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
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 1-6, 9, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5735361 by Forrest (hereinafter “Forrest”), further in view of US8968043 by Murphy (hereinafter “Murphy”),
Regarding claim 1, Forrest teaches A remotely controlled vehicle apparatus comprising: a frame; see for example Fig. 1, where the body includes a chassis or frame. See also column 7, lines 24-28.
a battery interconnected to the frame; see for example Figure 2, showing battery case 12.
a controller interconnected to the frame; see for example Figures 6-7 showing controller configurations; see also column 5, lines 22-40.
a first driven track assembly interconnected to a first side of the frame wherein a first electrical motor is interconnected with the frame and configured to drive the first driven track assembly; a second driven track assembly interconnected to a second side of the frame wherein a second electrical motor is interconnected with the frame and configured to drive the second driven track assembly; a second electrical motor interconnected with the frame, wherein the second electrical motor is configured to drive the second driven track assembly; see for example Figures 1 or 2, showing left and right motors 30a and 30b connected to two drive wheels 28a and 28b. Then in Figure 3, described in column 9 line 44 through column 10 line 2, where in a snow embodiment the two drive wheels are replaced with drive tracks 29 which also operate independently.
a ski interconnected to the frame, wherein the ski is configured to contact a ground surface laterally between the driven track assemblies; see again Figure 3, where the trailing caster wheel has been replaced with a ski (“trailing caster drag rail”) 21.
a remote-control see for example column 10 lines 6-11, where the use of a remote control to steer the vehicle is contemplated to control the vehicle.
Forrest does not explicitly teach a tether interconnected to the frame, or a wirelessly communicat[ing] remote control comprising a first handle, and an interconnection point, wherein the tether is configured to be removably interconnected to the interconnection point.
However, Murphy teaches a towing system with a tether interconnected to the frame. See for example column 2 lines 1-4, where the tow rope is connected to a boat. See also column 2 lines 54-59, where the tow rope can instead be used to pull a snow skier.
Murphy also teaches a remote-control configured to wirelessly communicate with the controller. See for example column 2 lines 32-35, where the remote communicates wirelessly.
Finally, Murphy teaches a remote-control comprising a first handle, and an interconnection point, wherein the tether is configured to be removably interconnected to the interconnection point. See for example column 2 line 54 through column 3 line 6, where the remote comprises a tow rope connection point 309 and handle grips 310.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest with the remote control handle of Murphy with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to control the vehicle while being towed a distance behind the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Forrest teaches wherein the first electrical motor and the second electrical motor are independently controlled by the remote-control. See again Figures 1 or 2, showing left and right motors 30a and 30b connected to two drive wheels 28a and 28b. Then in Figure 3, described in column 9 line 44 through column 10 line 2, where in a snow embodiment the two drive wheels are replaced with drive tracks 29 which also operate independently. Then see column 10 lines 6-11, where the use of a remote control to steer the vehicle is contemplated to control the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Forrest teaches wherein interconnections between the driven track assemblies and the frame each comprise a track assembly suspension. See for example column 10, lines 40-41, where the vehicle can have a fully suspended chassis in the snow embodiment.
Regarding claim 4, Forrest teaches wherein the interconnection between the ski and the frame comprises a ski suspension. See for example column 10, lines 40-41, where the vehicle can have a fully suspended chassis in the snow embodiment.
Regarding claim 5, Forrest teaches further comprising a steering mechanism comprising an electrical motor configured to direct the driven track assemblies, wherein rotation of the electrical motor in a first direction results in steering of the vehicle apparatus toward a first lateral direction, and wherein rotation of the electrical motor in a second direction results in steering of the vehicle apparatus toward a second lateral direction. See again Figures 1 or 2, showing left and right motors 30a and 30b connected to two drive wheels 28a and 28b. Then in Figure 3, described in column 9 line 44 through column 10 line 2, where in a snow embodiment the two drive wheels are replaced with drive tracks 29 which also operate independently.
Independent claim 20 has similar limitations to claim 5 above (i.e. similar to the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 5 together), and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Forrest does not teach, but Murphy does teach wherein the remote-control comprises a second handle, wherein the first handle and the second handle are distally located from each other, and wherein the interconnection point is located between the first handle and the second handle. See for example column 2 line 54 through column 3 line 6, where the remote comprises a tow rope connection point 309 and handle grips 310.
Regarding claim 9, Forrest teaches wherein the ski is configured to contact the ground surface rearward of the driven track assemblies. See again Figure 3, where the trailing caster wheel has been replaced with a ski (“trailing caster drag rail”) 21.
Regarding claim 16, Forrest teaches wherein the remote-control is . See for example column 10 lines 6-11, where the use of a remote control to steer the vehicle is contemplated to control the vehicle.
Forrest does not explicitly teach that the remote-control is wirelessly interconnected.
However, Murphy teaches a system wherein the remote-control is wirelessly interconnected with the controller of the vehicle apparatus. See for example column 2 lines 32-35, where the remote communicates wirelessly.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest with the remote control handle of Murphy with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to control the vehicle while being towed a distance behind the vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Forrest does not explicitly teach, but Murphy teaches wherein the remote-control comprises a thumb actuated throttle; and the thumb actuated throttle comprising a progressive spring rate wherein a first force threshold is required to actuate a first throttle portion, and a second force threshold is required to actuate a second throttle portion. See for example column 2 line 54 through column 3 line 6, where the remote comprises control buttons for incrementally increasing the speed, where successive presses of a button read on first and second force threshold.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest with the remote control handle of Murphy with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to control the vehicle while being towed a distance behind the vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Forrest does not explicitly teach, but Murphy teaches wherein the progressive spring rate comprises a third force threshold to actuate a third throttle portion. See for example column 2 line 54 through column 3 line 6, where the remote comprises control buttons for incrementally increasing the speed, where successive presses of a button read on third force threshold.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest with the remote control handle of Murphy with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to control the vehicle while being towed a distance behind the vehicle.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of Murphy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20220017163 by Kirchmair et al. (hereinafter “Kirchmair”).
Regarding claim 7, Forrest does not teach, but Kirchmair does teach further comprising a proximity sensor interconnected to the vehicle apparatus, wherein the proximity sensor is interconnected with the controller; wherein the proximity is sensor directed in a forward direction in relation to vehicle apparatus. See for example paragraph [0035], where the system includes a sensor for obstacle detection in front of the vehicle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the proximity sensor of Kirchmair with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the vehicle to avoid obstacles in front of the vehicle, especially if the skier in control is distracted or otherwise unable to notice them.
Regarding claim 8, Forrest does not teach, but Kirchmair does teach wherein the proximity sensor is interconnected to a forward aspect of the frame. See for example Figure 1, where the sensor 38 is positioned on the front end of the vehicle in order to look forward.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the proximity sensor of Kirchmair with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the vehicle to avoid obstacles in front of the vehicle, especially if the skier in control is distracted or otherwise unable to notice them.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of Murphy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20070113771 by Fatzinger (hereinafter “Fatzinger”).
Regarding claim 10, Forrest does not explicitly teach, but Fatzinger does teach a system further comprising a guide arm comprising a first end interconnected with a rearward aspect of the vehicle apparatus, wherein a second end of the guide arm extends in a rearward direction from the vehicle apparatus, and wherein the guide arm is configured guide the tether rearward of the vehicle apparatus. See for example paragraph [0022], where the system includes a rod 16 for extending behind a vehicle to a tow line.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the tow line arm of Fatzinger with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the guide arm to extend behind the vehicle and guide the tow rope, keeping the skier (see paragraph [0002]) from being too close to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Forrest does not explicitly teach, but Fatzinger does teach wherein the guide arm is pivotally interconnected to the vehicle apparatus, wherein the guide arm is configured to pivot laterally in a first direction and a second direction. See for example paragraph [0022], where the system includes a rod 16 for extending behind a vehicle to a tow line. See also paragraph [0023], where the guide arm can pivot side to side.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the tow line arm of Fatzinger with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the guide arm to extend behind the vehicle and guide the tow rope, keeping the skier (see paragraph [0002]) from being too close to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Forrest does not explicitly teach, but Fatzinger does teach wherein the guide arm is further configured to articulate upward and downward. See for example paragraph [0022], where the system includes a rod 16 for extending behind a vehicle to a tow line. See also paragraph [0026], where the guide arm can pivot in the vertical direction.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the tow line arm of Fatzinger with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the guide arm to extend behind the vehicle and guide the tow rope, keeping the skier (see paragraph [0002]) from being too close to the vehicle.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of Murphy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20060027155 by Welch (hereinafter “Welch”).
Regarding claim 13, Forrest does not explicitly teach, but Welch does teach further comprising a spooling device configured to extend and retract the tether. See for example paragraphs [0022]-[0024], where the tow rope is wound around a winch for extending and retracting the tow rope.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the spooling handle of Welch with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to lengthen or shorten the tow rope depending on the circumstances.
Regarding claim 14, Forrest does not teach, but Welch does teach wherein the spooling device comprises a winch. See for example paragraphs [0022]-[0024], where the tow rope is wound around a winch for extending and retracting the tow rope.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the spooling handle of Welch with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to lengthen or shorten the tow rope depending on the circumstances.
Regarding claim 15, Forrest does not teach, but Welch does teach wherein the remote-control is configured to control at least one operation of the winch. See for example paragraphs [0029]-[0030], where the winch can be controlled by the user via the handle, wirelessly.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the spooling handle of Welch with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to lengthen or shorten the tow rope depending on the circumstances.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of Murphy as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Welch, and further in view of 20040064221 by DePrez et al. (hereinafter “DePrez”).
Regarding claim 17, Forrest does not explicitly teach, but Murphy does teach wherein the remote-control comprises steering controls, speed controls, . See for example column 3 lines 36-53, where the tow handle includes speed and direction controls (reading on speed and vehicle apparatus power controls).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest with the remote control handle of Murphy with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to control the vehicle while being towed a distance behind the vehicle.
Neither Forrest nor Murphy explicitly teach brake controls, lighting controls, or winch control on the remote.
However, Fatzinger teaches winch control on the remote. See for example paragraphs [0022]-[0024], where the tow rope is wound around a winch for extending and retracting the tow rope.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy, with the spooling handle of Welch with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to lengthen or shorten the tow rope depending on the circumstances.
Neither Forrest, Murphy, nor Fatzinger explicitly teach brake controls or lighting controls on the remote.
However, DePrez teaches a system with remote-controlled brake controls and lighting controls. See for example paragraph [0055], where the system can wirelessly control a vehicle headlamp. See also paragraph [0048], where the system can wirelessly control vehicle braking.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skier-towing vehicle of Forrest, modified by the remote control handle of Murphy and the spooling handle of Welch, with the remote control of other vehicle systems by DePrez with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a skier to control all the tow vehicle systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666