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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haavikko et al. (US 2020/0140037 A1) hereinafter, Haavikko in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0017181 A1) hereinafter, Suzuki.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Haavikko teaches an electric vehicle or a snowmobile comprising:
a body (6) extending along a longitudinal axis between a front end and a rear end (Fig 4);
an electric motor assembly mounted to the body, the electric motor assembly including an electric motor (1) configured to receive electrical energy from the plurality of battery modules to drive a motor output of the electric motor (Fig 4 and Para [0041]); and
a transmission, comprising:
a transmission shaft (3, 100) extending along a transmission shaft axis between a first end (on the left) drivingly coupled to the motor output and a second end (on the right), wherein the transmission shaft axis is co-axial with a motor output axis (Fig 1); and a drive wheel drivingly coupled to the second end of the transmission shaft (end of (3, 100) at 78. Fig 3-4 and Para [0043]- [0045]), wherein an output speed at the second end of the transmission shaft axis is substantially equivalent to an input speed at the first end of the transmission shaft axis (the reduction is at the end at 78, Fig 3), wherein the body defines a center plane being upright and containing the longitudinal axis, the transmission shaft axis being transverse to the center plane (Fig 4), wherein the transmission shaft is supported at the first end by a first bearing (4, Fig 1) and at the second end by a second bearing (implicit, see Fig 4), wherein the electric motor assembly includes a motor casing (1+2, Fig 1) enclosing the electric motor, the motor casing being mounted to the body (Fig 4), wherein one of the body and the motor casing includes the first bearing (Fig 1), wherein the body includes a drive belt case (78), the drive belt case including the second bearing (Fig 3), wherein the drive belt case at least partially encloses the drive wheel (driven by 100) and a drive track wheel (driving 92, Fig 3), and wherein the transmission shaft axis is collinear with a motor output axis (Fig 1).
However, Haavikko does not teach a battery pack mounted to the body and enclosing a plurality of battery modules.
Suzuki teaches a battery pack mounted to the body and enclosing a plurality of battery modules (BT1-3, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Haavikko’s vehicle, in view of Suzuki, with a battery pack, to provide power to the motor.
Regarding claim 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14, and 17-20, Haavikko in view of Suzuki teaches all the limitations as discussed above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haavikko et al. (US 2020/0140037 A1) hereinafter, Haavikko in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0017181 A1) hereinafter, Suzuki and further in view of Leboeuf (US 2025/0010945 A1).
Haavikko in view of Suzuki teaches that the transmission shaft is hard-mounted to the body via the first and second bearings (as discussed in claim 7 above). However, Haavikko in view of Suzuki does not teach that the electric motor is soft-mounted to the body via one or more dampers.
Leboeuf teaches that the electric motor is soft-mounted to the body via one or more dampers (518, Para [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Haavikko’s vehicle, in view of Leboeuf, with a damper for reducing the transmission of vibrations between the motor and the body (Para [0147]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haavikko et al. (US 2020/0140037 A1) hereinafter, Haavikko in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0017181 A1) hereinafter, Suzuki and further in view of Eto (US 5,992,552 A).
Haavikko in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 1. However, Haavikko in view of Suzuki does not teach a transmission brake.
Eto teaches at least one brake (202) actionable against the transmission shaft (58) at a location between the first end and the second end (Fig 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Haavikko’s vehicle, in view of Eto, with a transmission brake, to enable stopping and slowing down the speed of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haavikko et al. (US 2020/0140037 A1) hereinafter, Haavikko in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0017181 A1) hereinafter, Suzuki and further in view of Izumi et al. (US 6,070,683 A) hereinafter, Izumi.
Haavikko in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 1. However, Haavikko in view of Suzuki does not teach a spline connection.
Izumi teaches that the motor output (71) includes a female spline (104) and the first end of the transmission shaft (42) includes a male spline (106, Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Haavikko’s vehicle, in view of Izumi, with a spline connection. Thus, the splined connection permits rotation of the output shaft to be transmitted to the drive shaft, while allowing the drive shaft to be easily mounted to or removed from the output shaft (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5-6 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 recites that an output speed at the second end of the transmission shaft axis differs from an input speed at the first end of the transmission shaft axis.
Claim 5 recites that the motor output, the transmission shaft and the drive wheel are disposed on only one side of the center plane.
Since the prior art (e.g. Haavikko) teaches snowmobile that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, Fig 4 of the examined disclosure shows the propulsion system, which is different than the propulsion system taught by the prior art of record (Fig. 4 of haavikko and Fig. 1 of Suzuki, etc.)
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach snowmobiles of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611