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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US Patent No. 4,440,116) in view of Bedard et al (US Patent No. 6,247,442)
Regarding claim 1, Stevenson teaches
A vehicle comprising:
an engine (12 figure 1) supported by the frame, the engine having at least one engine air inlet, (18 figure 1 inlet carburetor)
an intake air flow path (20 figure 1) of the vehicle being defined from air entering the vehicle and flowing into the at least one engine air inlet; and (18 figure 1)
a coolant container (26 figure 1) assembly supported by the frame, the coolant container assembly (26 figure 1 coolant reservoir) comprising a coolant container (26 figure 1 reservoir column 2 line 20-35) for holding cooling liquid, the coolant container assembly being fluidly connected to the intake air flow path at least one connection point, (10 figure 1 coolant injector column 12 line 20-30. Column 3 line 15-30 pressured coolant 26 causes injector 32 to become unseated)
the coolant container assembly being arranged to selectively provide an amount of cooling liquid to flow from the coolant container into the intake air flow path via the connection point. (column 3 line 10-35 pressured coolant in reservoir 26 causes injector valve 32 to become unseated to coolant injected into carburetor)
Stevenson does not explicitly teach however Bedard teaches
a frame; (figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stevenson based on the teachings of Bedard to teach a frame. The motivation would be to produce a better powertrain for snowmobile
Regarding claim 2, Stevenson teaches further comprising:
a turbocharger (44 figure 1) fluidly connected to the engine, the turbocharger including a compressor (16 figure 1) fluidly connected to the at least one engine air inlet, the compressor having a compressor inlet and a compressor outlet,
the intake air flow path (20 figure 1) of the vehicle being defined from air entering the vehicle, passing through the compressor inlet into the compressor, passing out of the compressor through the compressor outlet, and flowing into the at least one engine air inlet.
Regarding claim 3, Stevenson teaches wherein:
the engine includes at least one reed valve (42 and 46 figure 1 diaphragm and valve seat column 3 line 5-30 and column 2 line 35-60) and at least one throttle valve (30 figure 1 injector); and
the at least one connection point (10 figure 1) is disposed on the intake air flow path between the at least one reed valve and the at least one throttle valve.
Regarding claim 4, Stevenson teaches further comprising:
at least one coolant-injection collar (28 figure 1 delivery conduit) fluidly connected to the at least one engine air inlet; (18 figure 1)
at least one injection nozzle (30 figure 1 injector column 2 line 20-35) connected to and extending through the at least one coolant- injection collar (28 figure 1), the at least one injection nozzle being fluidly connected to the coolant container assembly (26 figure 1); and
wherein the at least one connection point (10 figure 1) is defined by the at least one injection nozzle. (30 figure 1)
Regarding claim 10 and 13, see the rejection to claim 1 as the limitations are substainally similar.
Regarding claim 14, Stevenson does not explicitly teach however Bedard teaches wherein the coolant container is disposed on a bottom side of the tunnel. (figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stevenson based on the teachings of Bedard to teach wherein the coolant container is disposed on a bottom side of the tunnel. The motivation would be to improve packaging
Regarding claim 15, Stevenson does not explicitly teach however Bedard teaches wherein the coolant container is disposed forward of the tunnel. (figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stevenson based on the teachings of Bedard to teach wherein the coolant container is disposed forward of the tunnel. The motivation would be to improve packaging
Regarding claim 16, Stevenson does not explicitly teach however Bedard teaches wherein the coolant container is disposed on a front side surface of the tunnel. (figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stevenson based on the teachings of Bedard to teach wherein the coolant container is disposed on a front side surface of the tunnel. The motivation would be to improve packaging
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US Patent No. 4,440,116) and Bedard et al (US Patent No. 6,247,442) in view of Michalsky (DE102013114262)
Regarding claim 6, Stevenson does not explicitly teach however Michalsky teaches
a fuel tank (10b figure 1b) supported by the frame (50 figure 2 page 11 paragraph 1)
the coolant container being received in a recess formed by the fuel tank. (page 5 paragraph 4 fuel tank with integrated coolant tank and/or expansion tank is specified. The surge tank can be integrated as part of fuel tank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stevenson based on the teachings of Michalsky to teach a fuel tank supported by the frame the coolant container being received in a recess formed by the fuel tank. The motivation would be to improve packaging.
Regarding claim 7, Stevenson does not explicitly teach however Michalsky teaches wherein the coolant container and the fuel tank form an integral exterior surface. (page 5 paragraph 4 fuel tank with integrated coolant tank and/or expansion tank is specified. The surge tank can be integrated as part of fuel tank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stevenson based on the teachings of Michalsky to teach wherein the coolant container and the fuel tank form an integral exterior surface. The motivation would be to improve packaging.
Regarding claim 8, Stevenson does not explicitly teach however Michalsky teaches a fuel tank supported by the frame;
the coolant container being disposed forward of the fuel tank. (page 5 paragraph 4 fuel tank with integrated coolant tank and/or expansion tank is specified. The surge tank can be integrated as part of fuel tank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stevenson based on the teachings of Michalsky to teach teaches a fuel tank supported by the frame; the coolant container being disposed forward of the fuel tank. The motivation would be to improve packaging.
Regarding claim 9, Stevenson does not explicitly teach however Michalsky teaches at least one seat supported by the frame (54 figure 2)
the coolant container being disposed under the at least one seat. (figure 1 b)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stevenson based on the teachings of Michalsky to teach at least one seat supported by the frame the coolant container being disposed under the at least one seat. The motivation would be to improve packaging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
