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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites the limitation "...the cover", which should be changed to “…the battery cover”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the output shaft" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitation “the output shaft” will be interpreted as “an output shaft” of “the electric motor”.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8 and 10 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina in view of Peno.
Regarding claim 8, Vezina discloses [a snowmobile (20) comprising:
a frame (25) including a tunnel (27)] (Fig. 1; paragraph 0065);
[at least one ski operatively connected to the frame] (Figs. 1, 24; paragraph 0065 discloses the frame further includes element 32; paragraphs 0070 and 0071 disclose at least one ski, e.g., a left ski, operatively connected to the frame);
[a handlebar (88) operatively connected to the at least one ski] (Fig. 1; paragraph 0009, [the at least one ski] operatively connected to the handlebar; paragraph 0073);
[a drive track (38) disposed at least in part under the tunnel] (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0067-0068); and
[an electric motor (36) connected to the frame] (paragraph 0065 discloses the frame further includes element 29; paragraph 0066 discloses the electric motor is received in element 29),
[the electric motor being operatively connected to the drive track] (paragraph 0067).
Vezina further discloses in paragraph 0068: a tank (54) connected to and disposed on the tunnel; wherein, the straddle seat is disposed on the tank, however, Vezina does not appear to explicitly disclose a battery connected to the electric motor or a battery cover.
Peno discloses [a snowmobile] (vehicle shown in Figs. 1 – 4) comprising:
[a battery cover (14, 98, 100) disposed over and connected to a tunnel (TU)] (Annotated Fig. 1, below; col 3, lines 34 – 36);
[a straddle seat (e.g., the top surface of 98) disposed over the battery cover,
a top of the tunnel (TT) and the battery cover defining a battery housing (TT, 14, 98, 100)] (Ann. Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 4, below);
[at least one battery (e.g., 102) connected to and disposed on the tunnel (Ann. Fig. 1 and Fig. 3;),
the at least one battery being disposed in the battery housing; and
an electric motor (42) being electrically connected to the at least one battery] (col 3, lines 36 – 39).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of snowmobiles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Peno to modify the snowmobile of Vezina such that the Vezina/Peno snowmobile comprises:
the tank of Vezina (Vezina – 54; see Vezina’s further disclosure above), which is not needed with the electric motor of Vezina, being replaced with Peno’s battery cover; wherein,
the battery cover of Peno is disposed over and connected to the tunnel of Vezina;
Vezina’s straddle seat is disposed over the battery cover of Peno;
a top of the tunnel of Vezina and the battery cover of Peno define a battery housing;
the at least one battery (Peno – 102) connected to and disposed on the tunnel (Vezina – 27),
the at least one battery of Peno is disposed in the battery housing; and
the electric motor (Vezina – 36) is electrically connect to Peno’s at least one battery.
One skilled in the art would appreciate that the battery cover of the Vezina/Peno snowmobile would provide protection to Peno’s at least one battery, which provides electrical power to the electrical motor, and the straddle seat of Vezina would provide comfort to a rider. Furthermore, doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
PNG
media_image1.png
1787
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
836
996
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the snowmobile of claim 8, wherein Peno further discloses in col. 3, lines 38 – 40 and Fig. 3 that the battery cover is opened at a front thereof, e.g., Peno’s snowmobile is at least opened at the front thereof such that element 110 can extend from the at least one battery through the battery cover forwardly to the electric motor.
It would have been obvious to have modified Vezina in view of the teachings of Peno for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 8, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Vezina discloses the snowmobile of claim 8 further comprises [a steering column (86) operatively connecting the handlebar to the at least one ski] (Fig. 1; paragraph 0075 discloses the steering column is connected to the upper support structure; paragraph 0073, The steering column is attached at its upper end to the handlebar...the steering column is operatively connected to...ski legs...in order to steer [the at least one ski], and thereby the snowmobile, when the handlebar is turned); and
wherein:
[the frame also includes an upper support structure (106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116)] (paragraphs 0065, 0075; Figs. 1, 3, 4; note two instances of 106 in the Figures);
[the upper support structure extends at least in part forward of the tunnel] (Fig. 3, e.g., 108 and 110 extend at least in part forward of the tunnel);
[the upper support structure is at least in part vertically higher than the tunnel] (Fig. 3, e.g., 112 is at least in part vertically higher than the tunnel);
the upper support structure comprises:
[a steering bracket (112), the steering column being rotatably connected to the steering bracket;
a left front support brace (108) connected to the steering bracket, the left front support brace extending downward, forward and leftward from the steering bracket;
a right front support brace (110) connected to the steering bracket, the right front support brace extending downward, forward and rightward from the steering bracket;
a left rear support leg (106; note two instances of 106, the left rear support leg is the instance of 106 to the left of the centerline in Fig. 4 of Vezina) connected to the steering bracket, the left rear support leg extending downward, rearward and leftward from the steering bracket; and
a right rear support leg (106; note two instances of 106, the right rear support leg is the instance of 106 to the right of the centerline in Fig. 4 of Vezina) connected to the steering bracket, the right rear support leg extending downward, rearward and rightward from the steering bracket] (Vezina – Figs. 3, 4; paragraph 0075); and the Vezina/Peno snowmobile further discloses:
[a front of the battery cover extends between the left and right rear support legs] (the front of the battery cover of the Vezina/Peno snowmobile is understood as being disposed thereupon in a location substantially similar to and analogous to a front of the tank (Vezina – 54) of Vezina’s snowmobile, i.e., the front of the battery cover of the Vezina/Peno snowmobile and the front of the tank of Vezina’s snowmobile are interpreted as extending between the left and right rear support legs of each respective snowmobile).
It would have been obvious to have modified Vezina in view of the teachings of Peno for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 8, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, the snowmobile of claim 11, wherein the Vezina/Peno snowmobile further discloses [the battery cover defines:
[a left channel receiving a portion of the left rear support leg] (e.g., see Peno – Ann. Fig. 1; wherein, the left channel is a mirror of RC, similarly disposed on a left side of the battery cover and directly opposite to RC, and is understood as receiving a portion of an inward-facing surface of the leftward instance of 106 of the Vezina/Peno); and
[a right channel receiving a portion of the right rear support leg] (e.g., see Peno – Ann. Fig. 1; wherein, the right channel RC is understood as receiving a portion of an inward-facing surface of the rightward instance of 106 of the Vezina/Peno snowmobile).
It would have been obvious to have modified Vezina in view of the teachings of Peno for at least the same reasons discussed above and to maximize the volume inside the battery cover without interfering with the structural elements of Vezina by designing the battery cover with channels to receive respective rear support legs, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, the snowmobile of claim 8, wherein [the battery cover extends rearward of a rear end of the straddle seat] (the battery cover of the Vezina/Peno snowmobile is understood as extending rearward of the straddle seat of Vezina similarly to an unnumbered element extending rearward of the straddle seat of Vezina, which is disposed between the straddle seat of Vezina and the tunnel of Vezina in Fig. 1 of Vezina).
It would have been obvious to have modified Vezina in view of the teachings of Peno for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 8, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, the snowmobile of claim 8, wherein [sides of the straddle seat extend along sides of the battery cover] (The straddle seat in Fig. 1 of Vezina is interpreted as having sides extending at least along the tank of Vezina and/or along an unnumbered element upon which the straddles seat is disposed. The straddle seat of Vezina is interpreted as being disposed on the Vezina/Peno snowmobile such that sides of the straddle seat extend along sides of the battery cover).
It would have been obvious to have modified Vezina in view of the teachings of Peno for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 8, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina in view of Peno, and further in view of US 2015/0210355 A1 to Labbe et al (hereinafter Labbe).
Regarding claim 9, the Vezina/Peno snowmobile does not seem to explicitly disclose accommodating a driver and a passenger on Vezina’s straddle seat.
Labbe discloses [a snowmobile (1), wherein a straddle seat (3) includes a passenger seat (70) and is sized to accommodate a driver and a passenger] (Figs. 1A and 11A; paragraph 0043). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Vezina/Peno snowmobile to incorporate the passenger seat (Labbe – 70) of the straddle seat (Labbe – 3) because doing so would advantageously allow the Vezina/Peno/Labbe snowmobile to accommodate a passenger in addition to a driver, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archard in view of US Pat 3158347 A to Sommer.
Regarding claim 15, Archard discloses:
[a snowmobile (1) comprising:
a frame (3, 4) including a tunnel (3)] (Fig. 1; page 10, lines 22 – 24);
[at least one ski (27) operatively connected to the frame;
a handlebar operatively connected to the at least one ski] (Figs. 1, 2; Fig. 1 illustrates a rider gripping the handlebar; page 11, lines 1 – 8);
[a straddle seat (18) disposed over the tunnel] (Fig. 1; page 10, line 27);
[a drive track (50) disposed at least in part under the tunnel] (Fig. 1; page 12, line 7);
[a drive axle (7) operatively connected to the drive track] (Fig. 1; page 12, lines 12 – 16);
[at least one battery (6) connected to the frame;
an electric motor (11) connected to the frame] (Fig. 1; page 10, lines 24 – 26),
[the electric motor being electrically connected to the at least one battery] (Fig. 2; page 13, lines 18 – 23), and
[a flexible drive (8, 9, 10) operatively connecting the output shaft to the drive axle,
the flexible drive having a flexible element (10) for transmitting torque between the electric motor and the drive axle] (Fig. 1; page 12, lines 17 – 20 – the output shaft, connected to element 9, is interpreted as the output shaft of the electrical motor (11); page 13, lines 23 – 25).
Although Archard discloses the flexible drive having the flexible element, and thus one skilled in the art would understand that the snowmobile of Archard has means to adjust tension in the flexible element, Archard does not appear to disclose that the electric motor can be placed in varying positions in order to adjust tension in the flexible element.
Sommer discloses [an electric motor (1) having a first position and a second position,
the second position being longitudinally forward of the first position] (Fig. 1; e.g., the electric motor defining a neutral position in Fig. 1, element 5 being longitudinally rearward of the neutral position, the first position being a position longitudinally rearward of the neutral position and longitudinally forward of element 5, and the second position being a position longitudinally forward of the neutral position); and
[a tension in a flexible element (4) increasing in response to the electric motor moving from the first position to the second position] (Figs. 1, 2; col 2, lines 21 – 29, 58 – 63; col 3, lines 28 – 38).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of adjusting tension in flexible drives of electric motors, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the snowmobile of Archard to incorporate the teachings of Sommer in order to provide tension adjustment means to the flexible drive of Archard.
Regarding claim 16, Archard further discloses [the flexible drive is disposed laterally between the drive track and the electric motor] (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, the snowmobile of claim 15, wherein Sommer further discloses:
[at least one bracket (15) connected to an electric motor (1)] (Fig. 1; col 2, lines 44 – 49); and
[at least one fastener (e.g., a threaded stud) fastening the bracket to a frame (2),
at least one of the frame or the at least one bracket defining at least one slot (14),
the at least one fastener extending though the at least one slot] (col 2, lines 29 – 31, 36 – 40; col 3, lines 10 – 18, 26 – 28, 34 – 37),
[the at least one slot being configured to fasten the electric motor in the first position and in the second position] (Fig. 1; col 3, lines 19 – 38).
It would have been obvious to have modified Archard in view of the teachings of Sommer for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 15, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archard in view of Sommer, and further in view of US Pat 5524726 A to Wright.
Regarding claim 18, although Archard discloses that the flexible drive includes a drive pulley (9) connected to and driven by the electric motor and a driven pulley (8) disposed on the drive axle; and the flexible element is a drive belt (10) looped around the drive and driven pulleys (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and page 12, lines 19 – 20), Archard does not appear to explicitly disclose drive and driven elements of the flexible drive as being sprockets.
PNG
media_image4.png
968
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wright discloses [a flexible drive (SPR, 18, 20) including a drive sprocket (SPR) connected to and driven by an electric motor (14)] (Wright – Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 2) and [a driven sprocket (20) disposed on a drive axle (24)] (Figs. 1 and 2); and
[a flexible element is a drive belt (18) looped around the drive and driven sprockets] (Wright – Fig. 1 and Ann. Fig. 2).
Wright further discloses [the driven sprocket has a larger diameter than the drive sprocket] (Wright – Ann. Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of electric motor drive belts, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Archard/Sommer snowmobile to use the flexible drive taught by Wright in order to at least provide more efficient transfer of power from the electric motor to the drive axle with Wright’s toothed drive belt shown in Annotated Fig. 2 (Wright), and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, the snowmobile of claim 18, wherein Wright further discloses [the driven sprocket has a larger diameter than the drive sprocket] (Wright – Ann. Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to have modified the Archard/Sommer snowmobile in view of the further teachings of Wright for at least the same reasons discussed in claim 18, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archard in view of Sommer, and further in view of JP 2007182137 A to Yatagai.
Regarding claim 20, the snowmobile of claim 15 does not appear to explicitly disclose that the electric motor is disposed forward of the drive axle.
Yatagai discloses [a snowmobile (1)] (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
[an electric motor] (e.g., the electric motor being a forward instance of element 18 that is closer to element 19 than a rearward instance of element 18 in Figs. 1 and 2),
[the electric motor is disposed forward of a drive axle] (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0014, the drive axle is understood as being an axle upon which left and right drive wheels (5) are disposed).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of snowmobiles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Archard/Sommer snowmobile in view of the teachings of Yatagai to move the electric motor of Archard to be disposed forward of the drive axle as taught by Yatagai in order to lower the center of gravity of the Archard/Sommer snowmobile, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§102/103 regarding claims 1 – 7 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims is 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, Vezina, generally discloses a snowmobile capable of having an electric motor. However, Vezina does not specifically disclose batteries electrically connected to the electric motor. Archard and Peno both [generally disclose an electric snowmobile. However, Archard and Peno do not make up for all of the deficiencies of Vezina because at a minimum Archard and Peno do not disclose first and second batteries being disposed substantially inside of an upper support structure.
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 – the prior art fails to disclose the first and second batteries being disposed: forward of a rear end of the upper support structure, rearward of a front end of the upper support structure, laterally between left and right ends of the upper support structure, and vertically lower than an upper end of the upper support structure.
Although Archard suggests placement of a first battery in the space occupied by a tank on a conventional combustion snowmobile, Archard teaches away from placing the first battery thereupon due to possible unstable cornering behavior (Archard – page 10, lines 11 – 17), and thus fails to disclose the particular details of independent claim 1. Claims 2 – 7 are allowable as being dependent on allowable independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm 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 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 Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights