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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “eight” in the phrase “to the eight connection point” of line 12 should be “eighth”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “the” is missing in the phrase “operatively connecting the internal combustion engine” of the last line. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by MAURER (US-20140020971-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, MAURER teaches a method for assembling a vehicle (Paras. [0008]- [0011] teach mounting either an electric drive or an engine drive in a vehicle chassis) comprising:
selecting a power unit from:
an electric motor (Electric Drive Unit 11 comprising Electric Motor 12, Fig. 2), and
an internal combustion engine (Internal Combustion Engine Drive Unit 10 comprising Internal Combusting Engine 8, Fig. 1; hereinafter: ICE Drive Unit 10 and ICE 8);
in response to selecting the electric motor (11):
disposing a first spacer (“SP1”, Fig. 2 Annotated) between a first side (“S1”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of a first frame (Body 1, Fig. 2) and a battery pack (SP1 being disposed between Body 1 and Battery 13, Fig. 2 Annotated);
connecting the battery pack (13) to a first connection point (Bearing 6, Fig. 2) on the first side (S1) of the first frame (1) via the first spacer (SP1);
disposing a second spacer (“SP2”, Fig. 2 Annotated) between a second side (“S2”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the first frame (1) and the battery pack (13);
connecting the battery pack (13) to a second connection point (Bearing 7, Fig. 2) on the second side (S2) of the first frame (1) via the second spacer (SP2); and
PNG
media_image1.png
549
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
electrically connecting the electric motor (12) to the battery pack (Electric Motor 12 and Battery 13 forming Electric Drive Unit 11, as step of connecting them electrically is understood to be taught);
in response to selecting the internal combustion engine (8 and 10):
disposing a first engine mount (“EM1”, Fig. 1 Annotated) between a first side (S1) of a second frame (Body 1) and the internal combustion engine (EM1 being disposed between Body 1 and ICE 8, Fig. 2 Annotated);
PNG
media_image2.png
563
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
connecting the internal combustion engine (8, 10) to a third connection point (Bearing 6) on the first side (S1) of the second frame (1) via the first engine mount (EM1);
disposing a second engine mount (“EM2”, Fig. 1 Annotated) between a second side (S2) of the second frame (1) and the internal combustion engine (8, 10); and
connecting the internal combustion engine (8, 10) to a fourth connection point (Bearing 7) on the second side (S2) of the second frame (1) via the second engine mount (EM2);
a position of the first (6) and second (7) connection points on the first frame (1) and a position of the third (6) and fourth (7) connection points on the second frame (1) being identical (Bearings 6 and 7 being is the same position when Electric Drive Unit 11 is installed, Fig. 2, as when ICE Drive Unit 10 is installed, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, MAURER further teaches that:
a first vector (“V1”, Fig. 2 Annotated) extending from the first connection point (6, Fig. 2) to the second connection point (7, Fig. 2) has a first magnitude and a first direction (as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated);
a second vector (“V2”, Fig. 1 Annotated) extending from the third connection point (6, Fig. 1) to the fourth connection point (7, Fig. 1) has a second magnitude and a second direction (as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated);
the first magnitude is identical to the second magnitude; and
the first direction is identical to the second direction (first connection point Bearing 6 and second connection point Bearing 7 being equal to third connection point Bearing 6 and fourth connection point Bearing 7, respectfully, the magnitudes and directions of Vectors V1 and V2 are understood to be identical).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAURER in view of Ichikawa (US-6158415-A).
Regarding Claim 2, MAURER further teaches that:
the first spacer (SP1) and the second spacer (SP2) rigidly connect the battery pack (13) to the first frame (1);
MAURER does not teach vibration dampers, however, vibration dampers are old and well known in the art. Ichikawa teaches vibration dampers (Vibration Isolating Support Devices 31, Fig. 1) to support an internal combustion engine (Internal Combustion Engine 1, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use vibration dampers as is old and well known in the art and taught by Ichikawa, in order to support an internal combustion engine.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAURER.
Regarding Claim 4, MAURER does not teach third and fourth spacers or engine mounts arranged as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the first and second spacers/ engine mounts taught by MAURER as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. In this case MAURER already teaches a plurality of connection points, Bearings 6 and 7 being discussed above and also a third Bearing 5, Figs. 1 and 2, though Bearing 5 is arranged differently. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide third and fourth connection points, arranged similarly to the first and second, because they would have appreciated the advantage of providing extra support for the engine or electric motor.
Regarding Claim 5, MAURER, as modified above to have third and fourth connection points, teaches that:
a first vector (“V1”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) extending from the first connection point (“C1”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2, being located at Bearing 6) to the second connection point (“C2”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2, being located at Bearing 7) has a first magnitude and a first direction;
a second vector (“V2”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) extending from the first connection point (C1) to the fifth connection point (“C5”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2, being a hypothetical duplication of Bearing 6; see the 103 rejection of claim 4 above) has a second magnitude and a second direction;
a third vector (“V3”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) extending from the first connection point (C1) to the sixth connection point (“C6”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2, being a hypothetical duplication of Bearing 7; see the 103 rejection of claim 4 above) has a third magnitude and a third direction;
a fourth vector (“V4”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) extending from the third connection point (C3) to the fourth connection point (C4) has a fourth magnitude and a fourth direction;
a fifth vector (“V5”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) extending from the third connection point to the seventh connection point (“C7”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2, being a hypothetical duplication of Bearing 6; see the 103 rejection of claim 4 above) has a fifth magnitude and a fifth direction;
a sixth vector (“V6”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) extending from the third connection point to the {eighth} connection point (“C8”, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2, being a hypothetical duplication of Bearing 7; see the 103 rejection of claim 4 above) has a sixth magnitude and a sixth direction;
the first magnitude is identical to the fourth magnitude; the first direction is identical to the fourth direction (V1 and V4 being equivalent, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2);
the second magnitude is identical to the fifth magnitude; the second direction is identical to the fifth direction (V2 and V5 being equivalent, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2);
the third magnitude is identical to the sixth magnitude; the third direction is identical to the sixth direction (V3 and V6 being equivalent, Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2) (the examiner notes that although the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Connection Points 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Fig. 1 Annotated- Set 2 are hypothetical, MAURER teaches Bearings 6 and 7 being located in the same position whether the Electric Drive Unit 11 or the ICE Drive Unit 10 is installed, such that duplicating the Connection Points C1/C3 and C2/ C4- i.e. Bearings 6 and 7- results in co-located Connection Points C5/ C7 and C6/ C8; no matter where Connection Point C5 is placed it will be co-located with Connection Point C7, such that Vectors 2 and 5 will always be equal as claimed, as well as with Connection Points C6 and C8 and Vectors V3 and V6).
PNG
media_image3.png
550
757
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAURER in view of HAAVIKKO et al. (US-20200140037-A1) and the reference incorporated therein: “Bombardier 1” (US-8012050-B2).
Regarding Claim 6, MAURER does not teach that the vehicle is a snowmobile.
HAAVIKKO teaches, in another method for manufacturing a vehicle (Title):
a snowmobile (Snowmobile 10, Fig. 2); a first subframe (“SBF1”, Fig. 4 Annotated); a second subframe (Engine Cradle Portion 20, Fig. 2; see also Bombardier 1 Fig. 1); wherein the method further comprises: connecting one of the first (SBF1) and second (20) subframes to a tunnel (Tunnel 18, Fig. 2; see also Bombardier 1 Fig. 1; and “TNL”, Fig. 4 Annotated) such that the selected one of the first (SBF1) and second (20) subframe is disposed in front of the tunnel (as illustrated in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 Annotated); connecting a seat (Seat 58, Fig. 2; see also Bombardier 1 Fig. 1) to the tunnel (18/ TNL); operatively connecting at least one ski (Front Skis 26, Fig. 2) to one of the first (SBF1) and second (20) subframes; disposing a drive track (Drive Track 65, Fig. 2) at least in part under the tunnel (18/ TNL); an electric motor (Electric Motor 1, Fig. 4): operatively connecting the electric motor (1) to the drive track (Para. [0052] teaches Electric Motor 1 driving Drive Track 65); and alternatively an internal combustion engine (Combustion Engine 24, Fig. 2), and operatively connecting {the} internal combustion engine (24) to the drive track (Para. [0042] teaches Combustion Engine 24 driving Drive Track 65).
The method of manufacturing the snowmobile (10) of HAAVIKKO includes the steps of:
fastening the electric motor (1) to a first side (“S1-H”, Fig. 4 Annotated) of the first subframe (SBF1) (note: these teachings relate to claim 7 as discussed below).
passing the electric motor (1) through an aperture (“APT”, Fig. 4 Annotated) defined in the first side (S1-H) of the first subframe (Electric Motor 1 being disposed in Aperture APT, it is understood to have been passed through it) (note: these teachings relate to claim 8 as discussed below).
operatively connecting the electric motor (1) to the drive track (65) via a reduction drive assembly (“RDA”, Fig. 4 Annotated) (note: these teachings relate to claim 9 as discussed below).
connecting a housing (Fairing 54, Fig. 2; see also Bombardier 1 Fig. 1) of the reduction drive assembly (RDA, and Continuously Variable Transmission 40, Figs. 2 and 3) to a side of the tunnel (18/ TNL) and to the first side (S1-H) of the first subframe (Faring 54 being understood to be connected to the snowmobile frame in general, it is understood to be connected to Tunnel 18/ TNL and First Side S1-H of First Subframe SBF1) (note: these teachings relate to claim 10 as discussed below).
connecting a brace assembly (“BR”, Fig. 4 Annotated) to the tunnel (18/ TNL) and one of the first (SBF1) and second (20) subframes; and pivotally connecting a steering column (Steering Column 34, Fig. 2; see also Bombardier 1 Fig. 1) to the brace assembly (note: these teachings relate to claim 11 as discussed below).
PNG
media_image4.png
502
651
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MAURER and HAAVIKKO in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MAURER’s method for assembling a vehicle such that the vehicle was a snowmobile as suggested by HAAVIKKO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of applying the modular powertrain assembly method of MAURER to a snowmobile that would beneficially make a more flexible assembly method for a snowmobile.
Regarding Claims 7-11, MAURER, as modified by HAAVIKKO, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of HAAVIKKO and motivation to combine them with the method of MAURER).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 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:
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims are not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record, as highlighted above, MAURER and HAAVIKKO, generally disclose a method for assembling a vehicle.
However, neither MAURER nor HAAVIKKO specifically disclose pivotally connecting a steering column to a brace assembly and further mounting the brace on a battery pack as required by claim 12, nor do they disclose selectively connecting either an electric motor and battery pack or an internal combustion engine to a single heat exchanger as required by claim 15.
Further, it would not be obvious to modify the method of MAURER to mount the claimed brace to a battery pack because, although numerous arrangements of structural frames are contemplated in the prior art, a person having ordinary skill in the art would avoid mounting unrelated structural components such as a steering column brace to a fragile component such as a battery pack.
It also would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of MAURER to alternately connect either an electric motor or an engine to a single heat exchanger because they would recognize that the cooling requirements of an electric motor and an internal combustion engine generally vary too much for a single heat exchanger to satisfy both requirements. See also Zemke (DE-10154353-B4), which teaches another method of selecting between electric and internal combustion type power systems (Abstract) in which a cooling system (shown in Fig. 14 as a part of Rear Module 84) is taught to be built into and exchanged with the internal combustion engine system.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least these reasons, claims 12-16, as far as they include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are indicated as reciting allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights