DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 9/9/2026. Amended claims 16, 21, 23, 26-27, and new claim 34 are acknowledged and the following new grounds of rejection below are formulated. Claim 22 is cancelled.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson, III et al. (U.S. Patent 10,337,474), hereinafter “Wilson”.
Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses an off-road vehicle comprising: a frame (14) comprising a front frame portion, a rear frame portion, and a middle frame portion between the front frame portion and the rear frame portion (shown in figure 1); a vehicle cover defining a cabin (20), the vehicle cover comprising a front baffle arranged between the front frame portion and the middle frame portion, a bottom plate arranged on the middle frame portion, a dashboard panel arranged at a top of the front baffle, a rear baffle arranged between the middle frame portion and the rear frame portion, and rear side plates arranged on sides of the rear frame portion (shown in figure 1); a prime mover assembly (36) mounted on the frame portion (column 2, lines 59-63), the prime mover assembly having at least one air inlet; an intake seat (83, examiner can call this intake seat since no other defining limitations are presented within the claim) located behind the cabin and above one of the rear side plates (shown in figure 5 and 8-9), the intake seat at least partially defining an air intake cavity; an intake manifold (piping to engine including the air cleaner 54 shown in figure 3) providing fluid communication between the intake seat and the air inlet (intake port of engine 36) of the prime mover assembly; and an intake snorkel (52) having a top end extending upwardly from the intake seat (83) and a bottom end extending into the air intake cavity (hole 83) and connected to the intake manifold (shown in figure 8-9).
Regarding claim 11, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 1, wherein the intake seat (83) has an intake seat floor (72) defining a manifold installation hole (inherent that intake floor has a hole to allow for connection to intake snorkel), with a top portion of the intake manifold (piping from engine to snorkel and air cleaner 54) received in the manifold installation hole so as to position a heightened outer wall portion (the piping and air cleaner do have wall which prevent air from entering in) which blocks air from entering the intake manifold at a location above the intake seat floor (72).
Regarding claim 17, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 1, wherein the intake snorkel (52) comprises a top pipe section defining a top pipe section central axis, wherein an angle defined between the top pipe section central axis and vertical is in the range between 40° and 140° (shown in figure 8).
Regarding claim 18, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 17, wherein the top pipe section defines an intake hole (74) exposed along an underside of the top pipe section (shown in figure 8), wherein the intake snorkel further comprises a filter (84) at the intake hole to filter air entering into the top pipe section (column 4, lines 11-17), and wherein the angle defined between the top pipe section central axis and vertical exceeds 90° such that water captured by the filter can drip out of the intake hole (shown in figure 8).
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.
Claim(s) 12, and 21-26 and 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson.
Regarding claim 12, Wilson discloses the claimed invention such as the off-road vehicle of claim 11, wherein the intake manifold comprises an intake inlet adapter pipe, with the heightened outer wall portion being part of the inlet adapter pipe (78), but is silent to disclose the intake inlet adapter pipe further comprising a sealing groove received in the manifold installation hole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to provide a sealing groove when attaching a pipe to an intake manifold since it was known in the art that the air intake system needs to be free of any air leaks.
Regarding claim 21, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 12, wherein the intake inlet adapter pipe (78) has a flared top end of greater diameter to assist in receiving a bottom pipe section of the intake snorkel (shown in figure 9). Examiner notes that it is unclear what the “greater diameter” is being compared to.
Regarding claim 22, Wilson discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the intake seat being made of steel and the intake cavity cover being made of plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have such an arrangement, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 23, Wilson discloses the claimed invention except for the snorkel having a positioning step that abuts a top surface of the intake cavity cover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to provide such an arrangement since it was known in the art that such a notch and locking system maybe be used to secure intake components for ease of manufacture.
Regarding claim 24, Wilson discloses an off-road vehicle comprising: a frame comprising a front frame portion, a rear frame portion, and a middle frame portion between the front frame portion and the rear frame portion; a vehicle cover supported by the frame and defining a cabin; a prime mover assembly mounted on the frame, the prime mover assembly having at least one air inlet; an intake seat formed of steel and supported by the frame; an air intake cavity cover on the intake seat, the air intake cavity cover and the intake seat jointly defining an air intake cavity, the air intake cavity cover being formed of plastic; and an intake manifold providing fluid communication between the air intake cavity and the air inlet of the prime mover assembly; wherein the intake seat has an intake seat floor defining a manifold installation hole, with a top portion of the intake manifold received in the manifold installation hole so as to position a heightened outer wall portion which blocks air from entering the intake manifold at a location above the intake seat floor. Refer to claims 1, 11, and 22 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 25, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 24, wherein the intake manifold comprises an intake inlet adapter pipe, with the heightened outer wall portion being part of the inlet adapter pipe, the intake inlet adapter pipe further comprising a sealing groove received in the manifold installation hole. Refer to claim 12 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 26, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 25, wherein the intake inlet adapter pipe has a flared top end of greater diameter. Refer to claim 21 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 28, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 27, wherein the intake cavity cover defines a vertically extending window (62) and air enters the air intake cavity through the vertically extending window (shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 29, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 28, wherein an air intake grill covers the vertically extending window and defines a plurality of air intake throughholes (shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 30, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 27, wherein the intake seat is formed of steel and the intake cavity cover is formed of plastic. Refer to claim 22 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 31, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 27, wherein the intake seat has an intake seat floor defining a manifold installation hole, with a top portion of the intake manifold received in the manifold installation hole so as to position a heightened outer wall portion which blocks air from entering the intake manifold at a location above the intake seat floor. Refer to claim 11 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 32, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 31, wherein the intake manifold comprises an intake inlet adapter pipe, with the heightened outer wall portion being part of the inlet adapter pipe, the intake inlet adapter pipe further comprising a sealing groove received in the manifold installation hole. Refer to claim 12 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 33, Wilson discloses the off-road vehicle of claim 32, wherein the intake inlet adapter pipe has a flared top end of greater diameter. Refer to claim 21 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Claim(s) 16, 27, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Choi (KR 20180067119).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose a wall breaking area of reduced strength relative to other areas of the intake cavity cover, to allow snorkel to extend through. However, Choi teaches the use of a door (50) within the intake wall that allows the snorkel (30-1) to fit into (abstract) for the purpose of reducing the negative pressure and improving the fuel economy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wilson by incorporating a door (50) within the intake wall that allows the snorkel (30-1) to fit into for the purpose of improving the fuel economy. Although a wall break portion is not mentioned, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to substitute the door with a wall breaking area of reduced strength to allow snorkel to fit through during manufacture. This limitation alone does not place the claim in condition for allowance.
Regarding claim 27, Wilson discloses an off-road vehicle comprising: a frame comprising a front frame portion, a rear frame portion, and a middle frame portion between the front frame portion and the rear frame portion; a vehicle cover defining a cabin; a prime mover assembly mounted on the frame, the prime mover assembly having at least one air inlet; an intake seat supported by the frame, the intake seat defining an air intake cavity having an intake cavity cover, the intake cavity cover having a wall breaking area of reduced strength which can be broken and removed for installation of a snorkel; and an intake manifold providing fluid communication between the air intake cavity of the intake seat and the air inlet of the prime mover assembly. Refer to claims 1 and 16 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 34, Wilson discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose pushing snorkel straight down into intake cavity and then sealing with a hose clamp. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to provide pushing force and hose clamp during intake system manufacture and installation since it was known in the art that hose clamps are generally used to secures intake components. Refer to claims 1 and 16 for further rejection details since the limitations are similar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wilson split (83) is not above one of the rear side plates. However, the rear side plates of Wilson (42) extend a long distance vertically and the split is above a portion of the quarter panel of rear side plate (42, shown in figure 1). The claim does not state that the entirety of the intake seat has to be above the uppermost edge of the rear side plate.
Applicant argues that Wilson’s snorkel is too low to meet the positional limitations required. However, these positional limitations are not clearly mentioned within the claims.
Applicant argues that Wilson does not include the dashboard, front baffle, rear baffle, and bottom plate. Examiner notes that Wilson shows a utility vehicle and utility vehicles are known for having these components.
Applicant argues that Wilson’s intake manifold does not meet the “intake seat floor defining a manifold installation hole”. However, no explanation is given as to why it does not meet the limitations.
Applicant argues about the wall breaking area limitations in claims 16, 27, and 34, however, new Choi art is provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/SYED O HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 10/14/2026
