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 § 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 1-14 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 1 recites in the 2nd to last line of the claim, “at least a majority of airflow from the flute passage being surrounded by the peripheral wall as airflow passes the outlet end.” It is unclear how airflow from the flute passage can be surrounded by the peripheral wall of the flute passage. As air enters the flute passage and is surrounded by the peripheral wall of the flute passage, and the airflow then passes the outlet end of the flute passage and is no longer surrounded by the peripheral wall or in the flute passage, it is unclear how a majority of airflow from the flute passage and no longer in the flute passage can be surrounded by the peripheral walls of the flute passage. Claims 2-14 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood as “at least a majority of airflow in the flute passage being surrounded by the peripheral wall as airflow passes the outlet end.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mashiko (US 7,246,611).
In regards to claim 1:
Mashiko teaches an airbox (64) for an air intake system of a vehicle (10), the airbox comprising: an air inlet for receiving air into the airbox; an air outlet for discharging air from the airbox; an airbox body defining an expansion chamber (106); a flute enclosed at least in part within the airbox body and defining a flute passage (A) for directing air flow within the airbox body, the flute comprising: an inlet end; an outlet end downstream from the inlet end; and a peripheral wall extending from the inlet end to the outlet end and defining the flute passage (A), the peripheral wall surrounding the flute passage (A) along an inlet end portion of the flute, the inlet end portion extending from the inlet end, the flute having a peripherally open end portion extending from the outlet end, the peripheral wall defining a recess extending along the peripherally open end portion such that the flute passage is partially surrounded by the peripheral wall along the peripherally open end portion (Shown below in annotated Figure 3-1), and at least a majority of airflow in the flute passage being surrounded by the peripheral wall as airflow passes the outlet end, wherein the airflow flows in the flute, the peripheral wall of the flute defining the passage, wherein a majority of the airflow is within this passage.
PNG
media_image1.png
937
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3-1
In regards to claim 2:
Mashiko teaches along the peripherally open-end portion, a cross-sectional profile of the peripheral wall along a plane normal to a direction of air flow within the flute is generally U-shaped (Shown below in annotated Figure 3-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
786
913
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3-2
In regards to claim 3:
Mashiko teaches along the inlet end portion, a cross-sectional profile of the peripheral wall along a plane normal to a direction of air flow within the flute is generally circular (Shown below in annotated Figure 3-3).
PNG
media_image3.png
786
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3-3
In regards to claim 4:
Mashiko teaches the flute is curved such that a direction of air flow within the flute changes from the inlet end portion to the peripherally open end portion (Shown in Figure 3 of Mashiko the flow of air (A) goes in a right direction then upwards).
In regards to claim 5:
Mashiko teaches the recess is defined on a side of the peripherally open-end portion that faces the inlet end portion such that, in a cross-section of the flute taken along a plane extending through the peripherally open portion and normal to the direction of air flow therethrough, the recess and the inlet end portion are on same side of a central axis of the flute passage (Shown below in annotated Figure 3-4).
PNG
media_image4.png
786
913
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3-4
In regards to claim 6:
Mashiko teaches the peripheral wall widens along at least part of the inlet end portion to form an inlet end flange (Shown below in annotated Figure 3-5).
PNG
media_image5.png
786
913
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3-5
In regards to claim 7:
Mashiko teaches the expansion chamber is a first expansion chamber, the air outlet opening into the first expansion chamber (106); the airbox body further defines a second expansion chamber (66) fluidly connected to the first expansion chamber, the air inlet opening into the second expansion chamber (via through the air outlet and passing the filter); and the airbox body comprises a dividing wall separating the first expansion chamber from the second expansion chamber, the dividing wall defining a wall opening fluidly connecting the first and second expansion chambers; and the flute is connected to the dividing wall of the airbox body (Shown below in Figure 3-6).
PNG
media_image6.png
1110
1072
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3-6
In regards to claim 8:
Mashiko teaches the airbox body comprises a first body portion and a second body portion; the first body portion defines the first expansion chamber and the second body portion defines the second expansion chamber; and the first body portion and the second body portion are removably connected to one another, wherein this is true for all non-monolithic components, furthermore fasteners can be seen in Figure 3 of Mashiko providing access to the interior of the intake air box.
In regards to claim 9:
Mashiko teaches the flute is removably connected to the airbox body, the flute being removable such that a replacement flute can be installed in place of the flute to selectively modify a noise output of the airbox, wherein Mashiko shows in Figure 3 fasteners and sealing members. Furthermore, being replaceable is functional language, and the flute of Mashiko is removably connected to the airbox. Additionally, as air flows over any surface a noise output will be created, and the act of “selectively modify” will always occur even when using identical components due to merely selecting to replace with an identical component will modify the noise output, for example one may select to modify the noise to remain the same and replace a component with an identical component.
In regards to claim 10:
Mashiko teaches the flute is a first flute, the inlet end being a first flute inlet end and the outlet end being a first flute outlet end; and the airbox further comprises a second flute enclosed at least in part within the airbox body, the second flute comprising a second flute inlet end (85) and a second flute outlet end downstream from the second flute inlet end, the second flute outlet end being disposed at the air outlet of the airbox (Shown in Figure 3, air flows out of the air box through the second flute outlet and into throttle body 84).
In regards to claim 11:
Mashiko teaches the first flute outlet end is generally aligned with the second flute inlet end and is spaced therefrom by an inter-flute gap defined between the first flute outlet end and the second flute inlet end; and during use, at least a majority of air flowing out of the first flute outlet end flows into the second flute inlet end (Shown in Figure 4 of Mashiko, at a minimum of two first flutes are directly aligned with two interior second flutes, and with the first flutes being the source of all the air entering the air box that is to enter the throttle bodies via the second flute, a majority of air flowing out of the first flute outlet will flow into the second flute inlet).
In regards to claim 12:
Mashiko teaches the second flute is removably connected to the airbox body, the second flute being removable such that a replacement flute can be installed in place of the second flute to selectively modify a noise output of the airbox, wherein Mashiko shows in Figure 3 fasteners and sealing members. Furthermore, being replaceable is functional language, and the flute of Mashiko is removably connected to the airbox. Additionally, as air flows over any surface a noise output will be created, and the act of “selectively modify” will always occur even when using identical components due to merely selecting to replace with an identical component will modify the noise output, for example one may select to modify the noise to remain the same and replace a component with an identical component.
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.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiko in view of Girouard et al (US 2001/0040064 hereinafter “Girouard”).
In regards to claim 13:
Mashiko teaches an internal combustion engine (58) and an air intake system for providing air to the engine, the air intake system comprising the airbox of claim 1, the air outlet being fluidly connected to the engine.
Mashiko is silent to the vehicle comprising a frame and does not teach a plurality of ground-engaging members operatively connected to the frame; the internal combustion engine supported by the frame, the engine being operatively connected to at least one of the ground-engaging members to drive the vehicle.
Girouard teaches a vehicle (12) comprising a frame (84) having a plurality of ground-engaging members (20 and 16) operatively connected to the frame, and an engine (104) supported by the frame, the engine operatively connected to at least one of the ground-engaging members to drive the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the engine of Mashiko in the frame of Girouard in order to be supported by the frame and be used to power the vehicle, converting combustion energy into movement of a ground based vehicle, the ground based vehicle relying on ground-engaging members to make contact with the ground so that movement along the ground can be accomplished. Mashiko teaches an engine for a watercraft, however it is known in the art to use engines for other vehicles such as cars, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and the like.
In regards to claim 14:
Mashiko as modified teaches the vehicle is a snowmobile (Paragraph [0057] of Girouard).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of Remarks, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously presented prior art of Mashiko and additionally a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been added.
Applicant has amended the independent claim to recite “at least a majority of airflow from the flute passage being surrounded by the peripheral wall as airflow passes the outlet end.”. This has been interpreted to be “at least a majority of airflow in the flute passage being surrounded by the peripheral wall as airflow passes the outlet end.” Mashiko teaches this wherein the flute has a peripheral wall wherein air flows in at an inlet side, through the passage, and out an outlet side. All of the air inside of the flute (a majority) must go through the flute which is surrounded by and defined by the peripheral wall. Thus, as airflow passes the outlet end of the flute, a majority of the air in the flute will be between the inlet end and the outlet end, wherein the outlet cannot output more air than what is contained in the flute at any given time, and furthermore once the air has passed the outlet end it is no longer part of the flute passage, and the air in the flute passage will always be a majority of the air within the flute passage.
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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747