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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-15, 101, and 103-105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peppel (US 5944134) in view of Geise (US 20070246283).
Regarding claim 1, Peppel teaches a snowmobile rear suspension (Col. 3, lines 16-19, Fig. 1) comprising:
a left slide rail 10 (Col. 3, lines 33-34, Fig. 2);
a right slide rail 10 (Col. 3, lines 33-34, Fig. 2);
a front suspension arm assembly 12 pivotally connected to the left slide rail 10 and the right slide rail 10 (Col. 3, lines 23-27, Figs. 3-4); and
a rear suspension arm assembly 20 pivotally connected to the left slide rail 10 and the right slide rail 10 (Col. 3, lines 23-27, Figs. 3-4), the rear suspension arm assembly comprising:
a left arm (Figs. 3-4); and
a right arm (Figs. 3-4).
Peppel teaches that the suspension arms are pivotally connected to the slide rails (Col. 3, lines 23-29), but does not teach the left and right arms connected to left and right fingers for mounting to the slide rails.
However, Giese teaches a suspension assembly for a snowmobile ([0033] of Geise), wherein a lower end of a suspension arm 80 can be pivotally connected to a slide rail 12 by a left and right finger 112 and pin 118 connection ([0094], Figs. 18-19 of Giese).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension assembly of Peppel to have the left and right finger and pin connections of Giese connect the arms of Peppel to the slide rails and the results of the modification would have advantageously provided a suspension system controls weight transfer during acceleration ([0006] of Giese).
While Peppel on its own does not teach “the left slide rail being received laterally between the first lower left finger and the second lower left finger” and “the right slide rail being received laterally between the first lower right finger and the second lower right finger”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the first lower left finger (of Geise) connected to a lower end of the left arm (of Peppel);
the second lower left finger (of Geise) connected to the lower end of the left arm (of Peppel),
the left slide rail (of Peppel) being received laterally between the first lower left finger and the second lower left finger (of Geise),
the first lower left finger and the second lower left (of Geise) finger being pivotally connected to the left slide rail (of Peppel);
the first lower right finger (of Geise) connected to a lower end of the right arm (of Peppel); and
the second lower right finger (of Geise) connected to the lower end of the right arm (of Peppel),
the right slide rail (of Peppel) being received laterally between the first lower right finger and the second lower right finger (of Geise), and
the first lower right finger and the second lower right finger (of Geise) being pivotally connected to the right slide rail (of Peppel).
Regarding claim 15, Peppel teaches a snowmobile comprising:
a frame (Col. 3, lines 23-27), the frame having a tunnel (Col. 3, lines 23-27);
at least one ski operatively connected to the frame (Col. 1, lines 16-18);
a snowmobile rear suspension operatively connected to the tunnel (Col. 3, lines 23-27, Col. 3, lines 42-46), the snowmobile rear suspension comprising:
a left slide rail (Col. 3, lines 31-37, Figs. 1-4);
a right slide rail (Col. 3, lines 31-37, Figs. 1-4);
a front suspension arm 12 assembly pivotally connected to the left slide rail 10 and the right slide rail 10 (Col. 3, lines 23-29, Fig. 2); and
a rear suspension arm assembly 20 pivotally connected to the left slide rail 10 and the right slide rail 10 (Col. 3, lines 23-29, Fig. 2), the rear suspension arm assembly comprising:
a left arm (Figs. 3-4), and
a right arm (Figs. 3-4);
an endless track 16 provided around the snowmobile rear suspension (Col. 3, lines 16-19, Fig. 1); and
a motor operatively connected to the endless track for driving the endless track (Col. 1, lines 20-22).
Peppel teaches that the suspension arms are pivotally connected to the slide rails (Col. 3, lines 23-29), but does not teach the left and right arms connected to left and right fingers for mounting to the slide rails.
However, Giese teaches a suspension assembly for a snowmobile ([0033] of Geise), wherein a lower end of a suspension arm 80 can be pivotally connected to a slide rail 12 by a left and right finger 112 and pin 118 connection ([0094], Figs. 18-19 of Giese).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension assembly of Peppel to have the left and right finger and pin connections of Giese connect the arms of Peppel to the slide rails and the results of the modification would have advantageously provided a suspension system controls weight transfer during acceleration ([0006] of Giese).
While Peppel on its own does not teach “the left slide rail being received laterally between the first lower left finger and the second lower left finger” and “the right slide rail being received laterally between the first lower right finger and the second lower right finger”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the first lower left finger (of Geise) connected to a lower end of the left arm (of Peppel);
the second lower left finger (of Geise) connected to the lower end of the left arm (of Peppel),
the left slide rail (of Peppel) being received laterally between the first lower left finger and the second lower left finger (of Geise),
the first lower left finger and the second lower left (of Geise) finger being pivotally connected to the left slide rail (of Peppel);
the first lower right finger (of Geise) connected to a lower end of the right arm (of Peppel); and
the second lower right finger (of Geise) connected to the lower end of the right arm (of Peppel),
the right slide rail (of Peppel) being received laterally between the first lower right finger and the second lower right finger (of Geise), and
the first lower right finger and the second lower right finger (of Geise) being pivotally connected to the right slide rail (of Peppel).
Regarding claims 2 and 101 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Peppel as modified teaches wherein the rear suspension arm assembly further comprises:
a rear left fastener 118 extending through the first lower left finger 112, the left slide rail 12 and the second lower left finger 112 ([0094], Figs. 18-19 of Geise); and
a rear right fastener 114 extending through the first lower right finger 112, the right slide rail 12 and the second lower right finger 112 ([0094], Figs. 18-19 of Geise).
Regarding claims 6 and 103 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Peppel as modified teaches wherein the rear suspension arm assembly further comprises a cross-member 24 connected to and extending laterally between the left arm and the right arm 20 (Col. 3, lines 43-46, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Peppel as modified teaches wherein the rear suspension arm assembly further comprises:
an axle 22 connected to and extending laterally between the left arm and the right arm 20 (Col. 3, lines 42-46, Figs. 3-4; the upper ends of the suspension arm includes an axle structure on which wheels are mounted), the cross-member 24 being disposed between the axle 22 and the lower ends of the left and right arms 20 (Figs. 3-4; the lowermost ends of the arms surround the cross-member, positioning the cross-member between the lowermost ends of the arms and the axle); and at least one idler wheel mounted to the axle 22 (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claims 8 and 104 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Peppel as modified teaches wherein the rear suspension arm assembly further comprises:
an axle 22 connected to and extending laterally between the left arm and the right arm 20 (Col. 3, lines 42-46, Figs. 3-4; the upper ends of the suspension arm include an axle structure on which wheels are mounted); and at least one idler wheel mounted to the axle 22 (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claims 10 and 105 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Peppel as modified teaches wherein the rear suspension arm assembly further comprises:
an upper end of the left suspension arm 20 being configured to receive a left side of a tunnel of a snowmobile and to pivotally connect to the left side of the tunnel (Col. 3, lines 42-43, Figs. 1-3); and
an upper end of the right suspension arm 20 being configured to receive a right side of a tunnel of a snowmobile and to pivotally connect to the right side of the tunnel (Col. 3, lines 42-43, Figs. 1-3).
Peppel as modified does not teach the upper ends of each suspension arm comprising two fingers.
However, Geise teaches a suspension assembly for a snowmobile ([0002] of Geise), wherein two components can be pivotally connected by a left and right finger 112 and pin 118 connection ([0094], Figs. 18-19 of Geise).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension assembly of Peppel to have the left and right finger and pin connections of Geise connect the arms of Peppel to the snowmobile tunnel and the results of the modification would have advantageously provided an inline transfer path for vertical forces received through the suspension system.
While Geise on its own does not teach “the first upper left finger and the second upper left finger being configured to receive a left side of a tunnel of a snowmobile therebetween and to pivotally connect to the left side of the tunnel” and “the first upper right finger and the second upper right finger being configured to receive a right side of the tunnel therebetween and to pivotally connect to the right side of the tunnel”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be wherein the rear suspension arm assembly comprises:
the first upper left finger (of Geise) connected to an upper end of the left arm (of Peppel);
a second upper left finger (of Geise) connected to the upper end of the left arm (of Peppel),
the first upper left finger and the second upper left (of Geise) finger being configured to receive a left side of a tunnel of a snowmobile (of Peppel) therebetween and to pivotally connect to the left side of the tunnel;
a first upper right finger (of Geise) connected to an upper end of the right arm (of Peppel); and
a second upper right finger (of Geise) connected to the upper end of the right arm (of Peppel),
the first upper right finger and the second upper right finger (of Geise) being configured to receive a right side of the tunnel therebetween and to pivotally connect to the right side of the tunnel (of Peppel).
Regarding claim 11, Peppel as modified teaches further comprising a rear shock absorber connected between the rear suspension arm assembly 20 and the left and right slide rails 10 (Col. 3, lines 33-37, Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, Peppel as modified teaches further comprising a coil spring operatively connected to the rear shock absorber (Abstract, Figs. 1-4); and wherein the rear shock absorber extends inside the coil spring (Col. 3, lines 33-37, Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Peppel does not teach the rear suspension further comprising a front shock absorber connected between the front suspension arm assembly and the left and right slide rails.
However, Geise teaches a snowmobile rear suspension ([0033] of Geise) wherein a front shock absorber 90 is connected between a front suspension arm assembly 80 and the left and right slide rails 12 ([0095], Figs. 16-18 of Geise).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the snowmobile suspension of Peppel to have the shock absorber of Geise connected between the suspension arms and the slide rails in order to advantageously control weight transfer during acceleration ([0006] of Geise).
Regarding claim 14, Peppel as modified teaches the rear suspension further comprising:
a rear axle connected to and extending laterally between a rear end of the left slide rail 10 and a rear end of the right slide rail 10 (Fig. 3); and
at least one rear idler wheel mounted to the rear axle (Figs. 1-4).
Claims 3-4 and 102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peppel in view of Geise, and further in view of Karpik (US 5370198).
Regarding claims 3 and 102 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Peppel as modified teaches wherein the suspension assembly is compatible with a configuration that includes:
the left slide rail 10 defines a rear left slot 36’ (Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 2, Fig. 10); and
the rear suspension arm assembly further comprises:
a left sleeve 30’ disposed in the rear left slot 36’ and laterally between the first lower left finger and the second lower left finger (Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 2, Fig. 10; the modified suspension connection of Peppel/Geise teaches the fingers surrounding both sides of the connection slot in the slide rail, this additionally would surround the sleeve 30’ disposed within the slot 36’).
Peppel as modified does not expressly teach the rear left fastener extending through the left sleeves.
However, Karpik teaches a snowmobile rear suspension wherein
a rear left fastener extends through a left sleeve 86 (Figs. 9-10 of Karpik),
the left sleeve 86 moving within a rear left slot 84 (Col. 5, line 59-Col. 6, line 2, Figs. 7-10 of Karpik).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified suspension of Peppel/Geise to have the fastener extend through the sleeve as Karpik teaches in order to advantageously provide a suspension mechanism to the suspension arm which has favorable weight transfer characteristics (Col. 1, lines 31-44 of Karpik).
Regarding the limitations of “the right slide rail defines a rear right slot”, “a right sleeve disposed in the rear right slot and laterally between the first lower right finger and the second lower right finger”, and “the rear right fastener extending through the right sleeve, the right sleeve moving within the rear right slot”, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the slide rail slot and sleeve so that it is provided at the connections of both the left and the right arms and slide rails in order to advantageously provide an equal level of suspension adjustment to both sides (Col. 2, lines 46-51).
Regarding claim 4, Peppel as modified teaches wherein:
the rear left slot 36’ is a linear slot (Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 2, Fig. 10);
the rear right slot 36’ is a linear slot (Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 2, Fig. 10; See claim 3 rejection above);
the left sleeve is a slider block 30’ (Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 2, Fig. 10); and
the right sleeve is a slider block 30’ (Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 2, Fig. 10; See claim 3 rejection above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Peppel in view of Geise and Karpik, and further in view of Forsgren (US 3913694).
Regarding claim 5, Peppel as modified does not teach the left and right rear slots being arcuate.
However, Giese teaches a snowmobile suspension with front 80 and rear 104 arms ([0080] and [0112], Fig. 17 of Giese) with a slider block 105 which connects the rear suspension arm 104 to the slide rail 12 and slides within a rear slot wherein:
the rear slot 107 is an arcuate slot ([0112], Fig. 17 and 25 of Giese).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified slot of Peppel/et.al. to be an arcuate slot as Giese teaches in order to advantageously allow the slide rails to more accurately follow the trajectory of the suspension arm.
Peppel as modified does not teach wherein the left sleeve is a roller.
However, Forsgren teaches a suspension apparatus for a track with a sleeve 27 which is provided on a slidable connection between suspension components 67, 26 (Col. 6, lines 54-66, Col. 8, lines 9-19, Figs. 1-2 of Forsgren), wherein the sleeve 27 is a roller (Col. 4, lines 17-26, Figs. 1-2 of Forsgren).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified snowmobile suspension of Peppel/et.al. to have the sleeve be a roller as Forsgren teaches in order to advantageously provide a suspension system which has increased impact absorbing ability (Abstract, Col. 4, lines 17-30 of Forsgren).
Regarding the limitations of “the rear right slot is an arcuate slot” and “the right sleeve is a roller”, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the arcuate slot and roller so that they are provided at the connections of both the left and the right arms and slide rails in order to advantageously allow the slide rails to more accurately follow the trajectory of the suspension arms.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peppel in view of Geise, and further in view of Simmons (US 7533750).
Regarding claim 9, Peppel as modified teaches wherein the axle 22 is disposed at the upper end of the left and right arms 20 (Figs. 2-4), but does not expressly teach the axle being disposed between the upper and lower ends of the left and right arms.
However, Simmons teaches an axle 34 between a lower and an upper end of a suspension arm 16 (Col. 4, line 61-Col. 5, line 8, Fig. 3 of Simmons; the suspension arm comprises a slot that surrounds the axle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified rear suspension of Peppel/et.al. to have the suspension arm surround the axle as Simmons teaches in order to advantageously pivotally mount the suspension arms to an idler wheel-supporting axle which minimizes track rippling (Col. 3, lines 2-5 and Col. 5, lines 9-19 of Simmons).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090039610 teaches a pivotal snowmobile suspension with a suspension arm that connects to a slide rail with a left and right finger.
US 20160167722 teaches a snowmobile pivotal suspension with a front and rear arm and shock absorbers.
US 5860486 teaches a pivotal snowmobile track suspension.
US 5265692 teaches a pivotal snowmobile suspension with a linear slot which connects to a suspension arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights