DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedard (US 20020011364) in view of Roth (US 20120279215).
Additionally, and in the alternative regarding claim 1, Bedard teaches a snowmobile comprising: a frame 2; at least one ski connected to the frame 2; an engine 150 supported by the frame 2 ([0095], Figs. 1 and 15).
Bedard does not expressly teach the claimed characteristics of the air intake and exhaust systems.
However, Roth teaches an engine air intake and exhaust system 10 comprising an engine 14, the engine having an engine air inlet 28 and an exhaust outlet 34, 36 ([0024], Fig. 1 of Roth); a turbocharger 16 fluidly connected to the exhaust outlet 34, 36 of the engine 14 ([0022], Fig. 1 of Roth), the turbocharger 16 including: an exhaust turbine 94, and an air compressor 96 ([0033], Fig. 1 of Roth); a first airbox 172 fluidly connected to the turbocharger 16 ([0051], Fig. 1 of Roth), the first airbox 172 receiving air from atmosphere surrounding the snowmobile ([0042] of Roth; the intake air by nature comes from the atmosphere surrounding the snowmobile); and a second airbox 24 having at least a first airbox inlet and a second airbox inlet (Fig. 1 of Roth), the second airbox 24 being fluidly connected to the engine air inlet 28 for providing intake air to the engine ([0050], Fig. 1 of Roth), the first airbox inlet receiving air from the air compressor 96 ([0050], Fig. 1 of Roth; the second airbox has two inlets, each fluidly connected to the first airbox, and each connected to a distinct compressor).
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 snowmobile of Bedard to have the engine air intake and exhaust system of Roth in order to advantageously provide a system that minimizes cost and increases turbocharger efficiency ([0022]of Roth).
Regarding claim 2, Bedard as modified teaches wherein the second airbox inlet of the second airbox 24 receives air from atmosphere surrounding the snowmobile ([0042] and [0047], Fig. 1 of Roth; the intake air by nature comes from the atmosphere surrounding the snowmobile and travels through the first airbox 172 to the second airbox 24).
Regarding claim 3, Bedard as modified teaches wherein: the second airbox inlet is fluidly connected to the first airbox 172; and the second airbox 24 receives air from atmosphere via the first airbox ([0042] and [0047], Fig. 1 of Roth; the intake air by nature comes from the atmosphere surrounding the snowmobile and travels through the first airbox 172 to the second airbox 24).
Regarding claim 4, Bedard as modified teaches the snowmobile further comprising an intake bypass conduit fluidly connecting the second airbox inlet of the second airbox 24 and the first airbox 172 ([0033], Fig. 1 of Roth; in the embodiment comprising bypass valves on the flow path to the compressors, that flow path is the bypass conduit).
Regarding claim 5, Bedard as modified teaches the snowmobile further comprising an intake bypass valve disposed in the intake bypass conduit, the intake bypass valve selectively controlling flow of air through the intake bypass conduit ([0033], Fig. 1 of Roth; bypass valves by nature will selectively control the flow of air through the conduit).
Regarding claim 9, Bedard as modified teaches the snowmobile further comprising an intake bypass valve selectively controlling flow of air into the second airbox 24 ([0033], Fig. 1 of Roth; the embodiment comprising bypass valves on the flow path to the compressors will control flow to the second airbox 24 as it receives air directly from the compressors).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedard in view of Roth, and further in view of Vezina (WO 2016038419).
Regarding claim 10, Bedard as modified teaches the second airbox fluidly connected to the engine, but does not teach the second air box including two distinct air outlets.
However, Vezina teaches a snowmobile engine air intake and exhaust system wherein:
a second air box 166 includes two distinct air outlets ([0076] and [0106], Fig. 3 of Vezina; the second air box has air flow through an outlet to chamber 180 and through an outlet to the engine); and
the engine inlet is two distinct engine air inlets 128 ([0087] of Vezina).
Roth differs from the claimed invention by having a single conduit connecting the second airbox to the engine. The use of multiple conduits to connect an airbox to an engine is known in the art and is taught by Vezina.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two airways of Vezina for the modified single conduit of Bedard/Roth so that there are two distinct air outlets and inlets connecting the second airbox to the engine and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and advantageously facilitated a fluid connection between the second airbox and the engine cylinders.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedard in view of Roth, and further in view of Gobert (US 5615554).
Regarding claim 11, Bedard as modified teaches multiple paths for fluid to flow from the first airbox, but does not teach two distinct outlets.
However, Gobert teaches an engine air intake and exhaust system wherein:
a first airbox 22 includes: a first outlet 20 fluidly connected to the second airbox 8 (Col. 2, lines 21-29, Fig. 1 of Gobert), and a second outlet 25 fluidly connected to the air compressor 7 (Col. 2, lines 37-46 of Gobert; at least one of the two outlets is connected to compressor 7, and at least one is connected to second airbox 8 through path 6 after passing the compressor 7); and
the first outlet 20 and the second outlet 25 are distinct from each other (Col. 2, lines 41-46, Fig. 1 of Gobert).
There are a finite number of predictable solutions for linking the first and second airbox: employing a branching path, or employing two distinct paths. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pursue the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success and to modify the modified engine air intake system of Bedard/Roth to include two distinct outlets as Gobert teaches. This advantageously would allow the air flowing through the bypass passage to have a simpler route.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedard in view of Roth, and further in view of Hain (US 4807439).
Regarding claim 12, Bedard as modified does not teach the claimed exhaust outlet.
However, Hain teaches an engine air exhaust system further comprising:
an exhaust pipe 2 fluidly connected to the exhaust outlet of the engine 1;
an exhaust bypass 6 fluidly connected to the exhaust pipe; and
an exhaust valve 7 operatively connected to the exhaust bypass conduit 6 for selectively controlling a flow of exhaust gas through the turbocharger 4 (Col. 2, lines 22-35, Fig. 1 of Hain).
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 modified engine exhaust system of Bedard/Roth to have the exhaust pipe, exhaust bypass, and exhaust valve of Hain in order to advantageously dampen exhaust gas noises (Col. 1, lines 28-32 of Hain).
Regarding claim 13, Bedard as modified teaches the snowmobile further comprising a muffler 5 fluidly connected to the turbocharger 4 and the exhaust bypass valve 6 (Col. 2, lines 22-35, Fig. 1 of Hain); and
wherein the exhaust valve 7 being selectively movable between at least a first position and a second position (Col. 2, lines 31-35, Fig. 1 of Hain),
in the first position of the exhaust valve, at least some of the exhaust gas flowing toward the turbocharger (Col. 2, lines 31-35, Fig. 1 of Hain; in one position, gas will flow towards turbine 3 of turbocharger 4),
in the second position of the exhaust valve, at least some of the exhaust gas flowing toward the muffler 5 (Col. 2, lines 31-35, Fig. 1 of Hain).
Regarding claim 14, Bedard as modified teaches wherein:
the muffler 5 comprises:
a first muffler inlet, and
a second muffler inlet;
when the exhaust valve 7 is in the first position of the exhaust valve 7, at least a majority of exhaust is directed toward the first muffler inlet; and
when the exhaust valve 7 is in the second position of the exhaust valve 7, at least a majority of exhaust is directed toward the second muffler inlet (Col. 2, lines 31-35, Figs. 1-2 of Hain; in one position, the exhaust is directed to the muffler through main line 2, in another position, exhaust is directed to the muffler through bypass line 6, each having a separate muffler inlet).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedard in view of Roth and Hain, and further in view of Murakami (US 20130255238).
Regarding claim 15, Bedard as modified does not teach wherein the muffler includes a plurality of expansion chambers fluidly connected to the first muffler inlet and the second muffler inlet.
However, Murakami teaches an engine exhaust system muffler which comprises multiple expansion chambers ([0058] of Murakami).
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 modified muffler of Bedard/et.al. to have multiple expansion chambers as Murakami teaches in order to advantageously improve exhaust gas purification performance ([0011] of Murakami).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. By nature of dependencies, claims 7-8 are also objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060021347 teaches an engine air intake and exhaust system with bypass valves.
US 20110067679 teaches a supercharged engine air exhaust and intake system.
CN 202284489 teaches a muffler comprising multiple expansion chambers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights