Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemieux (US 20190047662) in view of Bergman (US 20030201637).
Regarding claim 1, Lemieux teaches a toe stop ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B), comprising:
a body ([0057]), the body including:
a first portion defining a toe pocket 63 (See annotated Fig. 2B below); and
a second portion positioned inboard of the toe pocket 63 (See annotated Fig. 2B below),
wherein the second portion at least partially defines a chamber 19 that is shaped to house a vehicle component therein ([0055] and [0057], Figs. 2A-2B; the reduction gear assembly is the vehicle component); and
wherein the chamber 19 is partially defined by:
an inboard wall ([0057], Fig. 2A-2B; the outboard wall of the vehicle component chamber 19 is the inboard wall of the second portion); and
a rearward wall extending inward from the inboard wall ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B; the upper wall of the vehicle component chamber 19, which extends laterally across the toe stop is the rearward wall).
Lemieux does not teach the toe stop body comprising a polymeric material. However, Bergman teaches a foot rest for a straddle-mounted vehicle with a body comprising a polymeric material ([0035] of Bergman).
Lemieux discloses the claimed invention except for the body comprising a polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to manufacture the toe stop from a polymeric material as Bergman teaches, since 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Additionally, it would have been obvious to manufacture the toe stop from polymeric material in order to advantageously save money since polymeric materials provide a lower cost alternative to metals for the structure.
Regarding claim 10, Lemieux teaches a toe stop ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B), comprising:
a body ([0057]) the body including:
a first portion defining a toe pocket 63, wherein the first portion includes a base that at least partially defines an opening through a bottom of the toe pocket (See annotated Fig. 2B below);
a second portion positioned inboard of the toe pocket 63, wherein the second portion at least partially defines a chamber 19 shaped to house a vehicle component therein ([0055] and [0057]; See annotated Fig. 2B below), wherein the chamber is partially defined by:
an inboard wall ([0057], Fig. 2A-2B; the outboard wall of the vehicle component chamber 19 is the inboard wall of the second portion); and
a rearward wall extending inward from the inboard wall ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B; the upper wall of the vehicle component chamber 19, which extends laterally across the toe stop is the rearward wall); and a toe hook 65 positioned above the opening through the toe pocket ([0057], Fig. 2A).
Lemieux does not teach the toe stop body comprising a polymeric material. However, Bergman teaches a foot rest for a straddle-mounted vehicle with a body comprising a polymeric material ([0035] of Bergman).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to manufacture the toe stop from a polymeric material as Bergman teaches, since 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Additionally, it would have been obvious to manufacture the toe stop from polymeric material in order to advantageously save money since polymeric materials provide a lower cost alternative to metals for the structure.
Regarding claim 21, Lemieux teaches a snow vehicle 10 ([0053], Fig. 1), comprising:
a track 30 operably positioned in a tunnel 18 ([0055], Fig. 1), wherein the track 30 is driven by a track drive shaft 54 ([0053]);
a body 12, 14 ([0053], Fig. 1), the body including:
a first portion defining a toe pocket 63 ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B), and
a second portion positioned inboard of the toe pocket, wherein the second portion at least partially defines a chamber and the chamber (See annotated Fig. 2B below) is further partially defined by:
an inboard wall ([0057], Fig. 2A-2B; the outboard wall of the vehicle component chamber 19 is the inboard wall of the second portion); and
a rearward wall extending inward from the inboard wall ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B; the upper wall of the vehicle component chamber 19, which extends laterally across the toe stop is the rearward wall); and a vehicle component operably connected to the track drive shaft 54 ([0055]; the reduction gear assembly is the vehicle component), wherein the vehicle component is at least partially positioned in the chamber 19 defined by the second portion of the body ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B).
Lemieux does not teach the toe stop body comprising a polymeric material. However, Bergman teaches a foot rest for a straddle-mounted vehicle with a body comprising a polymeric material ([0035] of Bergman).
Lemieux discloses the claimed invention except for the body comprising a polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to manufacture the toe stop from a polymeric material as Bergman teaches, since 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Additionally, it would have been obvious to manufacture the toe stop from polymeric material in order to advantageously save money since polymeric materials provide a lower cost alternative to metals for the structure.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Bergman, and further in view of Kerner (US 20110132679).
Regarding claim 2, Lemieux as modified does not teach wherein the inboard wall comprises a sensor mount configured to receive a sensor.
However, Kerner teaches a snowmobile which uses a sensor 1150 to measure rotational speed of the drive shaft 826 ([0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/Bergman to have the speed sensor of Kerner in order to advantageously provide track velocity information ([0161] of Kerner).
Regarding the limitation of “the inboard wall comprising a sensor mount configured to receive a sensor”, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Bergman, Kerner, and further in view of Huo (CN 102832746).
Regarding claim 9, Lemieux as modified does not expressly teach using an interference fit to secure the sensor to the sensor mount.
However, Huo teaches rotating speed measuring device wherein the sensor mount is configured to secure the sensor via an interference fit ([0016] of Huo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the sensor of the modified snowmobile of Lemieux et al. by an interference fit as Huo teaches in order to advantageously improve the reliability and service life of the sensor ([0016] of Huo).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Bergman, and further in view of Edwards (US 20210188182).
Regarding claim 11, Lemieux as modified does not teach a third portion.
However, Edwards teaches a snowmobile toe stop wherein the body includes a third portion 60 and the toe hook 802, wherein the third portion 60 includes a rearward facing side shaped to receive a support member 20 (Figs. 6, 26 and 45 of Edwards; the support chassis 20 is connected to panel 190 of the third portion 20 forward of the bracket 802 which functions as a toe hook) of a running board 42 at least partially forward of the toe hook 802 (Fig. 7B of Edwards).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/Bergman to have the third portion of Edwards in order to advantageously provide a snowmobile with interchangeable body panels ([0110] of Edwards).
Regarding the limitation of “a third portion positioned outboard of the second portion”. While Edwards does not teach a second portion, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the second portion of Lemieux provided inboard of the modified third portion of Edwards as the third portion of Edwards is provided on the outermost edges of the snowmobile body, thereby positioning the modified third portion of Lemieux/Edwards outboard of the second portion.
Regarding claim 12, Lemieux as modified does not teach a first panel interface.
However, Edwards teaches wherein the body includes a first panel interface (Fig. 23 of Edwards; the interface is the point where panel 196 connects to panel 190) extending forward from a forward facing side of the third portion 60 ([0135], Figs. 3 and 23 of Edwards), wherein the first panel interface includes an outboard side (See annotated Fig. 1 below) positionable along an interior surface of a side body panel 190 (see annotated Fig. 1 of Edwards below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/Bergman to have the third portion with panel interfaces of Edwards in order to advantageously provide a snowmobile with interchangeable body panels ([0110] of Edwards).
Regarding claim 13, Lemieux as modified does not teach a second panel interface.
However, Edwards teaches wherein the body includes a second panel interface (Figs. 7A and 23; there is an interface between panels 190 and 196 on the left side of the snowmobile and a second interface between panels 190 and 198 on the right side of the snowmobile) positioned inboard of the third portion 60 that extends upward from one or both of the first portion and the second portion (see annotated Fig. 4 of Edwards below; the second interface extends vertically at a position which is inboard of the toe stop assembly 800), wherein the second panel interface includes an engagement feature that is securable to the side body panel 190 ([0135] of Edwards), and wherein the body includes a chassis mount 320 positioned forward of the engagement feature of the second panel interface ([0141], Figs. 20A and 26 of Edwards).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/Bergman to have the third portion with panel interfaces of Edwards in order to advantageously provide a snowmobile with interchangeable body panels ([0110] of Edwards).
Regarding claim 14, Lemieux as modified teaches wherein the chassis mount is positioned forward of the toe stop 806 (Figs. 20A, 26 and 37 of Edwards) instead of rearward of the toe stop.
Regarding the limitation of “wherein the chassis mount is positioned rearward of the toe stop”. Lemieux as modified teaches the panels extending partially rearward of the toe stops (Fig 20A of Edwards). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the chassis mount to be located rearward of the toe stop with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Bergman and Edwards, and further in view of Kerner.
Regarding claim 15, Lemieux as modified teaches a chamber 19 ([0057], Fig. 2A). Lemieux does not teach a sensor.
However, Kerner teaches a chamber ([0138], Fig. 6; the toe pocket is part of the vehicle frame which encompasses a second portion which holds the CVT 824, and the CVT couples the engine and the drive shaft 826; the chamber is the portion of the frame which holds the CVT) and a speed sensor 1150 with an undisclosed mounting location within the vehicle ([0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/Bergman to have the speed sensor of Kerner in order to advantageously provide track velocity information ([0161] of Kerner).
Regarding the limitation of “the sensor mount positioned in the chamber”, Lemieux as modified does not expressly teach the sensor mount positioned in the chamber. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to mount the sensor within the chamber where it can easily access and read the rotation speed of the drive shaft.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US 20210188182) in view of Lemieux.
Regarding claim 16, Edwards teaches a toe stop 800 ([0156], Fig. 38) comprising:
a housing 808 ([0156]) including:
a first wall 812 including a first side that is positionable adjacent a tunnel 32 of a tracked snow vehicle ([0157], Fig. 48), and a second side that extends outboard from the first side (the first side is the inner side of wall 812, and the second side is the outer side which is visible in Fig. 48);
a second wall 806 extending forward of the first wall 812 (Fig. 48);
a toe pocket 832, the toe pocket 832 is at least partially defined by an outboard side of the second wall 806 ([0158], Fig. 37), an upper wall 834 extending outboard from the second wall 806 ([0158], Fig. 48; see annotated Fig. 38 below), and a first portion of a third wall extending outboard from the second wall 806 (Fig. 38; a portion of fender 808 forms the outside wall of toe pocket 32, which is the first portion of a third wall);
an outboard flange 890 defined by a second portion of the third wall extending outboard of the first portion and the toe pocket ([0164], Fig. 51A), wherein a third portion 60 is positionable between a running board support 818 and a forward body panel 196 of the tracked snow vehicle (Figs 21 and 23 show the interchangeable panels 192 and 196 being mounted on the same interface of panel 190. Fig 7B shows the third portion 60 vertically between the panel 192 [which could optionally be swapped with panel 196] and the running board support 818 [the running board support is at the base of the snowmobile body as indicated by Fig. 45]);
a toe hook 802 extending along the upper wall (Fig. 48), the toe hook 802 positioned rearward of the third wall and inboard of the outboard flange (Fig. 50B; the toe hook 802 is rearward of the side wall of the toe pocket, which contains outboard flange 890).
Edwards does not teach the first and second walls forming a chamber shaped to receive a vehicle component therein.
However, Lemieux teaches a snowmobile toe stop assembly ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B of Lemieux) wherein a forward-facing side of a first wall 18a and an inboard side of the second wall (Fig. 4a of Lemieux; the second wall is the wall that a user’s toe abuts against in the figure) at least partially define a chamber 19 shaped to receive a vehicle component therein when the first side of the first wall is positioned adjacent the tunnel of the tracked snow vehicle ([0057], Fig. 2A-2B; the outboard wall of the vehicle component chamber 19 is the inboard wall of the second portion), wherein the chamber is partially defined by:
an inboard wall ([0057], Fig. 2A-2B of Lemieux; the outboard wall of the vehicle component chamber 19 is the inboard wall of the second portion); and
a rearward wall extending inward from the inboard wall ([0057], Figs. 2A-2B of Lemieux; the upper wall of the vehicle component chamber 19, which extends laterally across the toe stop is the rearward wall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the toe stop assembly of Edwards to include the chamber of Lemieux in order to advantageously make room for a reduction gear assembly ([0057] of Lemieux).
While Edwards does not teach “a toe pocket positioned outboard of the chamber”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the chamber of Lemieux (Fig. 10 of Lemieux) being substituted into Edwards, around the transmission, inboard of the toe pocket.
Regarding claim 17, Edwards as modified teaches the toe stop 800 further comprising a first panel interface (Fig. 23 of Edwards; the interface is the point where panel 196 connects to panel 190) including a first end secured to one or more of the first wall, the second wall, and the upper wall (Fig. 7B; [0137], the panel 190 is connected to the front end 12 of the snowmobile 10 by any of 194A, 194B, or 194C; Fig. 6 shows the third wall of the toe pocket, as part of the fender, which is part of the front end 12), and a second end that extends upward and rearward therefrom (Figs. 20B and 23; the second end is the end where mounting feature 194B is located, which is upward and rearward of mounting feature 194A), wherein the second end of the first panel interface includes an engagement feature 226 that is securable to the forward body panel 196 ([0139], Fig. 23; the interface between panels 190 and 196 has engagement features on both of the forward and rearward ends).
Regarding claim 18, Edwards as modified teaches further comprising a second panel interface (Figs. 7A and 23; there is an interface between panels 190 and 196 on the left side of the snowmobile and a second interface between panels 190 and 198 on the right side of the snowmobile) including a first end secured to a forward-facing side of the third wall (Fig. 7B; the third wall is part of the front end 12, which includes a mounting location on a forward-facing side where 194A secures the rearward end [first end] of the panel 190 [where member 222 is located]), and a second end (the end where element 220 is located on panel 190) extending forward therefrom (Fig. 20A), wherein the forward body panel 198 is positioned on an outboard side of the second panel interface when the forward body panel 198 is secured to the engagement feature 226 on the first panel interface ([0135], Fig. 20A).
Regarding claim 19, Edwards as modified teaches the toe stop further comprising a chassis mount 320 that extends upward and forward from the first panel interface (see annotated Fig. 20A below), wherein the chassis mount is positioned forward of the engagement feature of the first panel interface (Figs. 20A and 26).
Regarding claim 20, Edwards as modified teaches the toe stop further comprising a running board interface (the interface is the points where running board 42 connects to the side wall 812, outer rail 818, second wall 806, and the inside of the third wall) that includes a first portion that extends along a base of the outboard side of the second wall and a second portion that extends along a base of a rearward-facing side of the third wall, wherein the running board interface defines an opening with a running board when the running board is secured to the first portion and the second portion of the running board interface (Figs. 37, 38, and 45).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Bergman, and further in view of Gaudreau (US 20050121876).
Regarding claim 22, Lemieux as modified teaches the snow vehicle 10 further comprising a running board 64 ([0057], Fig. 2C) wherein the running board 64 includes a forward end secured to the body, wherein the forward end of the running board and the body define an opening in the toe pocket 63 (Figs. 2A-2C).
Lemieux does not teach the running board comprising a polymeric material.
However, Gaudreau teaches a snowmobile comprising a running board 22 comprising a polymeric material ([0035] of Gaudreau).
Lemieux discloses the claimed invention except for the running board comprising a polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to manufacture the toe stop from a polymeric material as Gaudreau teaches, since 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Additionally, it would have been advantageous to manufacture the running board from a polymeric material in order to provide cheaper alternative to metal materials.
Regarding claim 23, Lemieux as modified teaches wherein the body includes a toe hook 65 positioned above the opening in the toe pocket ([0057]).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Bergman, and Gaudreau, and further in view of Edwards.
Regarding claim 24, Lemieux as modified does not teach a third portion.
However, Edwards teaches wherein the body includes a third portion 60, wherein the running board 42 includes an outboard side that is supported by an outboard member 818 (Fig. 40), wherein the body receives a forward portion of the outboard member 818 along the third portion (Fig. 6 shows the extent of the nose portion 68 which includes the third portion 60; Fig. 45 shows the outboard member 818 extending forward to the toe stop; Fig. 5 shows the third portion of the body extending to the toe stop, where the running board 42 and its outboard member 818 meet it).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/Bergman to have the third portion of Edwards in order to advantageously provide a snowmobile with interchangeable body panels ([0110] of Edwards).
Regarding the limitation of “a third portion positioned outboard of the second portion”. While Edwards does not teach a second portion, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the second portion of Lemieux provided inboard of the modified third portion of Edwards as the third portion of Edwards is provided on the outermost edges of the snowmobile body, thereby positioning the modified third portion of Lemieux/Edwards outboard of the second portion.
Regarding claim 25, Lemieux does not teach a panel interface.
However, Edwards teaches wherein the body includes a first panel interface (Fig. 23 of Edwards; the interface is the portion where plate 196 mounts on plate 190) extending forward from the third portion 60 ([0135], Figs. 3 and 23 of Edwards; the interface extends toward the forward end of the vehicle along the third portion), wherein the first panel interface includes an outboard side (Fig. 23 of Edwards; the outboard side of the interface is the side of panel 190 which contains elements 226 and 228), wherein a side body panel 196 is positioned over the outboard side of the first panel interface to position the third portion between the side body panel 196 and the outboard member 818 (Figs 21 and 23 show the interchangeable panels 192 and 196 being mounted on the same interface of panel 190. Fig 7B shows the third portion 60 vertically between the panel 192 [which could optionally be swapped with panel 196] and the outboard member 818 [the outboard member is at the base of the snowmobile body as indicated by Fig. 45]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/Bergman to have the third portion of Edwards in order to advantageously provide a snowmobile with interchangeable body panels ([0110] of Edwards).
Regarding claim 26, Lemieux as modified does not teach a second panel interface.
However, Edwards teaches wherein the body includes a second panel interface (Figs. 7A and 23; there is an interface between panels 190 and 196 on the left side of the snowmobile and a second interface between panels 190 and 198 on the right side of the snowmobile) extending upward from one or both of the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 3 of Edwards; the second interface extends vertically at a position which is inboard of the toe stop assembly 800),
wherein the second panel interface includes an engagement feature that is secured to the side body panel 190 ([0135] of Edwards), and wherein the body includes a chassis mount 320 secured to a chassis 20 of the snow vehicle ([0142] of Edwards), wherein the chassis mount is positioned forward of the engagement feature of the second panel interface ([0141] of Edwards; Fig. 26 shows the chassis mount located along line 26-26 of Fig. 20A; Fig. 20A shows the line 26-26 forward of the engagement feature of the second panel interface) and inside of the side body panel 190 (Fig. 26 of Edwards).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/Bergman to have the third portion of Edwards in order to advantageously provide a snowmobile with interchangeable body panels ([0110] of Edwards).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Bergman, and further in view of Kerner.
Regarding claim 27, Lemieux as modified does not teach the snowmobile further comprising a sensor.
However, Kerner teaches the snow vehicle further comprising a sensor 1150 secured to the body and is positioned to detect rotation of the vehicle component 826 ([0161], “speed sensor 1150 measures the rotational speed of drive shaft 826”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile of Lemieux/et. al. to have the speed sensor of Kerner in order to advantageously provide track velocity information ([0161] of Kerner).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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. By nature of their dependencies, claims 4-8 are also objected to.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance (underlined portions are not taught by the prior art): the closest available prior art (Forbes, US 6302232) teaches a snowmobile with a wire guide frame (Col. 13, lines 5-8 of Forbes) but does not teach the toe stop wherein the body further comprises a wire guide panel extending from the rearward wall, the wire guide panel comprising a wire guide. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious for one to modify the snowmobile of Forbes to have the claimed toe stop assembly without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
PNG
media_image1.png
700
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
612
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
759
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
453
582
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
618
617
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 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, 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617