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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The attorney argued that Hedlund et al (US Patent Publication 20210362806 A1) does not teach achieving a "wheelie-promoting balance" via Hedlund's comfort mode or achieving a "stability-promoting balance" via Hedlund’s sport mode. Nevertheless, Hedlund teaches a device achieving a "wheelie-promoting balance" in paragraph [0015), “ In a further variation thereof, a compression damping characteristic of the second adjustable shock absorber is altered to promote the lifting of the skies of the snowmobile and to cause a wheelie,” and further teaches a device achieving a "stability-promoting balance" later in paragraph [0015], “In another variation thereof, a rebound damping characteristic of the second adjustable shock absorber is altered to promote the lifting of the skies of the snowmobile and to prevent a wheelie.” The Examiner maintains that the rejection using Hedlund is proper.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-14 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 10 recites the limitation "the shock preload ring" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To further compact prosecution, the Examiner has reviewed claims 10-14 wherein lines 3-4 of claim 10 reads to read, “comprising a shock preload spring, wherein the wheelie control suspension system does not require manually turning the shock preload ring” such that a shock preload ring has been claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedlund et al (US Patent Publication US 2021/0362806 A1) in view of Randall (EP Patent EP 4272983 A1) and in further view of Cheng (US Patent Publication US 2019/0001779 A1).
With regards to Claim 1: Hedlund et al teaches a wheelie control suspension system for a snowmobile, the system comprising: a front track shock (144), wherein the front track shock is adjustable; a rear track shock (146), wherein the rear track shock is adjustable; and an activation mechanism (200) for actuating the wheelie control suspension system to coordinately adjust suspension of the snowmobile between a first configuration (via para [0015]) and a second configuration (via para [0015]) through a single activation (via on/off mode change input 170 in Fig 6), wherein: adjusting to the first configuration comprises stiffening the front track shock and softening the rear track shock (para [0216]) through the single activation in a coordinated manner to achieve a specific wheelie-promoting balance; and adjusting to the second configuration comprises softening the front track shock and stiffening the rear track shock (para[0216]) through the single activation in a coordinated manner to achieve a specific stability-promoting balance.
Hedlund et al does not teach electronic preload adjust devices for the front track shock or rear track shock.
Randall teaches an electronic self-pumping spring preload system (para [0074]) for the track and skis of a snowmobile (para [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the suspension system disclosed in Hedlund et al with the front spring preload apparatuses taught in Randall with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have made the ride comfortable for the operator of the vehicle on difficult terrain.
The combination of Hedlund and Randall et al does not teach the automatic adjustment of both the front and rear spring preload apparatuses.
Cheng teaches a control suspension system wherein control unit (140) automatically adjusts the preload value of a front suspension (121) and a rear suspension system (122) (via para [0006].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the suspension system disclosed in the combination of Hedlund and Randall et al with the automatic spring preload adjustment taught in Cheng with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have made the ride comfortable for the operator of the vehicle on difficult terrain without the need to stop the vehicle for manual adjustment.
Regarding claim 1, Hedlund et al (US Patent Publication US 2021/0362806 A1) in view of Randall (EP Patent EP 4272983 A1) and in further view of Cheng (US Patent Publication US 2019/0001779 A1) discloses all of the structural limitations of claim 1. As all of the structural limitations are disclosed, Hedlund as modified by Randall and Cheng is capable of being used such that adjusting to the first configuration comprises stiffening the front track shock and softening the rear track shock through the single activation in a coordinated manner to achieve a specific wheelie-promoting balance that allows the rider to wheelie the snowmobile and lift skis of the snowmobile off of the snow for playful riding; and adjusting to the second configuration comprises softening the front track shock and stiffening the rear track shock through the single activation in a coordinated manner to achieve a specific stability-promoting balance that inhibits the snowmobile from tipping over backwards during hill climbing. The recitation of the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
With regards to Claim 2: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the front track shock (Hedlund 144) comprises at least one spring preload apparatus (via Randall) or at least one dampening apparatus.
With regards to Claim 3: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one spring preload apparatus of the front track shock (Hedlund 144) comprises a hydraulic preload adjust device (Randall Fig 2).
With regards to Claim 4: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one dampening apparatus of the front track shock comprises an intelligent quick switch device (Hedlund 1200 in para [0102]).
With regards to Claim 5: Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the rear track shock (Hedlund 146) comprises at least one spring preload apparatus (via Randall) or at least one dampening apparatus.
With regards to Claim 6: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one spring preload apparatus of the rear track shock comprises a hydraulic preload adjust device (Randall Fig 2).
With regards to Claim 7: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one dampening apparatus of the rear track shock comprises an intelligent quick switch device (Hedlund 1200 in para [0102]).
With regards to Claim 8: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein in the first configuration, a rate of travel of the front track shock (Hedlund 144) is less than a rate of travel of the rear track shock (Hedlund 146).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension system disclosed in the combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al with the rate of travel of the front track shock is less than a rate of travel of the rear track shock to make the ride comfortable for the operator of the vehicle. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the stiffer front track shock of the first configuration would offer a lesser rate of travel than the soft rear track shock.
With regards to Claim 9: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein in the second configuration, a rate of travel of the front track shock (Hedlund 144) is greater than a rate of travel of the rear track shock (Hedlund 146).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension system disclosed in the combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al with the rate of travel of the front track shock is greater than a rate of travel of the rear track shock to make the ride comfortable for the operator of the vehicle. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the softer front track shock of the second configuration would offer a greater rate of travel than the stiff rear track shock.
With regards to Claim 10: Hedlund et al teaches a method of adjusting a suspension of a snowmobile while riding the snowmobile, the method comprising: activating a wheelie control suspension system to automatically tune a suspension of the snowmobile to a first configuration that promotes wheelie capability for playful riding by reducing stability during hill climbing (via para [0015]); and activating the wheelie control suspension system to coordinately automatically tune the suspension of the snowmobile to a second configuration through a single activation (via on/off mode change input 170 in Fig 6) that inhibits wheelies and promotes stability during hill climbing by inhibiting the snowmobile from tipping over backwards (via para [0015]).
Hedlund et al does not teach electronic preload adjust devices for the front track shock or rear track shock.
Randall teaches an electronic self-pumping spring preload system (para [0074]) for the track and skis of a snowmobile (para [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the suspension system disclosed in Hedlund et al with the front spring preload apparatuses taught in Randall with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have made the ride comfortable for the operator of the vehicle on difficult terrain.
The combination of Hedlund and Randall et al does not teach the automatic adjustment of both the front and rear spring preload apparatuses.
Cheng teaches a control suspension system wherein control unit (140) automatically adjusts the preload value of a front suspension (121) and a rear suspension system (122) (via para [0006].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the suspension system disclosed in the combination of Hedlund and Randall et al with the automatic spring preload adjustment taught in Cheng with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have made the ride comfortable for the operator of the vehicle on difficult terrain without the need to stop the vehicle for manual adjustment.
With regards to Claim 11: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et al teaches the method of claim 10, wherein automatically tuning the suspension of the snowmobile to the first configuration for playful riding (via Hedlund para [0015]) comprises stiffening a front track shock (Hedlund 144) of the snowmobile and softening a rear track shock (Hedlund 146) of the snowmobile (Hedlund para [0216]).
With regards to Claim 12: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach wherein in the first configuration, a rate of travel of the front track shock (Hedlund 144) is less than a rate of travel of the rear track shock (Hedlund 146).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension system disclosed in the combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et with the rate of travel of the front track shock is less than a rate of travel of the rear track shock to make the ride comfortable for the operator of the vehicle. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the stiffer front track shock of the first configuration would offer a lesser rate of travel than the soft rear track shock.
With regards to Claim 13: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et teaches the method of claim 10, wherein automatically tuning the suspension of the snowmobile to the second configuration for hill climbing (via Hedlund para [0015]) comprises softening the front track shock (Hedlund 144) of the snowmobile and stiffening the rear track shock (Hedlund 146) of the snowmobile (Hedlund para [0216]).
With regards to Claim 14: The combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et teaches the method of claim 13, but does not teach in the second configuration, a rate of travel of the front track shock (Hedlund 144) is greater than a rate of travel of the rear track shock (Hedlund 146).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension system disclosed in the combination of Hedlund, Randall, and Cheng et with the rate of travel of the front track shock is greater than a rate of travel of the rear track shock to make the ride comfortable for the operator of the vehicle. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the softer front track shock of the second configuration would offer a greater rate of travel than the stiff rear track shock.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights