (310) including a first end (the upper edge of Side Wall 310, Fig. 36) connected to the top panel (the upper edge of Side Wall 310 being connected with Top Wall 308 as illustrated in Fig. 36) and a second end (the lower edge of Side Wall 310, Fig. 36) extending downward therefrom (the lower edge of Side Wall 310 extending downward from Top Wall 308 as illustrated in Fig. 36);
a support member (the combination of Bracket 394 and Elbow 396, Fig. 36) spaced apart from and extending longitudinally along the side panel (Side Wall 310) to define a gap therebetween (Bracket 394 and Elbow 396, taken either together or separately, being generally spaced apart from and extending for at least some distance in a longitudinal direction along Side Wall 310 such that they, together or individually, define a gap between them and the Side Wall 310 as illustrated in Figs. 35 & 36); and
a running board (Running Board Assembly 304, Figs. 34A), the running board including:
a first side rail (Marginal Edge 410) positioned along an outboard side of the second end of the side panel (Side Wall 310),
a second side rail (Elongate Member 388) positioned outboard of the first side rail (Marginal Edge 410), wherein the second side rail (Elongate Member 388) defines a channel (a passage- i.e. channel- extending through Elongate Member 388 as illustrated in Fig. 37; hereafter: “CH”), having a downward facing opening (an opening being formed at the front- right in Fig. 36- end of Channel CH of Elongate Member 388, the opening being disposed downwards as illustrated in Fig. 36; hereafter: “OP”) extending a length of the composite running board (Opening OP extending the length the Running Board Assembly 304 as understood by Figs. 36 and 37) in which the support member (394) is received (Bracket 394 being received in the Opening OP at the front end of Channel CH as illustrated in Figs. 45A and 46A), wherein the channel defines one or more retaining features (“RF”, Fig. 37 Annotated) engaging the support member (Retaining Features RF of Elongate Member 388 engaging with Bracket 394 and Elbow 396 as illustrated in Figs. 45A- 46B).
PNG
media_image3.png
713
865
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ripley does not teach that the running board is made of a polymeric material, but based on other teachings of Ripley it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Ripley regarding polymer- i.e. polymeric- materials and motivation to combine them with the running board/ snow vehicle of Ripley).
Ripley does not teach that the channel opening has a portion that is continuously open to the underside, but AUTOSAVER88 teaches such a channel (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of AUTOSAVER88 and motivation to combine them with the running board / snow vehicle of Ripley).
Regarding Claim 11, Ripley further teaches:
a track (Track 16, Fig. 1A) operably positioned in the tunnel (39), wherein the track (16) is driven by a track drive shaft (Drive Shaft 36, Fig. 5, which drives Track 16 as taught in Para. [0119]);
a vehicle component (Clutch 44, Fig. 5) operably connected to the track drive shaft (Clutch 44 being connected to Drive Shaft 36 as illustrated in Fig. 5), and
a toe guard (Toe Grip Assembly 400, Fig. 43) comprising a body (the combination of Flange 404, Back Wall 444, Frame Member 446 and Toe Clip 448, Fig. 43), the toe guard (400) including a first portion defining a toe pocket (“TP”, Fig. 36 Annotated) and a second portion (Back Wall 444, Fig. 43) positioned inboard of the toe pocket (Toe Pocket TP extending outboard of Back Wall 444 as illustrated in Fig. 36 Annotated), wherein the second portion (444) at least partially defines a chamber (“CHM”, Fig, 2 Annotated) that at least partially receives the vehicle component (Chamber CHM being at least partially defined by Back Wall 444 and receiving Clutch 44 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated) therein, wherein a forward end (right in Fig. 43) of the running board (304) is secured to the toe guard (the forward/ right end of Running Board Assembly 304 being secured to Flange 404 of Toe Grip Assembly 400 through bracket 394 as illustrated in Fig. 43).
PNG
media_image4.png
511
767
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ripley does not teach that the toe guard is made of a polymeric material, but based on other teachings of Ripley it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Ripley regarding polymer- i.e. polymeric- materials and motivation to combine them with the running board/ snow vehicle of Ripley).
Regarding Claim 14, Ripley further teaches that the running board (304) includes a forward end (right in Fig. 43 and adjacent to Bracket 394) positioned a first distance from the side panel (Side Wall 310), and a rearward end (left in Fig. 43 and adjacent to Elbow 396) positioned a second distance from the side panel (Side Wall 310), wherein the first distance is different than the second distance (as illustrated in Figs. 43 and 44, Elongate Member 388 of Running Board Assembly 304 runs at an angle to Side Wall 310 such that a forward/ right end is disposed at a different, namely larger, distance from Side Wall 310 than a rearward/ left end is).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley and AUTOSAVER88 in view of Sturgeon (US-20200086940-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ripley does not teach that the support member and one or more retaining features are joined via an interference fit.
Sturgeon teaches, in another footrest for a vehicle (Footrest 10, Fig. 1 and Abstract), a support member (Fork 24, Fig. 5) that is configured to be received within a retaining feature (Clamp Members 66, Fig. 5) via an interference fit (Clamp Members 66 clamping onto Fork 24 such that they are considered to be joined by an interference fit as illustrated in Fig. 5; see also Para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, and Sturgeon in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s running board such that the support member and retaining features are joined via an interference fit as suggested by Sturgeon. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a solid, easy to assemble, connection that would beneficially make an assembly that is perceived by a consumer as more robust yet is easy to manufacture.
Regarding Claim 4, Ripley further teaches that the one or more retaining features (RF) include a {not taught: plurality} retaining member (an instance of Adhesive Ports 397, Fig. 44) extending into the downward facing opening (OP) from an outboard side of the channel (CH) that are engageable with the support member (394) when the support member (394) is positioned in the channel (an instance of Adhesive Port 397 extending into Opening OP of the Channel CH of Elongate Member 388 from the outboard side as illustrated in Fig. 44 and engaging with Adhesive Cavity 395 of Bracket 394 as illustrated in Fig. 46A and discussed in Para. [0164]).
Ripley does not teach that the retaining member is a plurality of retaining members.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the singular retaining member taught by Ripley as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. It is further noted that Ripley teaches a plurality of retaining members for joining similar components (see the 103 rejection of claim 5 below) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to similarly use a plurality of retaining members in this instance.
Regarding Claim 5, Ripley further teaches that the one or more retaining features (RF) includes a second plurality of retaining members (an instance of Adhesive Ports 397 and Fastener 426, Fig. 45A) extending into the downward facing opening (OP) from an inboard side of the channel (CH) that are engageable with the support member (394) when the support member (394) is positioned in the channel (an instance of Adhesive Port 397 and Fastener 426 extending into Opening OP of the Channel CH of Elongate Member 388 from the inboard side as illustrated in Fig. 45A and engaging with Adhesive Cavity 395 of Bracket 394 as illustrated in Fig. 46A and discussed in Para. [0164]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ripley does not teach flexible clips.
Sturgeon teaches flexible clips (Clamp Members 66, Fig. 5), wherein the channel (40) and a first plurality of retaining members (Fork Receivers 42, Fig. 5) extend around at least 51% of a circumference of the support member (24) to apply a compressive force to the support member (24) when the support member (24) is positioned in the channel (Clamp Members 66 of Fork Receivers 42 are illustrated as extending at least more than halfway- i.e. at least 51%- around Fork 24 and Para. [0038] teaches the Clamp Members 66 clamping to the Fork 24 with a snap fit- i.e. with compressive force).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, and Sturgeon in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s running board to include flexible clips as suggested by Sturgeon. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a solid, easy to assemble, connection that would beneficially make an assembly that is perceived by a consumer as more robust yet is easy to manufacture.
Regarding Claim 7, Ripley further teaches that one or both of the first plurality of retaining members (397, Fig. 44) and the second plurality of retaining members (397, Fig. 45A) extend below an underside of the first side rail (410) and the one or more cross members (Adhesive Ports 397 being disposed below Marginal Edge 410 and Plate Portion 408 as illustrated in Figs 44 and 45A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley and AUTOSAVER88 in view of Watson (Fiber-Reinforced Composites).
Ripley does not teach a fiber weight ratio of between 45% and 55%.
Watson, in a related article that discusses the use of fiber-reinforced composite technology in various products (Title, Paras. 1-2), teaches using a fiber weight ratio of 50% (Section: Assembly Procedures, Para. 4).
Watson further teaches that using excess resin (corresponding to a lower fiber weight ratio) does little to improve a composite’s physical properties, and it adds weight and expense (Section: Assembly Procedures, Para. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, and Watson in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s running board such that the fiber reinforced polymer has a fiber weight ratio of between 45% and 55% as suggested by Watson’s teaching of a fiber weight ratio of 50%. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage limiting the weight and expense of a part while achieving desirable physical properties as taught by Watson and discussed above.
Claims 12-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley and AUTOSAVER88 in view of Vezina (CA-2925822-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ripley further teaches that the forward end (right in Fig. 43) of the running board (304) and the toe guard (400) define an opening (“OP-T”, Fig. 36 Annotated) positioned outboard of the second portion (444) of the toe guard that extends from the toe pocket to an underside of the snow vehicle.
Ripley does not teach that the opening is positioned outboard of a second portion of a toe guard.
Vezina teaches, in another running board for a snow vehicle (Footrest 64 of Snowmobile 10, Fig. 1), that a forward end (left in Fig. 2B) of the running board (64) and a toe guard (Support 66, Fig. 2B) define an opening (“OP-V”, Fig. 2B Annotated) positioned outboard (left, Fig. 2B) of a second portion (“OP-V”, Fig. 2B Annotated; being adjacent to Support 66 such that it forms a portion of the toe guard formed by Support 66) of the toe guard (66) that extends from a toe pocket (“TP-V”, Fig. 2B Annotated) to an underside of the snow vehicle (Opening OP-V being positioned outboard of Second Portion SP-V of Support 66 and extending from Toe Pocket TP-V to an underside of Snowmobile 10, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, and 2B Annotated).
PNG
media_image5.png
551
816
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, and Vezina in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s running board such that an opening is positioned outboard of a second portion of a toe guard as suggested by Vezina. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing space for other vehicle components in the running board that would beneficially make a more compact assembly.
PNG
media_image6.png
689
981
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Ripley further teaches that the second side rail (388) extends forward (to the right in Fig. 43) of the first side rail (410) (Elongate Member 388 extending forward of Marginal Edge 410 as illustrated in Fig. 43), the second side rail (388) is secured to the toe guard (Elongate Member 388 being secured to Toe Grip Assembly 400 via Bracket 394 and Flange 404 as illustrated in Fig.), and wherein the second side rail (388) at least partially defines an outboard side of the opening (Elongate Member 388 defining an outboard side of Opening OP-T as illustrated in Fig. 36 Annotated).
the second side rail (388) extends forward (to the right in Fig. 43) of the first side rail (410) (Elongate Member 388 extending forward of Marginal Edge 410 as illustrated in Fig. 43).
Regarding Claim 15, Ripley further teaches a flange (“FL”, Figs. 37 and 43 Annotated) that extends from the second end (the lower edge of Side Wall 310) of the side panel (310) and outboard therefrom (Flange FL extending from the lower edge of Side Wall 310 in an outboard direction as illustrated in Figs. 37 and 43 Annotated), wherein the first side rail (410) of the running board (304) is positioned on the flange (Marginal Edge 410 being positioned on Flange FL as illustrated in Figs. 37 and 43 Annotated).
Ripley does not teach that the flange is comprised of a bracket positioned on an inboard side of the side panel.
Vezina teaches a bracket (Rear Suspension Attachment Bracket 142, Fig. 20) including a body (the Rear Suspension Attachment Bracket 142 being itself a body) positioned an inboard side (central to Fig. 20) of a side panel (Tunnel Wall 122, Fig. 20) of a tunnel (instances of Rear Suspension Attachment Bracket 142 being positioned on inboard sides of Tunnel Wall 122 of Tunnel 18 as illustrated in Figs. 20 & 21), and a flange (Horizontal Plate 144, Fig. 21) extending from the body (142) underneath a second end (the lower end of Tunnel Wall 122 as illustrated in Fig. 20) of the side panel (122) and outboard therefrom for mounting a component (Horizontal Plate 144 extending underneath the lower end of Tunnel Wall 122 from Rear Suspension Attachment Bracket 142 from an inboard side of Tunnel Wall 122 to an outboard side; Rear Suspension Attachment Bracket 142 being used to mount Wheel 36 to the tunnel as illustrated in Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, and Vezina in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s running board such t that the flange is comprised of a bracket positioned on an inboard side of the side panel as suggested by Vezina. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a removably mounted bracket for mounting components to the tunnel that would beneficially make construction or assembly of the apparatus easier.
Regarding Claim 16, Ripley further teaches a forward frame (Front Frame Portion 12A, Fig. 1A) positioned at least partially forward of the tunnel (Front Frame Portion 12A being positioned forward of Tunnel 39 as illustrated in Fig. 1A), wherein the toe guard (400) defines a rearward facing surface (Back Wall 444, Fig. 43), wherein the support member (394) extends forward (right in Fig. 36) from the running board (304) and along the rearward facing surface (Bracket 394 extending forward of Running Board Assembly 304 and past- i.e. along- Back Wall 444 as illustrated in Fig. 36).
Ripley does not teach the support member extending from the rearward facing surface to the forward frame.
Vezina teaches a support member (Footrest Support 62, Fig. 2B) which extends from a rearward facing surface (Front Portion 66a, Fig. 2B) of a foot guard (Support 66, Fig. 2B) to a forward frame (Footrest Support 62 extending from Front Portion 66a of Support 66 to Rear Portion 130 of Engine Subframe 20 as illustrated in Fig. 2B; where Engine Subframe 20 is considered a forward frame in that it is a frame assembly in the forward area of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, and Vezina in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s running board such that a support member extends from a rearward facing surface to a forward frame as suggested by Vezina. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing support to the footrest that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
Regarding Claim 17, Ripley teaches a snow vehicle (Snowmobile 10, Fig. 1A), comprising:
a tunnel (Tunnel 39, Fig. 36) including top panel (Top Wall 308, Fig. 36) and a side panel (Side Wall 310, Fig. 36) with a first end (the upper edge of Side Wall 310, Fig. 36) connected to the top panel (the upper edge of Side Wall 310 being connected with Top Wall 308 as illustrated in Fig. 36) and a second end (the lower edge of Side Wall 310, Fig. 36) extending downward therefrom (the lower edge of Side Wall 310 extending downward from Top Wall 308 as illustrated in Fig. 36);
a track (Track 16, Fig. 1A) operably positioned in the tunnel (39), wherein the track (16) is driven by a track drive shaft (Drive Shaft 36, Fig. 5, which drives Track 16 as taught in Para. [0119]);
a vehicle component (Clutch 44, Fig. 5) operably connected to the track drive shaft (Clutch 44 being connected to Drive Shaft 36 as illustrated in Fig. 5);
a support member (Elbow 396, Fig. 36) spaced apart from and extending along the side panel (Side Wall 310) to define a gap therebetween (Elbow 396 being generally spaced apart from and extending for some distance along Side Wall 310 such that it defines a gap between them as illustrated in Figs. 35 & 36);
a running board (Running Board Assembly 304, Fig. 34A), a first side rail (Marginal Edge 410, Fig. 36) positioned along an outboard side (the side facing out in Fig. 36) of the second end (the lower edge of Side Wall 310) of the side panel (Side Wall 310), and a second side rail (Elongate Member 388, Fig. 36) positioned outboard of the first side rail (410), wherein the second side rail (388) defines a channel (a passage- i.e. channel- extending through Elongate Member 388 as illustrated in Fig. 37; hereafter: “CH”), having a downward facing opening (an opening being formed at the front- right in Fig. 36- end of Channel CH of Elongate Member 388, the opening being disposed downwards as illustrated in Fig. 36; hereafter: “OP”) extending a length of the composite running board (Opening OP extending the length the Running Board Assembly 304 as understood by Figs. 36 and 37) in which the support member (394) is received (Bracket 394 being received in the Opening OP at the front end of Channel CH as illustrated in Figs. 45A and 46A), wherein the channel (CH) defines one or more retaining features (“RF”, Fig. 37 Annotated) engaging the support member (Elongate Member 388 engaging with First Coupling Portion 432 of Elbow 396 as illustrated in Figs. 45B and 46B).
Ripley does not teach a bottom-out protector.
Vezina teaches a bottom-out protector (“BOP”, Fig. 1 Annotated) that is secured to the running board (Bottom-Out Protector BOP being secured to Footrest 64 as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2B Annotated), and the bottom-out protector (BOP) at least partially houses a vehicle component (Drive Sprocket 34 being considered a vehicle component and being at least partially housed by Bottom-Out Protector BOP as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated) therein.
PNG
media_image7.png
553
819
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The bottom-out protector (BOP) of Vezina is arranged such that a forward end (left in Fig. 2B) of the running board (64) and the bottom- out protector (BOP) at least partially define an opening (OP-V) that extends from a toe pocket (TP-V) to an underside of the snow vehicle (Opening OP-V being at least partially defined by the front/ left end of Footrest 64 and Bottom-Out Protector BOP and extending from Toe Pocket TP-V to an underside of Snowmobile 10, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, and 2B Annotated) (note: these teachings relate to claim 18 as discussed below).
The bottom-out protector (BOP) of Vezina is further arranged such that the running board (64) is positioned between the toe guard (66) and the bottom-out protector (BOP) with the toe guard (66) positioned on an upper surface (Support 66 being positioned on and above Front Tunnel Extension 128 of Footrest 64 as illustrated in Fig. 2B) thereof, and the bottom-out protector (BOP) positioned on a lower surface thereof (Bottom-Out Protector BOP being positioned on an underside surface of Footrest 64 as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2B) (note: these teachings relate to claim 19 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley and Vezina in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s snow vehicle to include a bottom-out protector as suggested by Vezina. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing protection to the underside of vehicle components that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
Ripley, as modified above, does not teach that the running board or the bottom-out protector is made of a composite material, but based on other teachings of Ripley It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Ripley regarding composite materials and motivation to combine them with the running board/ snow vehicle of Ripley as modified above).
Ripley does not teach that the channel opening has a portion that is continuously open to the underside, but AUTOSAVER88 teaches such a channel (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of AUTOSAVER88 and motivation to combine them with the running board / snow vehicle of Ripley).
Regarding Claim 18, Ripley, as modified above by Vezina, teaches all limitation (see the 103 rejection of claim 17 above for the teachings of Vezina and motivation to combine them with the snow vehicle of Ripley).
Regarding Claim 19, Ripley further teaches a toe guard (Toe Grip Assembly 400, Fig. 43) comprising a body (the combination of Flange 404, Back Wall 444, Frame Member 446 and Toe Clip 448, Fig. 43), the toe guard (400) including a first portion defining the toe pocket (“TP”, Fig. 36 Annotated) and a second portion (Back Wall 444, Fig. 43) positioned inboard of the toe pocket (Toe Pocket TP extending outboard of Back Wall 444 as illustrated in Fig. 36 Annotated), wherein the second portion (444) at least partially receives the vehicle component (Chamber CHM being at least partially defined by Back Wall 444 and receiving Clutch 44 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated) therein, wherein the running board (304) is secured to the toe guard (Running Board Assembly 304 being secured to Flange 404 of Toe Grip Assembly 400 through Bracket 394 as illustrated in Fig. 43).
Ripley does not teach that the toe guard is made of a polymeric material, but based on other teachings of Ripley it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Ripley regarding polymer- i.e. polymeric- materials and motivation to combine them with the running board/ snow vehicle of Ripley).
Ripley does not teach that the running board is positioned between the toe guard and a bottom-out protector, but Vezina teaches a bottom-out protector with a similar arrangement to the claimed invention (see the 103 rejection of claim 17 above for the teachings of Vezina and motivation to combine them with the snow vehicle of Ripley).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, and Vezina in view of Monfette (US-20130080007-A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Ripley further teaches a sensor (Speed Sensor 492 Para. [0106]) that detects movement of the vehicle component (Para. [0106] teaches that Speed Sensor 492 senses a speed- i.e. movement- of the entire Snowmobile 10, and by extension detects a movement of all of the associated vehicle components including Clutch 44).
Monfette teaches, in another snow vehicle (Snowmobile 10, Fig. 1), a sensor (Driving Shaft Speed Sensor 204, Para. [0077]) that detects movement of a vehicle component (Para. [0077] teaches that Driving Shaft Speed Sensor 204 detects a speed of rotation- i.e. movement- of a Pulley 80, a pulley being considered a vehicle component in that it is a part of the Snowmobile 10 and further considered analogous to the Clutch 44 of Ripley in that they are both power transmission components of a track drive train system: Pulley 80 of Monfette being a part of Powertrain 75, Fig. 2A; and Clutch 44 of Ripley being a part of Power Train Unit 30, Fig. 5).
Monfette further teaches the signal of Driving Shaft Speed Sensor 204 being used to monitor and control the operation of the Powertrain 75 (Paras. [0077]- [0078] teach Driving Shaft Speed Sensor 204 being used with a Control Unit 200 to monitor and control the operation of CVT 40, which is a part of the Powertrain 75 as illustrated in Fig. 2A).
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made against the sensor taught by Ripley that it does not detect the movement of the identified vehicle component of Ripley, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, Vezina, and Monfette in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s snow vehicle to include a sensor configured to detect movement of a vehicle component as suggested by Monfette. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of monitoring and controlling components of a snowmobile powertrain, as taught by Monfette and discussed above, that would beneficially improve the running characteristics of the snowmobile.
Ripley, as modified above, does not teach that the sensor is housed in the toe guard.
Vezina teaches a vehicle component (Drive Sprocket 34, Fig, 1) which is also a power transmission component (understood by the name “drive sprocket”), that it is at least partially housed in the toe guard (Drive Sprocket 34 being at least partially housed by Support 66 as illustrated in Fig. 2A) (note: these teachings relate to claim 20 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ripley, AUTOSAVER88, Vezina, and Monfette in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ripley’s snow vehicle such that a vehicle component is housed in the toe guard as suggested by Vezina, and further to locate the sensor, suggested by one or both of Ripley and Monfette as discussed above, in the toe guard as well. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging a powertrain component and sensor at least partially outside of the tunnel, but protected by a toe guard, that would beneficially free up space inside the tunnel for other vehicle components while still providing a robust snowmobile.
Conclusion
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/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611