DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 11/20/25 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 10, 17-18 and 21 have been amended. In view of amendment, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC § 103 (details below) and claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see ‘Remarks’ filed 11/2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of amendment and on page 7 of the argument, the applicant submits that claim 1 is amended to introduce new limitations that Pyykonen does not show: “a secondary skid plate distinct from the skid plate and configured to overlay at least a portion of the skid plate". The examiner disagrees. As depicted in fig. 4, Pyykonen teaches the secondary skid plate (152, fig. 4, [col. 5, line 65-68]) which is distinct, and configured to overlay it. Notably, the dictionary definition of “overlay” includes “to spread over or across,” [ included in NPL section of the document] and plate 152 is indeed spread over or across plate 140. Accordingly, Pyykonen anticipates the claim limitations. However, to the extent an argument might be raised that the term “overlay” in Pyykonen differs from the meaning required by the claim, an alternative rationale applies. In view of amendment and upon further consideration, Johnson [US Pub. 2019/0047622 A1] in another skid-plate similar to Pyykonen, discloses the same feature, and the person of the ordinary skill in the art would have understood these known characteristics to be applicable to skid-plate technology, including variation in configurations where a secondary skid plate is distinct from the skid plate and it overlays at least a portion of the skid plate as taught by Johnson. Further detail supporting the 35 U.S.C. §102/§103 rejection is provided below.
Further, on pages 7 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant submits that Bergman does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 17, particularly: “a secondary skid plate including a body section configured to cover a forward frame assembly, the secondary skid plate configured to overlay at least a portion of the common skid plate and securing the secondary skid plate over the common skid plate.” In view of amendment and upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Bergman in view of Imai Tetsuo (details below).
Further, on page 8 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant submits that Bergman does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 10 which recites: “a skid plate including: a first rib projection; and a track drive protector including a second rib projection which is distinct from the first projection, wherein the first rib projection and the second rib projection are aligned and arranged to define a continuous rib extending between the skid plate and the track drive protector." The examiner disagrees. As depicted in fig. 1 of RPM and in Holeshot below, the references clearly illustrate the relevant features of skid-plate structure as required by claim 10. In particular, rib projections which are positioned, aligned, and arranged in such a manner that they collectively define a continuous rib extending between skid plate and the track drive. The Figures make this configuration apparent, demonstrating how the rib projections cooperate to form an uninterrupted structural feature spanning the interface between the skid plate and the track-drive assembly.
For these reasons, the new limitations of claim 1 do not distinguish from the current art of record (e.g., Pyykonen, Johnson). Accordingly, claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “method of assembling two different snowmobile models with a common skid plate” is interpreted as broadly as reasonable permitted under MPEP 2111 and 2111.02. Functional language is being interpretated based on what the structure is capable of doing, not necessarily what the intended use mentioned by the preamble might be. So, when describing a common skid plate, the focus is on its structural features that might enable its intended functionality (skidding) on one or more than one snowmobile models. See MPEP § 2111.02 for further detail on “intended use” and the “effect of preamble”, noting that the claims merely recite an intended use without additional requirements/ limitations directed to “snowmobiles” or “models” (as in “two snowmobile models”). Further note that the recited steps (providing and securing) which constitute the claimed method do not seem related to a process of “assembling”, and there seems to be no relationship to at least one snowmobile or snowmobile model, let alone more than one snowmobile or snowmobile model.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pyykonen (US Pat. 7124845 B2), and in the alterative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Pyykonen in view of Johnson et al. (US Pub. 20190047622 A1; hereinafter, “Johnson”).
Regarding claim 1, Pyykonen discloses: a snowmobile (100, fig. 3-4) comprising:
a forward frame assembly (102, fig. 3 and col. 5, line 5-15);
a nose panel (panel formed by 102 and 134, fig. 3) attached to the forward frame assembly (102, col. 5, line 5-15);
a skid plate (bottom pan 140, fig. 4; col. 5, line 45—55) attached to a first side (left side 106, fig. 3 via bumper 134, col. 5, line 34-40) of the forward frame assembly (front frame of 102) and a second side (right side 108, fig. 3) of the forward frame assembly (102); and
a secondary skid plate (rear portion 152, fig. 4, [col. 5, line 65-68]) distinct from the skid plate [fig. 4 shows 140 and 152 are two different distinct elements] and configured to overlay at least a portion of the skid plate [ fig. 4 explicitly shows 152 lays or spread over or across 140; see dictionary definition of the phrase “overlay” in the NPL section of the document.]
Therefore, Pyykonen anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that a secondary skid plate (152, fig. 4) of Pyykonen configuration differs from the claim limitation because it is neither distinct nor configured to overlay (in another word, a different understanding of the term “overlay” – see included NPL) at least a portion of the skid plate; however,
Johnson in another ‘ATV/UTV skid plate assembly’ similar to Pyykonen teaches that a secondary skid plate (“left skid plate section 30” and “right skid plate section 40” with openings and configured to be aligned with the opening of the skid plate 20 , fig. 1; [0048]) distinct from the skid plate [as depicted in fig. 1, skid plates 30 and 40 are distinct from the skid plate 20] and configured to overlay (fig. 1 shows overlaying configuration) at least a portion of the skid plate (20; [para. 0060 teaches that the center skid plate overlays a first set of members of the second linear array of bolt holes, and the linear array of closed mounting bolt apertures (openings) of the left-hand edge portion of the right skid plate overlays a second set of members of the second linear array of bolt holes; thus, a secondary skid plate distinct from the skid plate and configured to overlay at least a portion of the skid plate and also aligned with the opening of the skid plate.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Pyykonen and include a secondary skid plate as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously overlays at least a portion of the skid plate. The prior art expressly teaches the use of multiple protective skid plates arranged in layered or overlapping configurations to enhance structural rigidity, distribute impact forces, and improve underbody protection. Given these well-understood design principles, modifying the primary skid plate to overlay a secondary skid plate represents nothing more than the predictable use of known techniques to achieve an expected result. Accordingly, the claimed configuration lacks the requisite step and is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Regarding claim 2, Pyykonen further teaches that the secondary skid plate (152 of Pyykonen, or 30 and 40 overlapping with 20 configurations of Johnson; note: see alternative 102/103 rejection of parent claim 1 above) comprises: a nose section (nose section around 102 constituted by 102 and 134, fig. 3) configured to cover the nose panel (154, col. 6, line 1-10 of Pyykonen);
a body section (hood 142, fig. 4 of Pyykonen) extending rearward from the nose section (as depicted in fig. 4 of Pyykonen, body 154 extends rearward from the nose section around 102), the body section configured to cover the forward frame assembly [col 5, line 60-67 of Pyykonen discloses that the skid plate 140 and the body 142 are connected to the frame 110 such that the body142 pivots forwardly in the direction of the arrow 144; also see fig. 3-5; thus, the body section configured to cover the forward frame assembly];
a first wing (wing formed by 108, 166 as depicted in fig. 7 of Pyykonen) positioned outboard (fig. 7) of the body section (142), the first wing configured to cover the skid plate (140, fig. 7) at the first side (when looking at the fig. 7 at the left side) of the forward frame assembly (102); and
a second wing [wing formed by 106, 162 as depicted in fig. 7 of Pyykonen] positioned outboard (fig. 7) of the body section (142), the second wing configured to cover the skid plate (140) at the second side (when looking at the fig. 7 at the right side) of the forward frame assembly [col 5, line 60-67 of Pyykonen discloses that the skid plate 140 and the body 142 are connected to the frame 110 such that the body142 pivots forwardly in the direction of the arrow 144; also see fig. 3-5.]
Regarding claim 3, Pyykonen further teaches that the nose section (nose section around 102 constituted by 102 and 134, fig. 3 of Pyykonen) extends upward from the body section [fig. 3-4 shows nose section extends upward from the body section 142 to cover at least a portion of a front end (154) portion of a frond end of 102, fig. 7-9 of Pyykonen] of the snowmobile (100).
Regarding claim 4, Pyykonen further teaches that the first wing (wing formed by 108, 166 as depicted in fig. 7 of Pyykonen) and the second wing (wing formed by 106, 162 as depicted in fig. 7 of Pyykonen) extend upward in an outboard direction [ see fig. 7 -9 where first wing and second wing extend upwards in an outboard direction; also, It should be understood that in mechanical or engineering contexts, “outboard direction” typically refers to movement or positioning away from the central axis or midline of a structure, especially towards the outer edges or sides as depicted in fig. 7 of Pyykonen.]
Regarding claim 5, Pyykonen further teaches that the skid plate (140) includes an opening (146, fig. 4 of Pyykonen) configured to access an interior component of the snowmobile [col. 5, line 55-65 of Pyykonen discloses that the skid plate 140 of the front end 102 of the snowmobile 100 includes a ski well (opening) 146, the ski well 146 also includes an opening 148 through which portions of the front suspension 125 protrude, which connect to the leg 126 and the trailing arm 128.; thus, opening configured, to access an interior component of the snowmobile] and wherein the secondary skid plate includes an opening (“opening” of Johnson) configured to be aligned with the opening of the skid plate ( fig. 1 of Johnson).
Regarding claim 6, Pyykonen further teaches that the nose panel (panel formed by 102 and 134, fig. 3 of Pyykonen) is positioned forward (fig. 3 shows positioned ‘forward’) of where the skid plate (140) is attached to the first side (left side, fig. 3-7 of Pyykonen) of the forward frame assembly (102, fig. 3 of Pyykonen) and the second side (right side, fig. 3-7 of Pyykonen) of the forward frame assembly (102, fig. 3 of Pyykonen).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyykonen in view of Johnson and further in view of Vezina Sebastien (CA 2925822 A1; hereinafter “Vezina”).
Regarding claim 7, Pyykonen as modified above teaches the skid plate, but fails to teach that a first bottom out protector attached to a rear edge of the skid plate and the forward frame assembly at the first side of the forward frame assembly; and a second bottom out protector attached to a rear edge of the skid plate and the forward frame assembly at the second side of the forward frame assembly; however,
Vezina in another snowmobile similar to the modified Pyykonen teaches that a first bottom out protector (footrest support 62 at left side, figs. 2B and 2C and annotated fig. 2B below, [0085]) attached to a rear edge of the skid plate (rear portion 130 of engine cradle 20 and horizontal plate 144, [0085]) and the forward frame assembly (forward chassis16) at the first side (left side) of the forward frame assembly (16); and a second bottom out protector (62 at right side, fig. 2C) attached to a rear edge of the skid plate (rear portion 130 of engine cradle 20 and horizontal plate 144, [0085]) and the forward frame assembly (forward 16, figs. 2B and 2C) at the second side (right side, figs. 2B and 2C) of the forward frame assembly (12). See fig. 2C where bottom out protector 62 is positioned at rear of forward frame assembly and a rear edge of skid plate 144.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the snowmobile of the modified Pyykonen to further include a first and second bottom-out protector attached to the rear edge of the skid plate and respective sides of the forward frame assembly, as taught by Vezina [see 0085] with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance structural protection and impact mitigation during suspension compression events.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2B of Vezina
Regarding claim 8, Pyykonen as modified above doesn’t further appear to teach that a first track drive protector covering the first bottom out protector; and a second track drive protector covering the second bottom out protector, wherein the first track drive protector and the second track drive protector include a deflection rib; however,
Vezina teaches a first track drive protector (124 of tunnel 18, fig. 14) covering the first bottom out protector (fig. 14 shows left 124 covers 62); and a second track drive protector covering the second bottom out protector (fig. 14 shows right 124 covers 62), wherein the first track drive protector and the second track drive protector include a deflection rib [125, fig. 2B or 13].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Pyykonen and include a first track drive protector covering the first bottom out protector; and a second track drive protector covering the second bottom out protector, wherein the first track drive protector and the second track drive protector include a deflection rib, as taught by Vezina with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously improve durability, streamline assembly, or enhance compatibility with existing frame and skid plate designs. Such a modification represents a routine optimization of known mechanical components, yielding predictable results without requiring undue experimentation or inventive ingenuity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyykonen in view of Johnson, in view of Vezina, in view of (https://holeshotinc.com/collections/skidplates, snapshot date: Jan 27, 2021, accessed via Way Back Machine on August 27, 2025; “fig.”, labels added for clarity, herein after “ Holeshot”) and further in view of (www.rpmcomposites.com/g4-·chassis.html, snapshot date: Aug. 26, 2021, accessed via Way Back Machine on August 27, 2025; ''fig." labels added for clarity; herein after, “RPM”).
Regarding claim 9, Pyykonen as modified above further doesn’t appear to disclose that the secondary skid plate includes one or more ribs; however,
Holeshot in another snowmobile similar to the modified Pyykonen teaches secondary skid plate includes one or more ribs [ see annotated fig. 1 of RPM below where secondary skid plate retains one or more Ribs.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Pyykonen to incorporate the teaching of Holeshot and incorporate one or more ribs on the secondary plate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance rigidity, deflect debris, and maintain alignment with adjacent protective components. Such ribbing is a well-known design choice in vehicle underbody protection and would have been a predictable modification yielding no unexpected result.
Holeshot; thus, teaches the Ribs, but fails to teach that those ribs are configured to be aligned with the deflection rib of the first track drive protector and the deflection rib of the second track protector; wherein the one or more ribs and the deflection rib form a continuous surface; however,
RPM in another snowmobile similar to the modified Pyykonen teaches that the ribs are configured to be aligned with the deflection rib of the first track drive protector and the deflection rib of the second track protector; wherein the one or more ribs and the deflection rib form a continuous surface [ see annotated fig. 1 of RPM below where ribs are aligned with the internal deflection rib of track protector and forms a continuous surface.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ribs on the secondary plate such that they align with the deflection rib of the track, thereby forming a continuous surface as taught by RPM into the invention of the modified Pyykonen above with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance structural integrity, and component integration- all of which are predictable benefits recognized in the field of snowmobile underbody protection. Therefore, the claimed configuration represents a well-known design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art into the vehicle underbody protection design and would have been a predictable modification yielding no unexpected result.
PNG
media_image2.png
457
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Holeshot.
PNG
media_image3.png
913
986
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ski-Doo G4 Skid plate Set of RPM
Annotated fig. 1 of RPM.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyykonen in view of (“Holeshot”) and further in view of (“RPM”).
Regarding claim 10, Pyykonen discloses: a skid plate assembly (assy. of bottom pan 140, fig. 4; col. 5, line 45—55), comprising:
a skid plate (bottom pan 140) including:
a body section (body of 140, fig. 4) configured to secure to an underbody of a snowmobile [ col. 5, line 65-67 and col. 6, line 1-6 discloses that the bottom pan 140 and the hood 142 meet one another at seam 156, which extends from a rear portion 152 of the bottom pan to the front portion 154; thus, configured to secure to an underbody of a snowmobile], a first wing (wing formed by 108, 166 as depicted in fig. 7) positioned outboard (fig. 7) of the body section (142), a second wing (wing formed by 106, 162 as depicted in fig. 7) positioned outboard (fig. 7) of the body section (142), and
Pyykonen as modified by Holeshot and RPM in the rejection of claim 9 above, includes the limitations that
a first rib projection (first Rib of skid plate, see annotated fig. 1 of Holeshot above); and
a track drive protector including a second rib projection which is distinct from the first projection [annotated fig. 1 above of RPM shows second rib projection which is distinct from the first rib projection], wherein the first rib projection and the second rib projection are aligned and arranged (annotated fig. 1 above of RPM shows aligned arrangement among first and second rib projections) to define a continuous rib (and are continuous as depicted in fig. 1 of RPM) extending between the skid plate and the track drive protector [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 9 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 9 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyykonen in view of Holeshot, in view of RPM and further in view of Vezina.
Regarding claim 11, Pyykonen as modified above doesn’t appear to disclose that the track drive protector is removably securable to the skid plate; however,
Vezina teaches that that the track drive protector (124 of tunnel 18, fig. 14) is removably securable to the skid plate [ para. 0093 teaches that the side wall 158 can thus be directly fastened to the bevel wall 124 (track drive protector) without using any additional brackets; emphasizing that the term fastened encompasses both removably and securely.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the track drive protector to be fastened to the skid plat removably and securable to the skid plate as taught by Vezina into the invention of the modified Pyykonen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance structural integrity, that are both removably attachable and securely held in place during an operation. Such fastening mechanisms allow for modular assembly, ease of maintenance, and reliable structural integration – all of which are predictable design choices in snow mobile underbody protection.
Regarding claim 12, Pyykonen as modified above doesn’t appear to teach that a bottom out protector positionable along the underbody of the snowmobile to house a snowmobile component therein, wherein the bottom out protector is positioned between the snowmobile and the track drive protector; however,
Vezina teaches that a bottom out protector (footrest support 62 at left side, figs. 2B and 2C and annotated fig. 2B above, [0085]) positionable along the underbody of the snowmobile (Fig. 2B shows 62 is positioned along the underbody of the snowmobile) to house a snowmobile component (fig. 2B) therein, wherein the bottom out protector (61) is positioned between the snowmobile and the track drive protector (fig. 2B and 14 shows 62 is positioned between the snowmobile 12 and the track drive protector 124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bottom out protector between the snowmobile chassis and the track drive protector as taught by Vezina into the invention of the modified Pyykonen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the structural arrangement that reflects a conventional layering strategy in the vehicle underbody design, where intermediate protective structure are used to absorb impact, shield sensitive components, and facilitate modular assembly.
Regarding claim 13, Pyykonen as modified above doesn’t appear to teach that the bottom out protector includes a bottom wall and the track drive protector include a bottom surface, wherein at least a portion of the bottom wall and the bottom surface are positioned apart from each other to define a gap therebetween; however,
Vezina teaches that the bottom out protector (62, fig. 2C) includes a bottom wall (bottom wall of 62) and the track drive protector (124) include a bottom surface (bottom surface of 124), wherein at least a portion of the bottom wall and the bottom surface are positioned apart from each other to define a gap therebetween [para. 0083 teaches that with reference to Figures 2B to 2D, the top wall 120 has a rectangular gap 121 extending longitudinally along the center plane 13. The gap 121 extends from the rear end of the tunnel 18 towards the front end of the tunnel 18, contemplated that the gap 121 could be shaped and sized differently than as shown; note that: bottom out protector 62 and the track drive protector positioned throughout the surface along with gap 121; thus, at least a portion of the bottom wall and the bottom surface positioned apart from each other]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bottom out protector that includes a bottom wall and the track drive protector that include a bottom surface, wherein at least a portion of the bottom wall and the bottom surface are positioned apart from each other to define a gap therebetween as taught by Vezina into the invention of the modified Pyykonen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the structural arrangement that reflects a conventional layering strategy in the vehicle underbody design where two separate structures define a gap and such a spacing is a routine design feature used to accommodate thermal expansion, drainage, or component clearance in underbody assemblies. The claimed gap yields predictable structural and functional benefits and doesn’t reflect a patentably distinct configuration.
Regarding claim 14, Pyykonen as modified above doesn’t appear to teach that a rear portion of the bottom wall of the bottom out protector abuts a rear portion of the bottom surface of the track drive protector; however,
Vezina teaches a snowmobile skid plate assembly comprising a bottom out protector and a track drive protector. As shown in fig. 2 and described in paragraph [0025]- [0027], the rear portion of the bottom out protector is positioned adjacent to and in contact with the rear portion of the track drive protector. This configuration inherently results in an abutting relationship between the respective bottom surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyykonen to incorporate the teaching of Vezina and provide the optimized structure to design the rear portions of these components to abut for the purpose of structural alignment, load distribution, and ease of assembly. Such contact is a predictable design choice in modular protective systems and does not yield any unexpected technical effect.
Regarding claim 15, Pyykonen as modified above further discloses that the skid plate (bottom pan 140, fig. 4; col. 5, line 45—55) includes an opening (146, fig. 4) configured to access an interior component of the snowmobile [col. 5, line 55-65 discloses that the skid plate 140 of the front end 102 of the snowmobile 100 includes a ski well (opening) 146, the ski well 146 also includes an opening 148 through which portions of the front suspension 125 protrude, which connect to the leg 126 and the trailing arm 128.; thus, opening configured, to access an interior component of the snowmobile.]
Regarding claim 16, Pyykonen as modified above further discloses that the skid plate (140) includes: a nose section (nose section around 102 constituted by 102 and 134, fig. 3) extending forward and upward from the body section (fig. 3) to cover a front end of the snowmobile. wherein the first wing (wing formed by 108, 166 as depicted in fig. 7) and the second wing (wing formed by 106, 162 as depicted in fig. 7) extend upward from the body section. and wherein the nose section (nose section around 102 constituted by 102 and 134, fig. 3) extends upwards to a greater height than the first wing (wing formed by 108, 166 as depicted in fig. 7) and the second wing (wing formed by 106, 162 as depicted in fig. 7) See annotated fig. 3 below where nose section is extending to a greater height than the first wing and second wing.
PNG
media_image4.png
869
1202
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Pyykonen
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman (US 20040026937 A1) in view of Imai Tetsuo (JP-S61271190; hereinafter “Imai”).
Regarding claim 17, Bergman discloses: a method of assembling (skid plate and their mounting features are utilized to illustrate the method of assembling) two different snowmobile models (see comment below) with a common skid plate (see claim interpretation above), the method comprising:
providing the common skid plate (12, [0017 and claim interpretation above]), the common skid plate (12) including:
a first set out mounting features (pair of 42, fig. 4, with pair of mounting features, annotated fig. 4 below and [0020]) configured to secure a first pair of bottom out protectors (roll up portion 40 at left side with a pair of mounting features, annotated fig. 4 below and [0021]), and
a second set of mounting features (pair of 42, fig. 4, [0020]) configured to secure a second pair of bottom out protectors (roll up portion 40 at right side, [0021]) [para. 0021 discloses that the lower portion of the frame is a portion of a radiator made of aluminum, and roll-up portion 40 functions in part to protect the radiator from being damaged.; thus, roll up portion 40 interpretated to be a bottom out protector along with the portion of the radiator]; and
securing [ para. 0005 discloses: “the skid plate and bumper are separately secured to the vehicle frame, there are multiple members to handle and secure to the frame”; note that: ‘multiple members’ include protector to the skid plate and to the frame] the first pair of bottom out protectors (pair at left 40, annotated fig. 4 below) or the second pair of bottom out protectors (pair at right 40, annotated fig. 4 below) to the common skid plate (12);
providing a secondary skid plate (12, [0018]) including a body section (body of front portion 20, center portion 22 and rear portion 24, [0018]) configured to cover a forward frame assembly [para. 0004 teaches that the skid plate to the front bumper in addition to securing the skid plate to the vehicle frame, thus configured to cover a forward frame assembly],
It should be understood that although Bergman does not specifically disclose assembling two snowmobiles, Bergman does disclose a snowmobile that can be assembled in a variety of configurations (paragraph [0015]: “while the invention is amenable to various modifications in alternative forms, the specifics thereof have been shown by way of example in the drawings and will be described in detail. It should be understood, however, that the intention is not to limit the invention to the particular embodiments described. On the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention.”) Thus, assembling two snowmobiles as disclosed by Bergman with varied configurations would meet the claim limitations.
Note that, as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, Bergman teaches the claimed limitations (see MPEP § 2111.02 for detail on “intended use” and “effect of preamble”).
Bergman doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that the secondary skid plate configured to overlay at least a portion of the common skid plate; and securing the secondary skid plate over the common skid plate; however,
Imai teaches that the secondary skid plate (26, fig. 3) configured to overlay [para. 0002 teaches: “the lower surface of the side skid plate 26 is fixed to the rear frame 2 so as to be positioned slightly higher than the lower surface of the trunk 1 of the drive unit 13; thus, configured to overlay] at least a portion of the common skid plate (26a, as depicted in fig. 3, [0001]) securing the secondary skid plate (26, fig. 3) over the common skid plate (26a, [fig. 3 and para. 0001 teaches that “a resin plate 26a with low friction resistance is fixed to the underside of the side skid plate 26”; thus, securing the secondary skid plate over the common skid plate.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergman to incorporate the teaching of Imai and provide a secondary plate configured to overlay at least a portion of the common skid plate, and securing the secondary skid plate over the common skid plate, as such modifications represent predictable variations of the known skid plate assemblies and mounting techniques.
PNG
media_image5.png
664
581
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4 of Bergman
Regarding claim 18, Bergman further discloses that, wherein the body section includes a plurality of mounting features (42, 43, fig. 2) configured to removably secure to the forward frame assembly [para. 0022 teaches that the mounting members may include apertures or bores for receiving a fastener to secure member 10 to the snowmobile frame, note that: the term “fastener” is intended for removably and securely attach to the forward frame.]
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman in view of Imai and further in view of Vezina.
Regarding claim 19, Bergman as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 18 including the first pair of bottom out protectors and the second pair of bottom out protectors, but fails to teach that providing a common set of track drive protectors, however,
Vezina teaches the common set of track drive protectors (left and right side 124 of tunnel 18, fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Bergman to incorporate the teaching of Vezina and provide the common set of track drive protectors configured to cover the first pair of bottom out protectors of Bergman and the second pair of bottom out protectors of Bergman; and securing the common set of track drive protectors of Vezina over the first pair of bottom out protectors of Bergman or the second pair of bottom out protectors of Bergman, as such an arrangement represents a predictable solution for modular compatibility and component standardization across vehicle platforms. The claims configuration merely combines known elements with no unexpected technical effect.
Regarding claim 20, Bergman as modified above teaches the common set of track drive protectors and the first pair of bottom out protectors or the second pair of bottom out protectors, but fails to teach a gap; however,
Vezina teaches a gap (121) on the limitation of claim rejection 13 above. [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 13 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyykonen, in view of “Holeshot”, in view of (“RPM”), in view of Vezina and further in view of Pickren et al. (US Pub. 20190299561 A1; hereinafter, “Pickren”).
Regarding claim 21, Pyykonen as modified above in view of Holeshot discloses a snowmobile (page 1. first paragraph), comprising:
the skid plate assembly (140) of claim 10; wherein one or more of the skid plate assembly, the bottom out protector, the running board assembly, the toe stop, and/or the heat exchanger assembly includes a fiber reinforced polymer material [ Page 1, second paragraph discloses: “all Holeshot skid plates are constructed of heavy-gauge High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (HMWPE), an incredible material that is virtually indestructible. Our skid plates are an amazing ¼ inch thick for optimum protection-that’s nearly twice as thick as competitive skid plates.”
Holeshot fails to disclose the remaining limitations of claim 21; however,
Vezina teaches:
a bottom out protector (62, [0085]);
a running board assembly (64, fig. 2B), including a rear kick-up (92, fig.1) and a bracket (142);
a toe stop (toehold 66, fig 21 and [0085]); and
a heat exchanger assembly (25, fig. 2B and [0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Pyykonen to incorporate a teaching of Vezina and provide a reinforced polymer material; such as HMWPE of Holeshot into one or more structural components, such as the skid plate, bottom out protector, running board assembly, toe stop, or heat exchanger assembly od Vezina, as such material are well known for their strength-to-weight advantages, impact resistance, and thermal stability in vehicle applications. The claimed elements represent a predictable use of prior art materials yielding no unexpected results.
Pyykonen in view of Holeshot teaches the reinforced polymer, but does not explicitly teach ‘fiber’ reinforced to make a fiber reinforced polymer material; however,
Pickren in another fabric reinforced traction mat for snowmobile similar to the modified Pyykonen teaches a fabric reinforced traction mat made of a layered composite (propylene polymer [0006]) adhered to the substrate surface such as surface of snowmobiles [0002 and 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Pyykonen to incorporate a teaching of Pickren and provide a fabric reinforced polymer material; such as ‘propylene polymer’ into one or more structural components, such as the skid plate, as such material are well known for their strength-to-weight advantages, increased impact resistance, reduces localize deformation, offer exceptionally low friction and high wear resistance and thermal stability in vehicle applications. The claimed elements represent a predictable use of prior art materials yielding no unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200094918 A1 to Beavis discloses: A skid frame for a snowmobile is disclosed including a generally planar skid surface extending between front and rear idler wheels. The front and rear idler wheel are offset from one another and define a longitudinal direction.
US 20110192667 A1 to Jeffrey discloses: The snowmobile (10) has a foot grip assembly supported by a frame (12) and including a toe clip, a back wall proximate to rider's footwear, and a shroud including a rear edge.
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 extension fee 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 NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
February 19, 2026