DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Acknowledgement
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims (filed 11/12/2025).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Non-Patent Literature Documents listed in the information disclosure statement filed 12/26/2024 have been placed in the application file, but many of the information referred to therein have not been considered as to the merits. Examiner notes that many of the Non-Patent Literature Documents are unascertainable as listed (i.e., it is very difficult to appropriately match document(s) to the description(s) as listed, illegible, etc.). Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations
“a vehicle frame comprising; a front frame portion; a mid frame portion fastened to the front frame portion; and a rear frame portion fastened to the mid frame portion“ recited in claim 21 lines 2-4;
“a mid frame portion coupled to a rear plate of the front frame portion” recited in claim 35 line 4
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 21 line 4, the limitation “a mid frame portion fastened to the front frame portion” is not adequately supported by the Specification as originally filed pertaining to the embodiment disclosed/shown in at least Figs. 40, 52, and 53 comprising a vehicle frame comprising a front frame portion, a mid frame portion, and a rear frame portion. Therefore, said new limitation in claim 21 is considered to be new matter.
In claim 35 line 4, the limitation “a mid frame portion coupled to a rear plate of the front frame portion” is not adequately supported by the Specification as originally filed pertaining to the embodiment disclosed/shown in at least Figs. 40-53 comprising a frame assembly comprising a front frame portion, a mid frame portion, and a rear frame portion. Therefore, said new limitation in claim 35 is considered to be new matter.
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 21, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badsey (US 4,448,278), previously cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 21, Badsey (at least Figs. 1-12) discloses a three wheeled vehicle (at least Abstract), comprising:
a vehicle frame 21, 27, 25, 26, 20, 31, 32, 28, 29, 30 comprising:
a front frame portion 21, 27, 25, 26, 20;
a mid frame portion 31, 32, 28; and
a rear frame portion 29, 30 fastened to the mid frame portion;
an engine 6 mounted to the front frame portion 21, 27, 25, 26, 20;
a front suspension coupled to the front frame portion 21, 27, 25, 26, 20, defined by left and right side suspension assemblies (at least column 3 lines 49-53);
front wheels 1’, 2’, defined by a front left wheel 2’ coupled to the left side suspension assembly and a front right wheel 1’ coupled to the right side suspension assembly (at least column 3 lines 49-53);
a steering assembly coupled to the front wheels 1’, 2’ (at least column 3 lines 49-53);
side by side seat compartments 9, 10 defined by the vehicle frame 21, 27, 25, 26, 20, 31, 32, 28, 29, 30, the side by side seat compartments 9, 10 are recessed relative to at least a portion of the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28; and
a single rear wheel 3’ coupled to the vehicle frame 21, 27, 25, 26, 20, 31, 32, 28, 29, 30 (via swing arms 17, 18) rearward of the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28, and drivingly coupled to the engine 6, the rear frame portion 29, 30 disposed generally above the single rear wheel 3’ (at least Figs. 2-4, 6).
But Badsey (at least Figs. 1-12) does not explicitly disclose the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28 fastened to the front frame portion 21, 27, 25, 26, 20.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the front frame portion and mid frame portion formed separately and fastened together, instead of being unitary, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claims 32 and 34, Badsey (at least Figs. 1-12) as modified above discloses the three wheeled vehicle (at least Abstract),
(claim 32) further comprising a rear suspension system including a rear shock absorber 42, 42 and a rear swing arm 17, 18, the rear swing arm 17, 18 defining a pivotable coupling 19 with the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28, the rear shock absorber 42, 42 having an upper end coupled to the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28 and a lower end coupled to the rear swing arm 17, 18 (at least Fig. 4, 9, 12);
(claim 34) wherein the single rear wheel 3’ extends rearwardly further than the rear frame portion 29, 30 (at least Figs. 1, 2, 6).
Claims 22 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badsey (US 4,448,278) in view of Pelnar (US 7,641,234 B1).
Regarding claim 22, Badsey (at least Figs. 1-12) as modified above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the rear frame portion 29, 30 is removably coupled to the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28, whereby the rear frame portion 29, 30 is a replaceable portion of the vehicle frame.
Pelnar (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a vehicle, wherein a rear frame portion/roll bar 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 is removably coupled to a mid frame portion 2, 4, 10, 12, whereby the rear frame portion/roll bar 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 is a replaceable portion of a vehicle frame 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 (at least Abstract, column 3 lines 4-34, column 4 lines 52-56, Figs. 1-2) for the purpose of compact storage or shipment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rear frame portion 29, 30 of Badsey as modified above according to the teachings of Pelnar, such that the rear frame portion 29, 30 of Badsey is removably coupled to the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28, whereby the rear frame portion 29, 30 of Badsey is a replaceable portion of the vehicle frame 21, 27, 25, 26, 20, 31, 32, 28, 29, 30, in order to achieve the desirable result of a compact configuration for storage or shipment.
Regarding claim 35, Badsey (at least Figs. 1-12) discloses a frame assembly 21, 27, 25, 26, 20, 31, 32, 28, 29, 30 for a three wheeled vehicle (at least Abstract), the frame assembly 21, 27, 25, 26, 20, 31, 32, 28, 29, 30 comprising
a front frame portion 21, 27, 25, 26, 20 configured to support an engine 6 and a front suspension system (at least column 3 lines 49-53);
a mid frame portion 31, 32, 28 coupled to a rear plate (as much as in Applicant’s Application) of the front frame portion 21, 27, 25, 26, 20, the mid frame portion configured to support side by side seats 9, 10;
a rear suspension system including a rear shock absorber 42, 42 and a rear swing arm 17, 18, the rear swing arm 17, 18 defining a pivotable coupling 19 with the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28 and configured to rotatably support a single rear wheel 3’, the rear shock absorber 42, 42 having an upper end coupled to the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28 and a lower end coupled to the rear swing arm 17, 18 (at least Fig. 4, 9, 12); and
a rear frame portion 29, 30.
But Badsey (at least Figs. 1-12) does not explicitly disclose the rear frame portion 29, 30 being removably coupled to the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28, such that the rear frame portion 29, 30 is detachable independent of the rear suspension system.
Pelnar (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a vehicle, wherein a rear frame portion/roll bar 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 is removably coupled to a mid frame portion 2, 4, 10, 12, such that the rear frame portion/roll bar 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 is detachable independent of a rear suspension system (at least Abstract, column 3 lines 4-34, column 4 lines 52-56, Figs. 1-2) for the purpose of compact storage or shipment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rear frame portion 29, 30 of Badsey according to the teachings of Pelnar, such that the rear frame portion 29, 30 of Badsey is removably coupled to the mid frame portion 31, 32, 28, such that the rear frame portion 29, 30 of Badsey is detachable independent of a rear suspension system, in order to achieve the desirable result of a compact configuration for storage or shipment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-31, 33, and 36-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 23-26 and 37 in this case, is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the mid frame portion comprises: a pair of rear frame tubes; a left pair of plates fixed to a left portion of the pair of rear frame tubes; and a right pair of plates fixed to a right portion of the pair of rear frame tubes; and the rear frame portion comprises: a first left frame tube removably coupled to the left pair of plates; and a first right frame tube removably coupled to the right pair of plates” now included in claims 23 and 37, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 27-31 and 38-40 in this case, is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the rear frame portion comprises: a first left frame tube having a forward end connected to a left-rear portion of the mid frame portion, the first left frame tube extending rearwardly and inwardly from the forward end of the first left frame tube toward a rearward end of the first left frame tube aligned with a front-to-rear longitudinal centerline of the vehicle; and a first right frame tube having a forward end connected to a right-rear portion of the mid frame portion, the first right frame tube extending rearwardly and inwardly from the forward end of the first right frame tube toward a rearward end of the first right frame tube aligned with the front-to-rear longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, the rearward end of the first left frame tube joined to the rearward end of the first right frame tube, such that the rear frame portion comes to a point aligned with the front-to-rear longitudinal centerline of the vehicle” in claims 27 and 38, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 33 and 36 in this case, is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the rear frame portion defines a lower coupling with the mid frame portion near the pivotable coupling of the rear swing arm, and an upper coupling with the mid frame portion near the upper end of the rear shock absorber” in claims 33 and 36, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the REMARKS:
PNG
media_image1.png
111
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0084] noted by the Applicant do not disclose at least “a vehicle frame comprising; a front frame portion; a mid frame portion fastened to the front frame portion; and a rear frame portion fastened to the mid frame portion“ as recited in claim 21. In fact, Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0084] noted by the Applicant disclose a first embodiment comprising a front radiator frame portion 30, front frame portion or bulkhead 32, and tubular frame portion 34; however, no teaching of a rear frame as claimed is present. Further, the second embodiment in at least Figs. 22-53 which discloses the rear frame portion 1100 do not discloses “a mid frame portion fastened to the front frame portion” as recited in claim 21. Therefore, the new limitation added to claim 21 is not adequately supported by the Specification as originally filed and, as such, is considered to be new matter.
Still further, it is the Examiner’s position that the limitation “a mid frame portion coupled to a rear plate of the front frame portion” recited in claim 34 is not adequately supported by the Specification as originally filed pertaining to the second embodiment in at least Figs. 22-53 and, as such, is considered to be new matter.
Applicant is invited to provide support for the new limitations added in claims 21 and 35 pertaining to the second embodiment disclosed/shown in at least Figs. 22-53 comprising a front frame portion, a mid frame portion, and a rear frame portion in the Specification as originally filed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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.
Additionally, in response to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 35, it is the Examiner’s position that claim 35 is sufficiently broad that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Badsey (US 4,448,278) in view of Pelnar (US 7,641,234 B1) is still applicable. See rejection above as well as the new matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph above.
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 JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Jason D. Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. 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.
/JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614