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 filed November 19, 2025, regarding the claim objections (pages 9-10) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related REJECTION/OBJECTION(S) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 claim rejections (pages 10-15) have been fully considered and are either persuasive or not persuasive, as detailed below, for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained or withdrawn, as appropriate:
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 10, para. 5- page 12, para. 2) that RPM does not teach a first and second chamber defined by inboard outer, outboard outer, and inner walls as recited by claim 1 because CH-1 and CH-2 of RPM are either a single chamber or W-IN does not define them, the examiner disagrees. The examiner’s view is that CH-1 and CH-2 are separate chambers, as evidenced by the separate spaces they enclose as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated, and further that Inner Wall W-IN defines each of them as there is at least a portion of Inner Wall W-IN that forms a border for chambers CH-1 and CH-2.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 12, paras. 3-4) that RPM does not teach a slot using two walls and a base as recited in claim 10, the examiner disagrees. The examiner points to the 102 rejections of claim 10 in this and the previous office action where a slot (ST) is bounded by- i.e. defined by- at least two walls (W-1 and W-3) and a base (BS) as illustrated in Fig. 2, Annotated- Set 2.
Regarding applicant’s arguments (page 13, paras. 2-3) that RPM does not teach all of the limitations of recited in claim 21, the examiner disagrees, and points to the 102 rejections of claim 21 in this and the previous office action. The examiner further notes that the applicant’s argument merely asserts that the teachings are not present, without addressing the substance of the rejection or indicating which portion of the rejection is disagreed with.
Applicant’s arguments (page 12, paras. 4-5 and page 13, para. 5-6) regarding amended claims 16 and 29 have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-16, 21-23, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RPM (www.rpmcomposites.com/g4-chassis.html, snapshot date: June 25, 2021, accessed via WayBack Machine on August 15, 2025; “Fig.” labels added for clarity), (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, RPM teaches a bottom-out protector for a snow vehicle (page 1, para. 1 titled: “Ski-Doo® G4 Skidplate Set”, where a Ski-Doo® G4 is known to be a snow vehicle and a skidplate is understood to serve as a bottom-out protector), comprising:
a first chamber (“CH-1”, RPM Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) for receiving a first component and defined by an inboard outer wall (“W-IO”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) and an inner wall (“W-IN”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated; Inboard Outer Wall W-IO and Inner Wall W-IN understood to define First Chamber CH-1 in that they each form a manner of boundary around the First Chamber CH-1), the first component comprising one or more of a tunnel side panel or a heat exchanger end cap (page 1, para. 1 teaches that the skidplate covers a front heat exchanger); and
PNG
media_image1.png
654
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second chamber (“CH-2”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) for receiving a second component and defined by an outboard outer wall (“W-OO”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) and the inner wall (W-IN; Outboard Outer Wall W-OO and Inner Wall W-IN understood to define Second Chamber CH-2 in that they each form a manner of boundary around the Second Chamber CH-2), the second component comprising a brake component or a CVT component (page 1, para. 1 teaches that the skidplate covers a primary clutch and drive cases, one or both being considered a CVT component), wherein the second chamber is positioned outboard (in the direction “OUT”, Fig. 1 Annotated) of the first chamber (Second Chamber CH-2 being positioned further Outboard OUT than First Chamber CH-1 as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, RPM further teaches:
a curved bottom wall (“W-CB”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated);
the inner wall (W-IN) is positioned between the inboard outer wall (W-IO) and the outboard outer wall (W-OO) (as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 5, RPM further teaches:
a first mounting feature (“MF-1”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) positioned along a forward end (“FWD” direction, Fig. 1 Annotated) of the curved bottom wall (W-CB), wherein the first mounting feature (MF-1) is configured to couple the bottom-out protector to a chassis of a recreational vehicle (page 1, para. 3 describes the skidplate as “3-Piece Chassis Skidplate” and the captions of Figs. 1, 7, & 8 further teach a chassis; the First Mounting Feature MF-1 is understood to couple the bottom-out protector/ skidplate either directly or indirectly to the chassis).
Regarding Claim 6, RPM further teaches:
a second mounting feature (“MF-2”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) positioned along a rearward end (“RWD” direction, Fig. 1 Annotated) of the curved bottom wall (W-CB), wherein the second mounting feature (MF-2) is configured to couple the bottom-out protector to the chassis of the recreational vehicle (a chassis being taught as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 5 above, the Second Mounting Feature MF-2 is understood to couple the bottom-out protector either directly or indirectly to the chassis).
Regarding Claim 7, RPM further teaches:
an outward support member (“SM-O”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) extending outboard (OUT, Fig. 1 Annotated) from the outboard outer wall (W-OO) (as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated); and
one or more third mounting features (“MF-3”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) positioned on the outward support member (SM-O), wherein the one or more third mounting features (MF-3) are configured to couple the bottom-out protector to the recreational vehicle (a chassis being taught as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 5 above, the Third Mounting Feature MF-3 is understood to couple the bottom-out protector either directly or indirectly to the chassis).
Regarding Claim 8, RPM further teaches that the one or more third mounting features (MF-3) are configured to couple the bottom-out protector to a running board assembly (“RB”, Fig. 1 Annotated) or a toe stop (Third Mounting Feature MF-3 being coupled to Running Board Assembly RB as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 10, RPM teaches a bottom-out protector for a snow vehicle (page 1, para. 1 titled: “Ski-Doo® G4 Skidplate Set”) comprising:
a base (“BS”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2 and Fig. 6 Annotated) extending from a front end (“E-FR”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2 and Fig. 6 Annotated) to a rear end (“E-R”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2 and Fig. 6 Annotated), wherein the front end (E-FR) includes a first chassis mount (“MF-1”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2 ) and the rear end (E-R) includes a second chassis mount (“MF-2”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2; each mount understood to mount to a chassis, a chassis being taught as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 5 above);
PNG
media_image3.png
652
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a first wall (“W-1”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) that extends upward (up, Fig. 2) from an inboard side (IN, Fig. 1 Annotated) of the base (as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2, where First Wall W-1 is considered to extend from an inboard side of Base BS in that it extends from Curved Bottom Wall W-CB of Base BS that is inboard of an Second Wall “W-2”);
a second wall (“W-2”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) that extends upward (up, Fig. 2) from an outboard side (OUT, Fig. 1 Annotated) of the base (as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated and Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2); and
a third wall (“W-3”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) that extends upward from the base (BS) between the first wall (W-1) and the second wall (Third Wall W-3 extending upward from a lowest area of Base BS adjacent to Curved Bottom Wall W-CB and being disposed between First Wall W-1 and Second Wall W-2 as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2),
PNG
media_image4.png
524
828
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the third wall (W-3), the base (BS), and the first wall (W-1) define a slot (“ST”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) for receiving a lower end of a tunnel side wall or a heat exchanger end cap of the snow vehicle therein (page 1, para. 1 teaches that the skidplate covers a front heat exchanger), and wherein the third wall (W-3), the base (BS), and the second wall (W-2) define a chamber (Second Wall W-2 defining a side of a Chamber “CH-2” and Third Wall W-3 separating Chamber CH-2 from Slot ST such that it defines another side of Chamber CH-2 as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) outboard of the slot (ST) shaped to receive a vehicle component operably connected to a track drive shaft of the snow vehicle therein (page 1, para. 1 teaches that the skidplate covers a primary clutch, a clutch being a vehicle component that is understood to be operably connected to a track drive shaft of a snow vehicle).
PNG
media_image5.png
494
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, RPM further teaches that the base (BS) curves downward between the front end (E-FR) and the rear end (Base BS curving downward from the Front End E-FR towards the Rear End E-R as illustrated in Fig. 6 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 12, RPM further teaches that a flange (FL, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) extends outboard (OUT, Fig. 1 Annotated) from an upper end (“W2-UP”, Fig. 2 Annotated- Set 2) of the second wall (W-2) and includes a first mount (“M-1”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) positioned between the front end (E-FR) and the rear end (E-R) of the base (BS), and a second mount (MF-2) positioned at the rear end (E-R) of the base (BS), wherein the first mount (M-1) is positioned outboard of the second mount (MF-2), and wherein the first mount (M-1) is securable to an underbody panel (First Mount M-1 being secured to “UBP” as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated- Set 2) and the second mount (MF-2) is securable to a running board (RB) when the base (BS) is secured to a chassis of the snow vehicle (Second Mount MF-2 being secured to Running Board RB as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2 while Base BS is understood as being secured to a chassis; a chassis being taught as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 5 above,).
Regarding Claim 13, RPM further teaches that a rear portion (“W2-R”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) of the second wall (W-2) is positioned inboard of a forward portion (“W2-F”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) of the second wall (W-2), and the second mount (MF-2) is positioned inboard of the forward portion (W2-F) of the second wall (as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2).
Regarding Claim 14, RPM further teaches that the base includes a rearward facing wall (“W-R”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) extending from a lower-most portion (Rearward Facing Wall W-R extending from Curved Bottom Wall W-CB which is the lowest portion of Base BS, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated Set-2) of the base (BS) to the rear end (E-R), and the base (BS) includes one or more drains (“DR”, Fig. 2 Annotated- Set 2, indicating an opening in the Base BS of the bottom-out protector/ skidplate which would function to drain liquids from the Base BS) extending from the rearward facing wall (Drains DR), wherein the one or more drains (DR) are positioned rearward of the flange (FL) extending from the second wall (W-2) (as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2).
Regarding Claim 15, RPM further teaches that the base (BS), the first wall (W-1), the second wall (W-2), and the third wall (W-3) are comprised of a polymeric material (page 1, para. 2 teaches that the skidplate is made of epoxy, carbon fiber, Kevlar®, and woven E-glass, which constitutes a polymeric material).
PNG
media_image6.png
600
924
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
524
974
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, RPM teaches a snow vehicle (page 1, para. 3 teaches multiple models of snowmobiles- e.g.: Ski-Doo® Summit 17-19, further described by EPC) comprising:
a forward frame (“FR-F”, EPC Fig. 09 Annotated);
a tunnel (“TNL”, EPC Fig. 09 Annotated) secured to the forward frame (as illustrated in EPC Fig. 09 Annotated);
a track (“TRK”, RPM Fig. 1 Annotated and EPC Fig. 05A Annotated) positioned in the tunnel (TNL);
PNG
media_image8.png
753
1153
media_image8.png
Greyscale
optionally a heat exchanger end cap (RPM page 1, para. 1 teaches a front heat exchanger, also taught as “HE” in EPC Fig. 09 Annotated) positioned along the snow vehicle between a side wall of the tunnel (TNL) and the forward frame (FR-F) (as illustrated in EPC Fig. 09 Annotated);
a track drive shaft (“DS”, EPC Fig. 05A Annotated) operably coupled to the track (TRK); and
a bottom-out protector (characterized by Base BS, RPM Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) comprising a polymeric material (RPM page 1, para. 2 teaches that the skidplate is made of epoxy, carbon fiber, Kevlar®, and woven E-glass, which constitutes a polymeric material), the bottom-out protector comprising:
a slot (“ST”, RPM Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) defined by a first wall (“W-R”, RPM Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) and a second wall (“W-1”, RPM Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2), wherein a lower end (“TNL-LE”, RPM Fig. 2 Annotated- Set 2 and EPC Fig. 09 Annotated) of the tunnel (TNL) or the heat exchanger end cap (HE) is received in the slot (Lower End TNL-LE of Tunnel TNL being received in Slot ST as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) with the first wall (W-R) positioned along an inboard side of the lower end (First Wall W-R being positioned along a wall of the Lower End TNL-LE of Tunnel TNL that is inboard of Second Wall W-1, as illustrated in RPM Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) and the second wall (W-1) positioned along an outboard side of the lower end (as illustrated in RPM Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2), and a chamber (Slot ST further understood to be a Chamber “CH-ST”) defined by the second wall (W-1) and a third wall (“W-3”, RPM Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) positioned outboard of the second wall (Third Wall W-3 extending outboard of Second Wall W-1 and separating Chamber CH-ST from other areas of the skidplate/ bottom-out protector such that it is considered to at least partially define the Chamber CH-ST, as illustrated in RPM Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2), wherein the chamber (CH-ST) receives a component (“CPT”, RPM Fig. 7 Annotated and EPC Fig. 05B Annotated) operably connected to the track drive shaft (DS) therein (as understood by EPC Figs. 05A & 05B).
PNG
media_image9.png
404
656
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, RPM further teaches that the bottom-out protector includes a front end (“E-FR”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) including a first mounting feature (“M-1A”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) removably secured to the forward frame (Mounting Feature M-1A being secured to the front end of the snowmobile which is understood to be connected to Forward Frame FR-F), and the bottom-out protector includes a rear end (“E-R”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) including a second mounting feature (“MF-2A”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) removably secured to the tunnel (Second Mounting Feature MF-2A being secured at least indirectly to Tunnel TNL as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) or the heat exchanger end cap, wherein the track drive shaft (DS) is positioned along the snow vehicle between the front end (E-FR) and the rear end (E-R) of the bottom-out protector (Track Drive Shaft DS being positioned between the Front and Rear Ends E-FR and E-R of the skidplate/ bottom-out protector as understood by RPM Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2 and EPC Fig. 05A Annotated).
Regarding Claim 23, RPM further teaches that the bottom-out protector includes a third mounting feature (“M-1”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) removably secured to an underbody panel (“UBP”, Fig. 2 Annotated- Set 2), wherein the third mounting feature (M-1) is positioned rearward and outboard of the first mounting feature (M-1A) (as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RPM in view of Kerner (US-20110132679-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, RPM does not teach U-clip fasteners.
Kerner teaches, in another protective member for a snowmobile (Clutch Guard 822, Fig. 39; snowmobile- Abstract), a plurality of mounting features (Clip Members 890 & 892, Fig. 39) that are configured to receive a U-clip fastener (First and Second Clip Members 886 & 888, Fig. 39, considered a U-clip fastener in that an end of First and Second Clip Members 886 & 888 have an open shape that resembles the letter “U”; Para. teaching that the First and Second Clip Members 886 & 888 are received by Clip Members 890 & 892) capable of toolless coupling and toolless decoupling (Clip Members 890 & 892 and First and Second Clip Members 886 & 888 being understood to be capable of toolless coupling and decoupling).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of RPM and Kerner in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify RPM’s bottom-out protector to include U-clip fasteners as suggested by Kerner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of easy to assemble fasteners that would beneficially make a product that is easier to install.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RPM in view of Campbell (US-20170036604-A1).
Regarding Claim 24, RPM further teaches that the bottom-out protector includes a fourth mounting feature (“MF-3”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) and a fifth mounting feature (“MF-2”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2) positioned rearward and inboard of the fourth mounting feature (Fifth Mounting Feature MF-2 being positioned rearward and inboard of Fourth Mounting Feature MF-3 as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2), wherein the fourth mounting feature (MF-3) and the fifth mounting feature (MF-2) are removably secured to a running board (Fourth and Fifth Mounting Features MF-3 & MF-2 being secured to a Running Board “RB”, as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2).
RPM does not teach that the running board is polymeric.
Campbell teaches, in another vehicle (Abstract), a running board that is made of a composite or plastic material (Title and Abstract teach a composite running board; Para. [0005] further teaches a plastic running board; both composite and plastic being understood as at least partially comprising a polymeric material).
Campbell further teaches that it is advantageous for running boards to include a one piece plastic molded step or deck portion as this provides a more cost effective and reduced weight alternative to a steel step (Para. 0005).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of RPM and Campbell in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify RPM’s snow vehicle such that the running board is polymeric as suggested by Campbell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of making a lighter and more cost-effective running board as taught by Campbell and discussed above.
Regarding Claim 25, RPM, as modified above, further teaches that a toe stop (“TS”, Fig. 3 Annotated) is positioned at a forward end of the polymeric running board (RB) (as illustrated in Fig. 3 Annotated), and the toe stop (TS) is removably secured to the fourth mounting feature (MF-3) and the fifth mounting feature (Toe Stop TS being secured to Fourth and Fifth Mounting Features MF-3 & MF-2 via Running Board “RB”, as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2), wherein the toe stop (TS) includes a toe pocket (“TP”, Fig. 3 Annotated), and the polymeric running board (RB) and the bottom-out protector define a hole (“OPN”, Fig. 3 Annotated) through a bottom wall (“TP-BW”, Fig. 3 Annotated) of the toe pocket (as illustrated in Fig. 3 Annotated; see also EPC Fig. 09 Annotated).
PNG
media_image10.png
506
724
media_image10.png
Greyscale
RPM, as modified above, does not teach that the toe stop is polymeric.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of RPM and Campbell in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify RPM’s snow vehicle, as modified above, such that the toe step is polymeric in the same way that the running board is modified to be polymeric as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 24 above. Namely, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of making a lighter and more cost-effective toe step in the same way that Campbell teaches making a lighter and more cost-effective running board.
Regarding Claim 26, RPM, as modified above, further teaches that the polymeric toe stop (TS) includes a flange (“FL”, Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2 and Fig. 3 Annotated) extending outboard from the third wall (W-3), and the third mounting feature (M-1) and the fourth mounting feature (MF-3) are positioned on the flange (FL) (as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated- Set 2), and wherein a forward portion (adjacent to a Chamber “CH-TS”) of the polymeric toe stop (TS) is positioned over the flange (Chamber CH-TS of Toe Stop TS extending over Flange FL as illustrated in Fig. 3 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 27, RPM, as modified above, further teaches that the polymeric toe stop (TS) defines a chamber (CH-TS, Fig. 3 Annotated) that receives a portion of the component (CPT) housed in the bottom-out protector therein (Chamber CH-TS of Toe Stop TS being at least partially defined by Underbody Panel UBP as illustrated in RPM Fig. 3 Annotated, where Underbody Panel UBP is understood to at least partially receive Component CPT base on RPM Fig. 2 Annotated- Set 2 and Figs. 3 & 7 Annotated as well as EPC Fig. 05B Annotated).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RPM and Campbell in view of Monfette (US-20130080007-A1).
Regarding Claim 28, RPM, as modified above, does not teach a sensor that detects rotation of the component.
Monfette teaches, in another snow vehicle (Snowmobile 10, Fig. 1), a sensor (Driving Shaft Speed Sensor 204, Para. [0077]) that detects rotation of a component (Para. [0077] teaches that Driving Shaft Speed Sensor 204 detects a speed of rotation of a Pulley 80), the component (80) being positioned near the front (right, Fig. 1) of a footrest (Pulley 80 being positioned near the front/ right end of Footrest 60 as illustrated in Fig. 1, where Pulley 80 is understood to be a part of Engine 24 based on Fig. 2A) such that the component (80) is in a similar location to the component taught by RPM (CPT).
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).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of RPM and Monfette in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify RPM’s snow vehicle to include sensor that detects rotation of a 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18-20, and 29-33 are allowed.
Detailed reasons for allowance pertaining to claims 16 and 18-20, which have incorporated the subject matter of the original claim 17, can be found in the Non-Final Rejection dated August 22, 2025. Claims 29-33 have been amended to recite the limitation “a slot within a chamber”, which, although differing in scope from the limitation of “a wall that is positioned in a chamber” that was indicated as allowable in the previous office action, is also not found in the prior art.
Therefore, every element of the claims are not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.”
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 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