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 .
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.
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 1-3,5-6,21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040239088 A1 ("Rondeau") in view of US 20070045292 A1 ("Yamada").
Claim 1: Rondeau teaches An off-road vehicle (10), comprising: a frame (62); a wire harness assembly (145) secured to the frame and including a conductive element (Fig. 6); a battery (ATV's electrical system; para. 66, lines 3-4) connected to the wire harness assembly; a first seat (12) coupled with the frame; a second seat (130; para. 56, lines 1-6) positioned rearward of the first seat and coupled with the frame, wherein the second seat includes a seat cushion, one or more handle members, and one or more heating elements (handle heating system; para. 71, lines 1-8), and wherein the one or more heating elements are disposed in at least one of the seat cushion and the one or more handle members (handle heating system; para. 71, lines 1-8). But does not teach and a heating element switch electrically connected to the conductive element and operably connected to the one or more heating elements, wherein the heating element switch is positioned adjacent the second seat.
However, Yamada in a similar field of art teaches and a heating element switch (59) electrically connected to the conductive element and operably connected to the one or more heating elements, wherein the heating element switch is positioned adjacent the second seat (Fig. 4; para. 51, lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Rondeau with the features of Yamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Yamada teaches “the heater control switches 58, 59, and 65 makes it possible to adjust the outputs from the heater groups” (para. 51, lines 1-3)
Claim 2: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Rondeau further teaches the off-road vehicle, wherein the wire harness assembly (145) includes an electrical socket (electrical contact at the base of socket 34; para. 66, lines 1-11) positioned in a storage compartment located under the seat cushion (Fig. 6).
Claim 3: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Rondeau further teaches the off-road vehicle, wherein the electrical socket is electrically connected to the one or more heating elements (para. 66, lines 1-11).
Claim 5: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Rondeau further teaches the off-road vehicle, wherein the second seat includes an electrical plug electrically connectable to the electrical socket (34), wherein the electrical plug may be selectively disconnected from the electrical socket (para. 66, lines 1-11 and para. 67, lines 3-10).
Claim 6: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Rondeau further teaches the off-road vehicle, wherein the electrical socket is electrically connected to one or more of a communication device, a GPS device, a light and a speaker (para. 70, lines 1-5).
Claim 21: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Rondeau further teaches the off-road vehicle, including a handlebar, wherein the wire harness assembly (145) extends forward of the handlebar (handle heating system; para. 71, lines 1-8) (Fig. 6).
Claim 23: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yamada further teaches the off-road vehicle, wherein the heating element switch (65) is secured to the one or more handle members (para. 51, lines 3-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3,5-6,21 and 23 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10 of applicants remarks, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to claims 8-14,16-17,19-20,22 and 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 8-14,16-17,19-20,22 and 24 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose all of the limitations of the claims. Specifically, with regard to independent claim 8 none of the references disclose a second storage compartment positioned under the first seat, wherein the second storage compartment is located at least partially outboard from the first storage compartment; and a third storage compartment positioned under the first seat and separated from the second storage compartment.
with regard to independent claim 14 none of the references disclose a second pocket positioned adjacent to the storage compartment and outboard relative to the storage compartment, wherein the second pocket is positioned on an opposing side of the storage compartment relative to the first pocket.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618