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 .
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 1, 2, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,522,320. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently claimed structure is taught by the previously patented claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn (PGPub 2021/0323629) in view of Murakami (PGPub 2015/0274205).
Regarding claim 1, Blackburn teaches a steering system for a snowmobile 10 (Figure 1; para [0022], line 1), the steering system comprising: a handlebar assembly 38 (Figure 2); a steering column 32 having upper and lower ends, the upper end of the steering column coupled to the handlebar assembly (Figure 2); an electronic steering assist unit 30 (Figure 2; para [0023], lines 1-10) having input and output shafts 35 (Figure 5), the input shaft coupled to the lower end of the steering column; a steering rack or linkage 34 (para. [0023], lines 3, 6-9) and coupled to the output shaft of the electronic steering assist unit; a first tie rod 36 having proximal and distal ends (Figure 2), the proximal end of the first tie rod coupled to the steering rack or linkage; a second tie rod having proximal and distal ends, the proximal end of the second tie rod coupled to the steering rack or linkage; a first ski assembly 14 coupled to the distal end of the first tie rod; and a second ski assembly 14 coupled to the distal end of the second tie rod; wherein, the steering column and the electronic steering assist unit share a common axis of rotation that is positioned along a centerline of the snowmobile (Figure 3).
In Blackburn, it is not clear how the output of the power steering assist unit connects to the tie rods 36.
Murakami teaches a steering system for a snowmobile (para [0130], lines 1-3) with a handlebar 2 (Figure 1), a steering column 4 (Figures 1) couple to the handlebar at its upper end, and an electronic power steering assist unit 101 having an input shaft 21 and an output shaft 22 (Figure 3; para [0132], lines 1-5); the input shaft 21 is coupled to the lower end of the steering column 4 (Figure 3); a steering arm assembly 161 is coupled directly to the output shaft 22 (see Figure 3) of the electronic steering assist unit; a first tie rod 8 having proximal and distal ends, the proximal end of the first tie rod coupled to the steering arm assembly; a second tie rod 8 having proximal and distal ends, the proximal end of the second tie rod coupled to the steering arm assembly (Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the output shaft of the power assist steering unit directly to a steering arm that then connects to the tie rods of Blackburn, in view of Murakami, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to efficiently transfer power from the steering system to the snowmobile skis.
Regarding claim 5, the snowmobile of Blackburn includes an engine 16; and wherein, the electronic steering assist unit of the combination is positioned forward of the engine 16 (engine 16 is positioned in the engine compartment 18, toward the rear of the compartment as indicated in Figure 3, and the electronic steering unit of the combination is positioned at the tie rods, which are at a forward end of the engine compartment, which is forward of the engine.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed with respect to claim 1, the combination teaches all of the claimed structure including a snowmobile (both references teach a snowmobile) comprising: a chassis (Blackburn, supporting structure for body 12) including a forward frame assembly (Blackburn, forward portion that supports engine compartment 18); and an engine 16 coupled to the forward frame assembly (Blackburn, Figure 3)).
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salfar (WO2023/129979) in view of Murakami (PGPub 2015/0274205).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Salfar teaches a steering system for a snowmobile 100 (Figure 23), the steering system comprising: a handlebar assembly 494 (Figure 23); a steering column (Figure 23, unnumbered) having upper and lower ends, the upper end of the steering column coupled to the handlebar assembly (494) and the lower end connected to a linkage for steering front skis 106A, 106B. It appears that the steering column and the electronic steering assist unit share a common axis of rotation that is positioned along a centerline of the snowmobile (centered because the driver is centered relative to the vehicle).
In Salfar, it is not clear how the output of the power steering assist unit connects to tie rods for steering the skis.
Murakami teaches a steering system for a snowmobile (para [0130], lines 1-3) with a handlebar 2 (Figure 1), a steering column 4 (Figures 1) couple to the handlebar at its upper end, and an electronic power steering assist unit 101 having an input shaft 21 and an output shaft 22 (Figure 3; para [0132], lines 1-5); the input shaft 21 is coupled to the lower end of the steering column 4 (Figure 3); a steering arm assembly 161 is coupled directly to the output shaft 22 (see Figure 3) of the electronic steering assist unit; a first tie rod 8 having proximal and distal ends, the proximal end of the first tie rod coupled to the steering arm assembly; a second tie rod 8 having proximal and distal ends, the proximal end of the second tie rod coupled to the steering arm assembly (Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the output shaft of the power assist steering unit of Salfar directly to a steering arm that then connects to the tie rods that steer the skis, in view of Murakami, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to efficiently transfer power from the steering system to the snowmobile skis.
Regarding claims 2, Salfar teaches that the snowmobile includes a forward frame assembly (frame structures 112, 114, 118, positioned forward of tunnel 116); and wherein, the electronic steering assist unit is coupled to the forward frame assembly (the steering assembly is mounted to front frame portion 118; para [0086], lines 5-6).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the snowmobile of Salfar includes a forward frame assembly (frame structures 112, 114, 118, positioned forward of tunnel 116); wherein, the forward frame assembly includes a nose frame assembly 112 defining an electronics bay (Figures 37 and 38, a front nose frame contains battery 240 and converter 262). It is not clear whether the electronic steering assist unit is at least partially positioned within the electronic steering assist unit bay. However, the steering assist unit 500 shown in Figure 23 is positioned at the lower end of the steering column and can be positioned up to the vertical line 520 (para [00132]), which is forward of the over structure portion 118 of the forward frame assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position at least part of the steering assist unit in the nose frame assembly 112 of the combination snowmobile, in order to position the steering unit as disclosed by Salfar and in a location protected by a nose frame assembly, as also taught by Salfar.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the snowmobile includes a heat exchanger 552 (see Figure 32); and wherein, the electronic steering assist unit is positioned below the heat exchanger (heat exchanger/front radiator 552, shown in Figure 32, is above the over structure 118, while the steering unit 500, seen n Figure 23 is below the over structure 118).
Regarding claim 5, Salfar shows, in Figure 23, the steering assist unit 500 positioned forward of the engine 202.
Regarding claim 6, the snowmobile includes an engine (applicant’s disclosure indicates that the term “engine” includes electric motors, as in the motor 202 taught by Salfar) and a heat exchanger (radiator 552, in Figure 32 and para [00142] of Salfar); wherein, the heat exchanger and the electronic steering assist unit are positioned forward of the engine (see Figures 23 and 32 of Salfar); and wherein, the electronic steering assist unit is positioned below of the heat exchanger, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Salfar also teaches a forward frame assembly including frame structures 112, 114, 118, positioned forward of and coupled to tunnel 116. The forward frame structure forms bays for housing the engine and electronic power steering assist unit. The heat exchanger 550, seen in Figure 32, is positioned above the assist unit of Figure 23 and forward of the bay for engine 202.
Regarding claim 20, the steering assist unit of the combination is positioned along the centerline of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn and Murakami as applied to claims 1, 5, and 10 above, and further in view of Moriyama (PBPub 2005/0039961).
The combination is silent regarding the engine being an aftwardly tilted four-stroke engine.
Moriyama teaches a snowmobile with an aftwardly tilted four-stroke engine (the aftward tilt is shown in Figure 1; para [0037], lines 1-2, teach a four-stroke engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the engine as an aftwardly tilted four-stroke engine, in view of Moriyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an appropriate engine configuration for a snowmobile.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 12, and 16-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the combination of Blackburn (PGPub 2021/0323629) and Murakami (PGPub 2015/0274205) fails to teach the claimed invention. Specifically, applicant argues that Blackburn does not teach a steering column and steering assist unit that share a common axis of rotation, centered relative to the snowmobile. The examiner disagrees. Figure 2 of Blackburn clearly shows a coaxial relationship between the steering column 32, steering shaft 35 and the steering assist unit 220 that extends continuously from the handlebar 38 to a steering linkage 34 that connects to tie rods 36. Figure 5 also shows an input steering shaft, labeled 35 in Figure 5, at the upper end of steering unit 220. The input shaft 35 is splined for coaxial connection to steering column 32. Figure 5 also shows an output shaft, unnumbered, at the lower end of the steering unit 220, that also has a splined surface for connection to the steering linkage or a shaft that transmits rotation to the steering linkage 34. Para [0048] describes the steering arrangement shown in Figures 1-3. It also indicates that a torque sensor is provided within the steering unit. Power steering systems typically include torque sensors that require a torsion bar that connects input and output shafts of the steering unit. Separate input and output shafts are required in that the toque sensor measures the relative rotation between the input and output shafts across the torsion bar to determine the torque applied to the steering column. Even though the Blackburn reference does not describe input and output shafts in the detailed disclosure, they are shown in Figure 5 and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a power steering system that uses a torque sensor requires separate shafts. This arrangement is conventional in power steering systems and Murakami provides details of that type of arrangement including separate input and output shafts.
Applicant argues that Blackburn fails to a steering arm directly coupled to the output shaft of the steering assist unit. Applicant points to para [0023], which refers to a steering column coupled to a steering rack. However, para [0023], indicates the steering system 30 may comprise any mechanical link between the steering column and the ground engaging members. The mechanical linkage shown in Figure 2 of Blackburn is not a steering rack (a steering rack requires a laterally elongated toothed rack bar and a pinion engaging the rack). It is depicted as a steering arm or linkage directly coupling the lower end of steering shaft 35 with tie rods 36. Since the drawings lack detail, Murikami is relied on for a description of that kind of mechanical linkage.
Applicant also argues that neither the Blackburn nor the Murikami reference teaches a rotational axis positioned along a centerline of the snowmobile. The examiner disagrees. Figures 2 and 3 of Blackburn show a steering column 32 in line with a steering shaft 35 that is centered relative to the snowmobile. Figure 3, in particular, shows a top view of the snowmobile with the handlebars 38, steering column and steering system centered relative to the vehicle body 100, track device 20, and skis 14. Also, snowmobiles of this configuration are controlled by a single driver who straddles a centrally located seat. The handlebar is centered relative to the snowmobile body and the skis are symmetrically arranged on either side of a longitudinal centerline. For a snowmobile having a steering column and shaft in line with each other and that connect directly between the center of the handlebar and the steering linkage, as in Blackburn and Murakami, the steering shaft must be centered to position the handlebar in front of the rider. Central positioning of the handlebar allows the rider to control left and right turning of the vehicle without a significant imbalance in steering operation. One of ordinary skill in the art glean that arrangement from the disclosures and drawings of Blackburn and Murakami.
Applicant states that Murikami does not cure the deficiencies of Blackburn. Specifically, applicant argues that Murikami does not teach a steering column and an electronic steering assist unit that share a common axis of rotation and that the common axis is along a centerline of the snowmobile. The examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0306] of Murikami teaches a spline connection (axial male serrations 21A) between the input shaft 21 of the steering assist unit and the steering column 4 (steering shaft 4 that connects to the handlebar and rotates therewith). It also teaches a spline connection (axial male serrations 22A) between the output shaft 22 and the steering arm 161. These spline connections/joints do not allow rotation between the respective parts that are connected and Figure 38 of Murikami, for example, shows that the steering column 4, input shaft 21, output shaft 22, and steering arm are in line with each other and rotate together about central axis CL. Therefore, the steering column and input and output shafts of the steering assist unit share a common rotational axis CL (see Figure 51). Murakami also shows steering column/shaft 4 in Figure 1 centered relative to the vehicle, handlebars 2 and wheels 9, as would be expected on a straddle seat vheicle. It is further noted that Murikami teaches, in para [0129], that the vehicle in which the steering arrangement is taught can be a snowmobile.
Applicant challenges the examiner’s assertion that Salfar appears to show that the steering column and steering assist unit share a common axis of rotation. The examiner disagrees. Figure 23 of Salfar shows a steering assist unit 500 positioned along the steering column. From the side at least sections of the steering rod above and below the steering assist unit are in line with each other indicating the input and output shafts of the motor are aligned with the steering column. Absent details regarding the power steering arrangement, Murikami is relied on for steering unit details, including the arrangement of the steering column relative to the steering unit and relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, as discussed above. Therefore, the combination of Salfar and Murikami is believed to teach the claimed combination.
Applicant argues that Salfar lacks any teaching to reposition the steering assist unit forward of the engine bay. The examiner disagrees. As explained in the Office Action, the snowmobile of Salfar includes a forward frame assembly (frame structures 112, 114, 118, positioned forward of tunnel 116); wherein, the forward frame assembly includes a nose frame assembly 112 defining an electronics bay (Figures 37 and 38, a front nose frame contains battery 240 and converter 262 in a space that forms an electronic steering assist bay). It is not clear whether the electronic steering assist unit is at least partially positioned within the electronic steering assist unit bay. However, the steering assist unit 500 shown in Figure 23 is positioned at the lower end of the steering column and can be positioned up to the vertical line 520 (para [00132]), which is forward of the over structure portion 118 of the forward frame assembly. Therefore, the drawings of Salfar, seen in light of the specification, suggest positioning at least part of the steering assist unit within the electronic steering assist unit bay and coupling the steering assist to the nose frame assembly, to conveniently support the steering assist unit.
Regarding claim 15, applicant argues that Salfar lacks any teaching of an electronic steering assist unit bay or it’s relationship to the steering assist unit and a heat exchanger. Applicant’s disclosed “bays” appear to be spaces within the body enclosure for specific element with little or no demarcation between the spaces. Salfar teaches dedicated spaces for the steering assist unit, the prime mover, and and heat exchanger 550 within the body enclosure. Figure 23 of Salfar shows the steering unit 500 forward of the prime mover 202 and enclosed within the front frame 112. Figure 32 shows heat exchanger 550 above the position of the steering unit of Figure 23 and forward of the pirme mover 202. Therefore, the claimed elements as discussed in the rejection are believed to be taught.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saito teaches an electric power steering apparatus for a snowmobile.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /ab/
Prosecution Insights