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.
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(s) 1-10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (PGPub 2022/0009589, cited by applicant) in view of Sasage et al (USPN 8,376,075).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Matsushita teaches an electric snowmobile, comprising: a frame 18 extending along a longitudinal axis between a front end and a rear end of the frame, the frame including a tunnel (portion of lower frame 18 covering track 30) at least partially enclosing a spacing receiving a drive track 30, a sub-frame (front portion of lower frame 18; applicant has not specified distinctions between the frame and subframe that defines over front and rear portions of the frame 18 of Matsushita; also, Matsushita describes, in para [0048], a “front portion” of the lower frame 18 and, in para [0049], teaches that the “frames and the portions forming the body frame 10 may be formed integrally, or may be separated and fixed to each other …”, thereby suggesting the lower frame front portion can be a separate part) disposed forward of the tunnel relative to the longitudinal axis, the sub-frame supporting a front suspension 15L, 15R, 70L, 70R; an electric motor 50 mounted to the frame; a battery pack (batteries 60 in housing 65) mounted over the tunnel and at least partially disposed rearward of the electric motor relative to the longitudinal axis (see Figure 1), the battery pack having a front portion and a rear portion; and a structure 12-14 (see Figure 2) disposed over the sub-frame and over the front portion of the battery pack, the structure defining at least four legs 13L, 13R, 14L, 14R, ending at four ends, the at least four legs including two front legs 13L, 13R, secured to the front suspensions (see Figures 4 and 5) and two rear legs 14L, 14R, secured to the tunnel (rear portion of lower frame 18 positioned over the track 30), each of the two rear legs 14L, 14R, defining a respective one of two elbows (see Figure 2) and a respective one of two rear ends of the four ends, the two elbows located above the two rear ends, a distance along the transverse direction between the two elbows being greater than the width of the rear portion of the battery pack to receive the rear portion between the two rear legs (shown in Figure 2).
Matsushita lacks a width of the front portion of the battery relative to a transverse direction normal to the longitudinal axis being greater than a width of the rear portion of the battery.
Sasage teaches a straddle seat electric vehicle having a battery pack 31, 32, positioned between a handlebar 12 and a seat 28 of the vehicle. The battery pack has a front portion and a rear portion (a wider forward portion labelled 31 in Figures 4, and a narrower rear portion, also labelled 31 in Figure 4), where a width of the front portion 31, 32, of the battery (proximate the handlebars 12) relative to a transverse direction normal to the longitudinal axis is greater than a width of the rear portion 31, 32, of the battery (battery portion between the footrests 38, as seen in Figure 4). This arrangement provides a narrower battery width where the rider straddles the vehicle for rider comfort and also maximizes battery capacity by accommodating more battery cells at the wider front end of the battery box (see col. 9, lines 52-67).
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 battery pack of Matsushita with wider front portion, proximate the handlebars, relative to a narrower rear portion, between the footrests, in view of Sasage, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased battery capacity while maintaining rider leg space and comfort.
Regarding claim 2, Matsushita teaches that a distance along a vertical direction being normal the transverse direction between the two elbows and a top wall of the tunnel is greater than a height of the battery pack taken along the vertical direction (see Matsushita, Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, it would have been a matter of obvious design selection to an intersection between the front portion and the rear portion of the battery pack at the position the elbows, which is also the longitudinal position of the front end of the footrests, in order to minimize interference between the rider’s legs while maximizing battery volume.
Regarding claim 4, In Matsushita, the at least four legs are effectively defined by two members (a left member set 13L, 13L, and a right member set 13R, 14R) each extending upwardly from a front end to an apex and downwardly from the apex to a respective one of the two rear ends. It is not clear if the left front and rear frame members join to form a single left member and the right front and rear members join to form a single right member, however, it would have been an obvious design modification to join the front and rear frame members on the respective sides in order to reinforce the upper frame structure.
Regarding claim 5, the two members (left and right upper frame members) are secured to one another proximate the apexes (support 11 connects to upper ends of the left and right upper frames to each other).
Regarding claim 6, in the Matsushita structure, both the support 11 and/or the upper portion 112U of auxiliary frame 112 form a bracing member connecting the two members.
Regarding claim 7, Matsushita teaches the structure includes a transverse member 112U extending substantially transversally to the longitudinal axis from a left end to a right end, the transverse member secured to the two rear legs 14L, 14R (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Matsushita teaches a left foot rest secured to a left side of the tunnel and a right foot rest secured to a right side of the tunnel (horizontal extensions from outer sides of vertical walls of the tunnel 18; see Figure 1), the left foot rest and the right foot rest extending along the longitudinal axis from the sub-frame towards the rear end of the frame, the left end of the transverse member secured to the left foot rest proximate the sub-frame, the right end of the transverse member secured to the right foot rest proximate the sub-frame (auxiliary frames 112L, 112R, are secured to the footrests, indirectly through vertical walls of the tunnel, at the front end of the footrests; see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, the transverse member 112 is secured to two rear legs 14L, 14R, via connecting members (the cross member 112 is shown connected to the rear members in Figure 2; the connecting members appear to be pipe fittings).
Regarding claim 10, the combination lacks a left shear plate connecting the transverse member to the sub-frame and a right shear plate connecting the transverse member to the sub-frame. However, it is old and well known to provide reinforcement plates or gussets between structural members to reinforce an overall frame. It would have been an obvious design modification to provide the combination frame with reinforcement plates between the transverse member and the subframe, to which it is mounted, in order to reinforce the overall frame structure.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Sasage as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Suzuki (PGPub 2022/0017181).
The combination fails to explicitly teach a straddle seat for seating a driver of the electric snowmobile, the straddle seat disposed over the rear portion of the battery pack.
Suzuki teaches an electric snowmobile 100 with a frame 10, an electric motor 50, a seat, and batteries B1, B2. Battery B2 is positioned behind battery B1 and is narrower than battery B1. The rear portion of battery B2 is also positioned under front frame portion 112 and extends under the seat (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to position the rear portion of the battery under the seat, as taught by Sasage, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize the battery capacity of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-23 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art to Matsushita teaches away from the claimed invention because a widened front end of the battery would interfere with the ability to remove the battery or reduce the storage capacity of the battery. The examiner disagrees. Matsushita teaches different battery embodiments that are positioned at the front end of the frame and are removably installed on the frame from different directions. Sasage teaches a straddle seat vehicle with a removable battery with a more complex battery shape, having a wider front end and a narrower rear end, that maximizes battery capacity while allowing comfortable positioning of the rider’s feet without increasing the width between the step-frames 37 (col. 9, lines 52-57). This is accomplished by narrowing the battery 30 where the occupant strides across the seat 28 and increasing the battery width of the battery forward of the foot steps (col. 9, lines 57-67). This teaching lends itself to the arrangement of Matsushita, with the articulated advantage of providing increased battery capacity. Also, both Matsushita and Sasage teach single person, straddle-seat electric vehicles that, broadly, constitute analogous prior art. Therefore, rejection is being maintained.
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 Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights