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 Objections
Claims 8, 12, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, “a second end of a strut” should be and is interpreted as “a second end of [[a]]the strut”
Regarding claim 12: “the frame of the motorcycle” should be and is interpreted as “the frame of [[the]]a motorcycle”
Regarding claim 16: “a frame of the motorcycle” should be and is interpreted as “the frame of [[a]]the motorcycle”
Regarding claim 20: “rotationally coupled at a second end to a frame of the motorcycle” should be and is interpreted as “rotationally coupled at a second end to [[a]]the frame of the motorcycle”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 10, and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “substantially equivalent” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially equivalent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention because it is unclear what might not be considered equivalent. For example would a 0.5” difference be “substantially equivalent” or not?
The term “about” in claims 10 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention especially given the claim defines a range that is bounded on both sides by a vague degree, i.e., use of about.
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 1-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0129569 A1 to Mangum et al (hereinafter Mangum).
Regarding claim 1, Mangum discloses an apparatus (Abstract & Fig. 1) comprising:
a rear suspension assembly (620) for converting a rear portion of a motorcycle for use as a snow vehicle (Figs. 1 and 31 & [0007], [0081]-[0083], [0088] and [0091]), the rear suspension assembly (620) comprising:
a tunnel (625) (Fig. 31 & [0088]; also shown in other embodiments, e.g., see fig. 19 – generally marked by part 426; Fig. 7 – generally marked part 26); and
a mount plate (726,728,740) coupled to the tunnel (625) (Figs. 31 & 33 and [0090]-[0092] disclose components 726, 728, and 740, together interpreted as “a mount plate” because components 740 are plate like in structure, are coupled to the tunnel 625 via the frame 622); and
a pair of mount legs (756), where each of the pair of mount legs (756) is positionably coupled to the mount plate (740) at a first end and rotationally coupled at a second end to [[a]]the frame of the motorcycle (6), and where each of the pair of mount legs (756) is positionable independent of the other mount leg (756) (Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081] disclose the second end is rotatably coupled to the motorcycle frame. [0091] discloses the slide mount 756 operates in the same way as the one disclosed in [0081] which discloses the legs 756/490 are slidably adjustable along the bars 740/488 of the mount plate 726,728,740.).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Mangum further discloses where the mount plate (726,728,740) includes an elongated slot (752) for each of the pair of mount legs (756) (Mangum - Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081] teach the second end is rotatably coupled to the motorcycle frame. [0091] discloses the slide mount 756 operates in the same way as the one disclosed in [0081] which discloses the legs 756/490 are slidably adjustable along the bars 740/488 of the mount plate 726,728,740.).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 2, Mangum further discloses where each of the elongated slots (752) is adapted for the lateral positioning of the pair of mount legs (756) with respect to a centerline (Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081] and [0091] teach laterally, i.e., from the front side to the rear side, positioning the pair of mount legs. Although a specific front/back centerline is not explicitly disclosed by Mangum any lateral positioning done by moving the legs 756 in relation to the slots 752 can be interpreted as being done with respect to any point, e.g., a centerline).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 3, Mangum further discloses a fastener (528) for each of the pair of mount legs (756), where the fastener (528) is configured to pass through the slot (752) and secure its respective mount leg (756) to the mount plate (726,728,740) (Mangum - Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081], [0083] and [0091] teach fasteners 528 are used to secure the legs to the mount plate).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 4, where a lateral distance from the centerline of a first one of the pair of mount legs (756) is substantially equivalent to a lateral distance from the centerline of a second one of the pair of mount legs (756) (Figs. 19-25B and 31 & [0081] and [0091] disclose and depict the left and right mount legs being mounted in substantially equivalent positions and thus are interpreted as being mounted in substantially equivalent positions to the centerline).
Regarding claim 20, Mangum discloses a snow bike (Abstract & Fig. 1) comprising:
a motorcycle frame (6) (Fig. 1 & [0060]);
a front suspension assembly coupled at a front of the motorcycle frame, the front suspension assembly (16) having a ski (18) (Fig. 1 & [0060]); and
a rear suspension assembly (620) coupled at a rear of the motorcycle frame (6) (Figs. 1 and 31 & [0060] and [0088]), the rear suspension assembly (620) comprising:
a tunnel (625) (Fig. 31 & [0088]; also shown in other embodiments, e.g., see fig. 19 – generally marked by part 426; Fig. 7 – generally marked part 26); and
a mount plate (726,728,740) coupled to the tunnel (625) (Figs. 31 & 33 and [0090]-[0092] disclose components 726, 728, and 740, together interpreted as “a mount plate” because components 740 are plate like in structure, are coupled to the tunnel 625 via the frame 622); and
a pair of mount legs (756), where each of the pair of mount legs (756) is positionably coupled to the mount plate (740) at a first end and rotationally coupled at a second end to [[a]]the frame of the motorcycle (6), and where each of the pair of mount legs (756) is positionable independent of the other mount leg (756) (Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081] disclose the second end is rotatably coupled to the motorcycle frame. [0091] discloses the slide mount 756 operates in the same way as the one disclosed in [0081] which discloses the legs 756/490 are slidably adjustable along the bars 740/488 of the mount plate 726,728,740.).
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,077,088 B1 to Forbes.
Regarding claim 11, Forbes discloses an apparatus (Fig. 11) comprising:
a rear suspension assembly (56) for converting a rear portion of a motorcycle (2) for use as a snow vehicle (Fig. 11 and col 9 lns 29-60), the rear suspension assembly (56) comprising:
a tunnel (58L/R) (Fig. 11 and col 9 lns 29-60 disclose body components 58L/R surround the endless track making it a tunnel); and
PNG
media_image1.png
478
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a linkage bracket (74) having a first mount (A) point pivotally coupled with a first end of a strut (75), a second mount point (B) pivotally coupled with a first end of a shock absorber (23), and a third mount point (C) pivotally coupled with the tunnel (58L/R) (Forbes Annotated Fig. 12 & col 10 lns 20-43).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 11, Forbes further discloses a second end of a strut (75) that is pivotally coupled with an upper shock mount (58) of [[the]]a frame (4) of the motorcycle (2) (Forbes Annotated Fig. 12 & col 10 lns 20-43).
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 12, Forbes further discloses a second end (87) of the shock absorber (73) that is pivotally coupled with the tunnel (58L/R) (Figs. 11 and 12 & col 10 lns 20-43).
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 11, Forbes further discloses a mount plate (57) coupled to the tunnel (58L/R) (Fig. 11 & col 9 lns 29-60 disclose the swingarm 57 is mounted to the tunnel 57L/R. 57 is interpreted as being a mount plate because it is plate like in nature as analogously shown in the isometric view of the alternative embodiment in Fig. 16 and it is used to mount the rear suspension assembly to the motorcycle via pivot point 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102/103
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Forbes.
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 11, Forbes further discloses an angle of separation between the strut (Forbes – 75) and the shock absorber (Forbes – 73) in a range of between about 70 and about 110 degrees (Figs. 11-14 & col 11 ln 32 – col 12 ln 2 discloses the angle between the compression axis of the shock absorber and the bell crank arm is nearly 90 degrees and the angle between the bell crank arm and the strut is much less than 90 degrees when unweighted and that when weighted/at the end of the compression stroke, the angle between the compression axis of the shock absorber and the bell crank arm is severely acute and the angle between the bell crank arm and the strut is approaches 90 degrees. Thus Forbes discloses that the angle between the shock and the strut is the summation of approaching 90 degrees and a severely acute angle. This summation is interpreted as being “about 110 degrees”).
Assuming, arguendo, that the claimed range is not explicitly disclosed, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed range, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed range of the angle between the shock and the strut would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum.
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 4, Mangum further discloses where a lateral distance from the centerline of a first one of the pair of mount legs (756) is greater than a lateral distance from the centerline of a second one of the pair of mount legs (756) ((Figs. 19-25B and 31 & [0081] and [0091] disclose and depict the left and right mount legs are slidably moveable within the slots 520 relative to the bars 750. The left and right legs 756 and left and right bars 750 are independently moveable, i.e., not constrained by one another, and thus are interpreted as enabling one leg to be positioned closer to the centerline than the other, e.g., to make an adjustment or otherwise.).
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the arrangement of one leg to the centerline in comparison to the other, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of one leg to the centerline in comparison to the other would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangum in view of Forbes.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, although Mangum discloses an intermediate suspension system providing suspension to the endless track, Mangum is silent as to how the shock absorber of the original motorcycle that would connect with the front portion of the frame 6 to the rear swingarm and rear wheel and therefore Mangum does not appear to further disclose a linkage bracket having a first mount point pivotally coupled with a first end of a strut, a second mount point pivotally coupled with a first end of a shock absorber, and a third mount point pivotally coupled with the tunnel. Without this shock absorber linking the front of the bike to the rear of the bike the single pivot point coupling members 490 between the rear of the bike and the front of the bike would collapse rendering the bike unusable.
Forbes teaches that it was old and well known in the art of convertible motorcycles/ snowbikes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a linkage bracket (74) having a first mount (A) point pivotally coupled with a first end of a strut (75), a second mount point (B) pivotally coupled with a first end of a shock absorber (23), and a third mount point (C) pivotally coupled with the tunnel (58L/R) (Forbes Annotated Fig. 12 & col 10 lns 20-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of convertible motorcycles/snowbikes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension system disclosed by Mangum to incorporate for the snowbike to further include a linkage bracket having a first mount point pivotally coupled with a first end of a strut, a second mount point pivotally coupled with a first end of a shock absorber, and a third mount point pivotally coupled with the tunnel as taught by Forbes in order to serve to cushion the chassis of the bike and provide dampening for the rider, e.g., see Forbes col 10 ln 51 – col 11 ln 5, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 7, the modified combination of Mangum/Forbes further discloses a second end of [[a]]the strut (Forbes - 75) that is pivotally coupled with an upper shock mount (forbes -58) of the frame (Mangum – 6/Forbes – 4) of the motorcycle (Mangum - 2/Forbes – 2) (Mangum – Fig. 1. Forbes Annotated Fig. 12 & col 10 lns 20-43).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mangum in view of the teachings of Forbes for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 7 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 8, the modified combination of Mangum/Forbes further discloses a second end (87) of the shock absorber (73) that is pivotally coupled with the tunnel (Mangum - 625/Forbes - 58L/R) (Mangum – Fig. 31. Forbes -Figs. 11 and 12 & col 10 lns 20-43).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mangum in view of the teachings of Forbes for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 7 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 7, the modified combination of Mangum/Forbes further discloses an angle of separation between the strut (Forbes – 75) and the shock absorber (Forbes – 73) in a range of between about 70 and about 110 degrees (Figs. 11-14 & col 11 ln 32 – col 12 ln 2 discloses the angle between the compression axis of the shock absorber and the bell crank arm is nearly 90 degrees and the angle between the bell crank arm and the strut is much less than 90 degrees when unweighted and that when weighted/at the end of the compression stroke, the angle between the compression axis of the shock absorber and the bell crank arm is severely acute and the angle between the bell crank arm and the strut is approaches 90 degrees. Thus Forbes discloses that the angle between the shock and the strut is the summation of approaching 90 degrees and a severely acute angle. This summation is interpreted as being “about 110 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mangum in view of the teachings of Forbes for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 7 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Assuming, arguendo, that the claimed range is not explicitly disclosed, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed range, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed range of the angle between the shock and the strut would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes in view of Mangum.
Regarding claim 16, depending on claim 15, Forbes does not appear to further disclose a pair of mount legs, where each of the pair of mount legs is positionably coupled to the mount plate at a first end and rotationally coupled at a second end to a frame of the motorcycle, and where each of the pair of mount legs is positionable independent of the other mount leg.
Mangum teaches that it was old and well known in the art of convertible motorcycles/snowbikes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a pair of mount legs (756), where each of the pair of mount legs (756) is positionably coupled to the mount plate (726,728,740) at a first end and rotationally coupled at a second end to a frame of the motorcycle (6), and where each of the pair of mount legs (756) is positionable independent of the other mount leg (756) (Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081] disclose the second end is rotatably coupled to the motorcycle frame. [0091] discloses the slide mount 756 operates in the same way as the one disclosed in [0081] which discloses the legs 756/490 are slidably adjustable along the bars 740/488 of the mount plate 726,728,740.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of convertible motorcycles/snowbikesbefore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the convertible motorcycles/snowbikes disclosed by Forbes to incorporate the a pair of mount legs, where each of the pair of mount legs is positionably coupled to the mount plate at a first end and rotationally coupled at a second end to a frame of the motorcycle, and where each of the pair of mount legs is positionable independent of the other mount leg as taught by Mangum in order to enable adjustable spacing between the vehicle frame and the rear suspension, e.g., see Mangum Abstract, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 16, the modified combination of Forbes/Mangum further discloses where the mount plate (Mangum- 726,728,740) includes an elongated slot (Mangum-752) for each of the pair of mount legs (Mangum-756) (Mangum - Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081] teach the second end is rotatably coupled to the motorcycle frame. [0091] discloses the slide mount 756 operates in the same way as the one disclosed in [0081] which discloses the legs 756/490 are slidably adjustable along the bars 740/488 of the mount plate 726,728,740.).
It would have been obvious to have modified Forbes in view of the teachings of Mangum for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 16 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18, depending on claim 17, the modified combination of Forbes/Mangum further discloses where each of the elongated slots (Mangum-752) is adapted for the lateral positioning of the pair of mount legs (Mangum-756) with respect to a centerline (Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081] and [0091] teach laterally, i.e., from the front side to the rear side, positioning the pair of mount legs. Although a specific front/back centerline is not explicitly disclosed by Mangum any lateral positioning done by moving the legs 756 in relation to the slots 752 can be interpreted as being done with respect to any point, e.g., a centerline.
It would have been obvious to have modified Forbes in view of the teachings of Mangum for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 16 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 18, the modified combination of Forbes/Mangum further discloses a fastener (Mangum-528) for each of the pair of mount legs (Mangum-756), where the fastener (Mangum-528) is configured to pass through the slot (Mangum-752) and secure its respective mount leg (Mangum-756) to the mount plate (Forbes- 57/Mangum-726,728,740) (Forbes- Fig. 11 & col 9 lns 29-60. Mangum - Figs. 21-22 and 31-33 & [0081], [0083] and [0091] teach fasteners 528 are used to secure the legs to the mount plate).
It would have been obvious to have modified Forbes in view of the teachings of Mangum for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 16 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611