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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The phrases “up to 20° relative to horizontal” and “angled relative to vertical” is vague and does not give a clear meaning so as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention. For examination purposes, the phrase “up to 20° relative to horizontal” will be interpreted to mean “up to 20° relative to a horizontal plane” and the phrase “angled relative to vertical” will be interpreted to mean “relative to a vertical axis”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second plurality of upstanding frame members, the upper longitudinally extending frame members on the driver and passenger side, and the “the at least one seat being completely forward of the driver side upper longitudinally extending frame member and the passenger side upper longitudinally extending frame member” of claim 38 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-23, 25-26, and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 25-26, and 35 of copending Application No. 17679252 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a utility vehicle comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members, and engine with a portion positioned partially rearward of a seat, a transmission operably coupled and aligned with the engine behind the transmission, the outputs of the engine and transmission being positioned towards opposite sides of a longitudinal axis, and a prop shaft connected to the transmission (See claim mapping tables below for further explanation).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application 18615503
Application 17679252
claim 21 limitations
Claims 21, 25-26, and 35 limitations
A utility vehicle, comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members
(21) “A utility vehicle, comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members”
a frame assembly supported on the plurality of ground-engaging members and extending along a longitudinal axis
(21) “a frame assembly supported by the plurality of ground-engaging members”
a powertrain assembly supported by the frame assembly and comprising an engine and a transmission, the engine being separate from the transmission and longitudinally aligned with a portion of the transmission in a fore/aft direction of the utility vehicle;
(21) “a driveline assembly operably coupled to the plurality of ground-engaging members, the driveline assembly comprising: an engine positioned fully rearward of the operator area; a transmission positioned forward of the engine, the transmission operably coupled to the engine, and the transmission is positioned under at least one of the first seating portion or the second seating portion” (the engine is fully rearward of the operator area and the transmission is under a seat; this language is an alternative way of saying the transmission and engine are coupled in a fore/aft direction)
an output of the engine is positioned to a first side of a vertical plane that is parallel to the longitudinal axis
(26) “wherein the engine is positioned rearward of second seating portion and is laterally spaced apart from the first seating portion” (this forces the engine output to be laterally spaced apart from a longitudinally extending vertical plane since claim 21 claims "the first and second seating portions are positioned at a second longitudinal position spaced apart from the first longitudinal positions.")
an output of the transmission is positioned to a second side of the vertical plane;
(25) “wherein a forward portion of the transmission is positioned under a portion of the second seating portion.” Alternatively, (35) “the utility vehicle comprising a prop shaft extending rearward from the transmission to a rear drive member, the prop shaft extending rearward at a position laterally intermediate the engine and a left trailing arm of a rear suspension assembly” (this limitation positions the prop shaft [the transmission output] on a second side of a vertical plane [since the engine is on the first side])
Claim 22 Limitations
Claims 25-26 limitations
wherein at a least a portion of the engine is positioned to the first side of the longitudinal axis and at least a portion of the transmission is positioned to the first side of the longitudinal axis.
(25) “wherein a forward portion of the transmission is positioned under a portion of the second seating portion.”
(26) “wherein the engine is positioned rearward of second seating portion” (Both the engine and transmission are positioned on the side of the longitudinal axis where the second seating portion is located)
Claim 23 Limitations
Claim 35 Limitations
wherein the powertrain assembly further comprises a prop shaft and the prop shaft is positioned to the second side of the longitudinal axis.
(35) “the prop shaft extending rearward at a position laterally intermediate the engine and a left trailing arm”
Claim 25 Limitations
Claims 21 and 25-26 Limitations
wherein the engine is longitudinally aligned with the transmission and rearward of the transmission
(21) “a transmission positioned forward of the engine, the transmission operably coupled to the engine”
(25) “wherein a forward portion of the transmission is positioned under a portion of the second seating portion.”
(26) “wherein the engine is positioned rearward of second seating portion and is laterally spaced apart from the first seating portion.” (These limitations in combination indicate a longitudinal alignment)
Claim 26 Limitations
Claim 21 Limitations
wherein a rearward extent of the transmission is coupled to a forward extent of the engine
(21) “a transmission positioned forward of the engine, the transmission operably coupled to the engine”
Claim 32 Limitations
Claim 21 Limitations
wherein at least a portion of the engine is positioned rearward of the at least one seat
(21) “an operator area supported by the frame assembly and including side by side seating having a first seating portion”; “an engine positioned fully rearward of the operator area”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23, 25-26, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Iwaki (US 20170284510).
Regarding claim 21, Iwaki teaches a utility vehicle 100 ([0034], Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging members 120/110 ([0053], Fig. 1); a frame assembly 101 supported on the plurality of ground-engaging members 120/110 and extending along a longitudinal axis ([0034], Fig. 2); and a powertrain assembly supported by the frame assembly 101 and comprising an engine E and a transmission 1 ([0039], Fig. 2), the engine being separate from the transmission and longitudinally aligned with a portion of the transmission 1 in a fore/aft direction of the utility vehicle 100 (Fig. 2), wherein: an output Ea of the engine E is positioned to a first side of a vertical plane that is parallel to the longitudinal axis ([0039], Fig. 2); and an output 12 of the transmission 1 is positioned to a second side of the vertical plane (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Iwaki teaches wherein at a least a portion of the engine E is positioned to the first side of the longitudinal axis and at least a portion of the transmission 1 is positioned to the first side of the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Iwaki teaches wherein the powertrain assembly further comprises a prop shaft 121 and the prop shaft 121 is positioned to the second side of the longitudinal axis ([0049], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Iwaki teaches wherein the engine E is longitudinally aligned with the transmission 1 and rearward of the transmission 1 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Iwaki teaches wherein a rearward extent of the transmission 1 is coupled to a forward extent of the engine E (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 35, Iwaki teaches wherein the transmission 1 includes a housing 3/4/5 and the engine E is directly supported on the housing 3 ([0094] and [0097], Fig. 1; the engine is joined to flywheel housing 3 of the transmission 1 and is thereby supported on it).
Regarding claim 36, Iwaki teaches wherein the powertrain assembly includes a front differential 125 operably coupled to the transmission 1 ([0054], Figs. 1-2) and a rear differential 116 operably coupled to the transmission 1 ([0046]-[0047], Figs. 1-2), and at least a portion of the engine is positioned below a portion of the rear differential (Fig. 1; the engine shares a lowermost point which is lower than an uppermost point of the differential gear unit 116).
Regarding claim 37, Iwaki teaches wherein the engine E is positioned a first longitudinal distance from the front differential 125 and a second longitudinal distance from the rear differential 116, and the second longitudinal distance is less than the first longitudinal distance (Figs. 1-2).
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki in view of Nash (US 20040195797).
Regarding claim 24, Iwaki teaches wherein a lateral angle of the prop shaft 121 is up to 20° relative to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2).
Iwaki does not teach wherein a vertical angle of the prop shaft is up to 20° relative to a horizontal plane.
However, Nash teaches an off-road vehicle with a prop shaft 152 teaches wherein the prop shaft 152 is angled vertically up to 20° relative to a horizontal plane ([0046], Figs. 1-2 and 12 of Nash; see exact ranges rejection below).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the slightly angled prop shaft of Nash for the horizontally aligned prop shaft of the utility vehicle of Iwaki, and the device would have operated as predictable, with the prop shaft advantageously driving the wheels of the vehicle.
Iwaki as modified discloses the claimed invention except for that the prop shaft angle is expressly 20°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to angle the prop shaft within a 20° range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 27-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki in view of Deckard (US 20120031694).
Regarding claim 27, Iwaki teaches the utility vehicle 100 further comprising a rear suspension assembly 119 ([0034], Fig. 2).
Iwaki does not teach the rear suspension assembly including upper and lower arms and trailing arms.
However, Deckard teaches a utility vehicle with a rear suspension assembly 116 including upper arms 532A/B operably coupled to at least a portion of the plurality of the ground engaging members 102, lower arms 530A/B operably coupled to the portion of the plurality of ground engaging members 102 ([0073], Figs. 6 and 32 of Deckard), and trailing arms 526 operably coupled to the frame assembly 112 and the portion of the plurality of ground engaging members 102 ([0073], Figs. 31-33 of Deckard).
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 utility vehicle of Iwaki to have the rear suspension of Deckard in order to advantageously provide up to 14 inches of suspension travel to the utility vehicle ([0073] of Deckard).
Regarding claim 28, Iwaki as modified teaches the utility vehicle 100 further comprising an open-air cargo area 102 ([0036], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, Iwaki as modified teaches wherein the cargo area 102 is positioned over the trailing arms, the upper arms, and the lower arms of the rear suspension assembly (Fig. 1).
While Iwaki does not teach upper arms, lower arms, and trailing arms, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the cargo area 102 (of Iwaki) being positioned over the modified vehicle suspension of Iwaki/Deckard.
Regarding claim 30, Iwaki as modified teaches the utility vehicle 100 further comprising an open-air operator area supported by the frame assembly101 and includes at least one seat 108 comprising a seat back and a seat bottom ([0037], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Iwaki as modified teaches wherein the cargo area includes a cargo platform 107 configured to support cargo thereon, and the cargo platform extends along a horizontal plane that intersects the seat back 108 and is spaced apart from the seat bottom ([0036], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Iwaki as modified teaches wherein at least a portion of the engine E is positioned rearward of the at least one seat 108 (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 33, Iwaki as modified teaches wherein the portion of the plurality of ground engaging members 120/110 defines rear ground engaging members 110, and an envelope is defined between the open-air operator area and the rear ground engaging members, and the engine E is positioned within the envelope (Fig. 2; the engine E is between the operator area and the rear wheels 110).
Regarding claim 34, Iwaki as modified teaches wherein the envelope extends from the cargo platform 107 to an axis of rotation of the rear ground engaging members 110 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 38, Iwaki teaches wherein the frame assembly 101 comprises:
a plurality of longitudinally extending frame members including a driver side lower longitudinally extending frame member, a passenger side lower longitudinally extending frame member (Figs. 1-2); an open-air cargo area 102 positioned over the rear suspension assembly 119 ([0034]-[0035], Figs. 1-2); and an open-air operator area supported by the frame assembly 101 and includes at least one seat 108 comprising a seat back and a seat bottom ([0037], Figs. 1-2).
Iwaki does not teach upper longitudinally extending frame members, upstanding frame members, or the rear suspension assembly arms.
However, Deckard teaches a utility vehicle wherein the frame assembly comprises: a plurality of longitudinally extending frame members including a driver side lower longitudinally extending frame member, a passenger side lower longitudinally extending frame member, a driver side upper longitudinally extending frame member, a passenger side upper longitudinally extending frame member (See annotated Fig. 29 of Deckard below);
a first plurality of upstanding frame members 265 connecting the driver side lower longitudinally extending frame member and the driver side upper longitudinally extending frame member ([0083], Fig. 25 of Deckard);
a second plurality of upstanding frame members 265 connecting the passenger side lower longitudinally extending frame member and the passenger side upper longitudinally extending frame member ([0083], Fig. 25 of Deckard), the engine 130 and the transmission 144 being positioned in a space defined by the driver side lower longitudinally extending frame member, the passenger side lower longitudinally extending frame member, the driver side upper longitudinally extending frame member, and the passenger side upper longitudinally extending frame member ([0071], Figs. 9 and 28-29 of Deckard; the engine and the transmission are positioned in a lateral space between the longitudinally extending frame members);
and the vehicle further comprising:
a rear suspension assembly 116, the rear suspension assembly including upper arms 532A/B operably coupled to at least a portion of the plurality of the ground engaging members 102, lower arms 530A/B operably coupled to the portion of the plurality of ground engaging members 102 independent of the upper arms 532A/B ([0073], Figs. 6 and 32 of Deckard), and trailing arms 526 operably coupled to the frame assembly 112 and the portion of the plurality of ground engaging members 102 independent of each of the upper arms 532 and the lower arm 530 ([0073], Figs. 31-33 of Deckard);
an open-air cargo area 210 positioned over the rear suspension assembly 116, the driver side upper longitudinally extending frame member, and the passenger side upper longitudinally extending frame member ([0084], Fig. 1 of Deckard; see annotated Fig. 29 below);
an open-air operator area 212 supported by the frame assembly 116 and includes at least one seat 211 comprising a seat back and a seat bottom ([0082], Fig. 1 of Deckard)
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 utility vehicle of Iwaki to have the frame members and the rear suspension of Deckard in order to advantageously reinforce the frame and to advantageously provide up to 14 inches of suspension travel to the utility vehicle ([0073] of Deckard).
While Iwaki as modified does not expressly teach “the at least one seat being completely forward of the driver side upper longitudinally extending frame member and the passenger side upper longitudinally extending frame member”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the longitudinally extending frame member so that it ends before the seating portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would effectively reinforce the rearward portion of the frame, while saving on material costs.
Claims 39 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki in view of Osaki (US 20150224874).
Regarding claim 39, Iwaki teaches a utility vehicle 100 ([0034], Fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of ground-engaging members 120/110 ([0053], Fig. 1);
a frame 101 assembly supported on the plurality of ground-engaging members 120 and extending along a longitudinal axis ([0034], Fig. 2);
a cargo area 102 supported on the frame assembly 101 ([0035], Fig. 1); and
a powertrain assembly supported by the frame assembly 101 and comprising an engine E, a transmission 1 ([0039], Fig. 2), and a prop shaft 121 operably coupled to the transmission 1 and the plurality of ground engaging members 120/110 ([0057], Fig. 2).
Iwaki does not expressly teach the engine including a cylinder body and a crankcase.
However, Osaki teaches an offroad vehicle 1 ([0037] of Osaki) with an engine 60 comprising a crankcase 66 and a cylinder body 63 positioned above the crankcase 66 ([0047], Figs. 1-3 of Osaki), and the cylinder body 63 being angled relative to vertical toward a side of the utility vehicle 1 in a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and positioned below a portion of the cargo area and over a portion of the prop shaft 114 (Figs. 3-5 of Osaki).
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 engine configuration of the utility vehicle of Iwaki to have the engine configuration of Osaki in order to advantageously make the vehicle compact and allow for the seats to be low to the ground ([0006]-[0007] of Osaki).
Regarding claim 41, Iwaki as modified teaches wherein the crankcase 66 is positioned on a first side of the longitudinal axis and the cylinder body is positioned on a second side of the longitudinal axis ([0046], Figs. 2-3 of Osaki; “a crankcase 66 of the engine 60 overlaps with the backrest portion 18R of the right seat 10R in the plan view of the vehicle.”; the crankcase is positioned dominantly towards the right side of the vehicle and the cylinder body is positioned dominantly towards the left side of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 42, Iwaki as modified teaches wherein the prop shaft 121 is positioned on the second side of the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2; the prop shaft is on the opposite side of the longitudinal axis that the engine is on).
Regarding claim 43, Iwaki as modified teaches wherein the powertrain assembly further comprises a transmission 1 positioned directly forward of the engine ([0039], Fig. 2).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki in view of Osaki, and further in view of Nash (US 20040195797).
Regarding claim 40, Iwaki as modified does not teach the prop shaft being angled vertically up to 20°.
However, Nash teaches an off-road vehicle with a prop shaft 152 teaches wherein the prop shaft 152 is angled vertically up to 20° relative to a horizontal plane ([0046], Figs. 1-2 and 12 of Nash; see exact ranges rejection below).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the slightly angled prop shaft of Nash for the horizontally aligned prop shaft of the modified utility vehicle of Iwaki/Osaki, and the device would have operated as predictable, with the prop shaft advantageously driving the wheels of the vehicle.
Iwaki as modified discloses the claimed invention except for that the prop shaft angle is expressly 20°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to angle the prop shaft within a 20° range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
641
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20070267233 teaches an offroad vehicle with an engine coupled in line with a transmission towards a center of the vehicle with prop shafts extending on opposite lateral sides.
US 20130277937 teaches a vehicle suspension comprising upper and lower arms, and a pair of trailing arms.
US 20210025480 teaches a centrally located transmission coupled in a fore/aft direction to an engine.
US 8944449 teaches a utility vehicle frame with upper and lower longitudinally extending frame members.
US 6929577 teaches a utility vehicle with an engine coupled to a transmission near a vehicle seating portion with prop shafts on opposite lateral sides of the vehicle.
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