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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/12/26.
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.
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) 1-8, 15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiya (WO 2016/031661) in view of Obata (US Pat. No. 4,327,700).
Regarding claim 1, Komiya discloses A vehicle (at least fig 1) comprising: a chassis (2); a front axle assembly (16) coupled to the chassis; a rear axle assembly (20) coupled to the chassis; a powertrain coupled to the chassis (at least engine 5, transmission 17, etc; figs), the powertrain including an engine (5); an engine air intake (generally at 203) coupled to the engine to provide clean air to the engine; an exhaust system (generally at 204) coupled to the engine to expel a flow of exhaust gases from the engine. Komiya discloses an EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) device 210, but does not specifically disclose a suction conduit extending between the exhaust system and the engine air intake.
At least Obata discloses a suction conduit (Abstract, fig) extending between the exhaust system and the engine air intake.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the suction conduit technique of Obata with a vehicle as in Komiya to provide a vehicle with a suction conduit extending between the exhaust system and the engine air intake as in claim 1, since such a conduit is common in the art of EGR systems of vehicles and it would have yielded the predictable results of a vehicle with reduced emissions and better fuel economy.
It is noted that the claims are directed to an apparatus but comprise many limitations to the intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claims 2-3, Obata discloses wherein the flow of exhaust gases flowing through the exhaust system generates a vacuum providing suction within the engine air intake to facilitate pulling debris from the engine air intake, into the suction conduit, and into the flow of exhaust gases; further comprising a valve positioned to restrict the flow of exhaust gases from entering into the suction conduit (capable of the intended use, see at least fig and associated description).
Regarding claim 4, Komiya discloses further comprising a cab coupled to the chassis, wherein the engine air intake is positioned under a dash of the cab (at least fig 1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Komiya in view of Obata does not specifically disclose wherein the vehicle provides a payload capacity rating of at least 1,750 pounds but less than 4,000 pounds, and wherein the vehicle has an overall width between 60 inches and 80 inches; wherein the overall width is greater than 65 inches.
However, these limitations are mere recitations of preferred or ideal ranges or values.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the vehicle provides a payload capacity rating of at least 1,750 pounds but less than 4,000 pounds, and wherein the vehicle has an overall width between 60 inches and 80 inches; wherein the overall width is greater than 65 inches, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges or an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and since it may have provided a weight allowing easy transport or a width for maneuverability.
Regarding claims 7-8, Komiya in view of Obata does not specifically disclose further comprising a cab and three bucket seats arranged in a row extending across the cab; or further comprising a cab and a bench seat extending across the cab, the bench seat configured to accommodate three passengers.
However, these limitations are a mere application of the known techniques of Komiya and Obata to a certain type of vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the techniques of Komiya and Obata to a vehicle further comprising a cab and three bucket seats arranged in a row extending across the cab; or further comprising a cab and a bench seat extending across the cab, the bench seat configured to accommodate three passengers, since it is no more than the application of a known technique to prior art ready for improvement yielding the predictable results of a vehicle with reduced emissions and better fuel economy. In essence, it is applying the known technique of EGR and intake air filtration to a UTV or SXS, which is obvious for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 15, Komiya in view of Obata discloses A vehicle comprising: a chassis; a front axle coupled to the chassis; a first rear axle coupled to the chassis; a second rear axle coupled to the chassis; and at least one of:(a) a braking system including: a first braking assembly associated with the first rear axle; a second braking assembly associated with the second rear axle; a first parking brake lever coupled to the first braking assembly; and a second parking brake lever coupled to the second braking assembly; or (b) a powertrain including: an engine; an engine air intake coupled to the engine to provide clean air to the engine; an exhaust system coupled to the engine to expel a flow of exhaust gases from the engine; and a suction conduit extending between the exhaust system and the engine air intake (see discussion of at least claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Komiya in view of Obata discloses further comprising the powertrain (see discussion of at least claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 19-20, Komiya in view of Obata discloses A powertrain for a vehicle, the powertrain comprising: an engine; an engine air intake coupled to the engine to provide clean air to the engine; an exhaust system coupled to the engine to expel a flow of exhaust gases from the engine; and a suction conduit extending between the exhaust system and the engine air intake; at least one of:(a) wherein the flow of exhaust gases flowing through the exhaust system generates a vacuum providing suction within the engine air intake to facilitate pulling debris from the engine air intake, into the suction conduit, and into the flow of exhaust gases; or (b) further comprising a valve positioned to restrict the flow of exhaust gases from entering into the suction conduit (see discussion of claims 1-3 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14, 18 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: the prior art when taken alone or in combination does not appear to teach or fairly suggest at this time The vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the rear axle assembly includes a first rear axle and a second rear axle, and further comprising a braking system including: a first braking assembly associated with the first rear axle; a second braking assembly associated with the second rear axle; a first parking brake lever coupled to the first braking assembly; and a second parking brake lever coupled to the second braking assembly; wherein engagement of the first parking brake lever actuates the first braking assembly and engagement of the second parking brake lever actuates the second braking assembly [claim 9]; The vehicle of Claim 1, further comprising: a cab coupled to the chassis; and a rear module coupled to the chassis behind the cab, the rear module selectively reconfigurable between a plurality of configurations [claim 10]; or The vehicle of Claim 15, further comprising the braking system and the powertrain [claim 18].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B MEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-7.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached at 303.297.4337. 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.
JACOB B. MEYER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3613
/JACOB B MEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights