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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 5/19/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraph [00158] of the specification describes FIG. 23B, not FIG. 22B
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“ground engaging members” (claims 1-20) are wheels, skis, guide tracks, treads or other suitable devices for supporting a vehicle relative to the ground, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0061] and FIG. 1, ground engaging member(s) (wheel, ski, tread) - 12; and
“driveline torque management system” (claims 1-20) is actuators which provide torque to one or more ground engaging members, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0074] and FIG. 4, ground engaging member(s) - 12, driveline torque management system-50, power system-60, and braking system-75.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 8, 10, 12-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al. (US-2015/0057885-A1, hereinafter Brady) in view of Nelson (US-2013/0096790-A1, hereinafter Nelson).
Regarding claim 1, Brady discloses:
A recreational vehicle, comprising: (paragraphs [0024-0030]; and FIG. 1, vehicle-10, ground engaging member(s) (wheel, ski, tread) - 12, vehicle frame-14, adjustable shock(s) - 18, controller-20, and accelerometer-30);
a plurality of ground engaging members (paragraph [0024]);
a frame supported by the plurality of ground engaging members (paragraph [0024]);
at least one suspension coupling the plurality of ground engaging members to the frame, the at least one suspension including at least one adjustable shock absorber having at least one adjustable damping profile (paragraphs [0024-0025]);
at least one airborne sensor positioned on the recreational vehicle, the at least one airborne sensor monitoring a movement characteristic of the recreational vehicle (paragraph [0030]);
at least one controller operatively coupled to the at least one airborne sensor, and the at least one adjustable shock absorber (paragraphs [0024-0030]); and
the at least one controller determining if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state and in response to determining the recreational vehicle is in the airborne state altering the at least one adjustable damping profile of the at least one adjustable shock absorber (paragraphs [0161] and [0177-0179]; FIG. 7, user mode (1) - 118, vehicle speed (2) - 120, and acceleration A(z) (9) - 134; and FIG. 10, acceleration A(z) < C for time > N - 184, and jump/pitch condition modifier (1,2,9) - 186).
Brady does not disclose altering an adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of a driveline torque management system if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state. However, Nelson discloses a recreational vehicle, including the following features:
a driveline torque management system operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of ground engaging members, the driveline torque management system having at least one adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic (paragraphs [0056] and [0091-0095]; FIG. 1, ATV-10, tires-22a,b, and wheels-24a,b; and FIG. 2, engine control logic-34, CVT control logic-35, controller-36, CVT-48, primary clutch-50, final drive-58, throttle operator-116, and suspension sensor-119);
at least one controller operatively coupled to the driveline torque management system, and the at least one airborne sensor (paragraphs [0093] and [0095]); and
altering the at least one adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of the driveline torque management system (paragraphs [0091-0095]).
Nelson teaches that, when a recreational vehicle is airborne, the wheels may accelerate rapidly. When the wheels again make contact with the ground upon landing, the wheel speed may decelerate abruptly, possible leading to damaged or stressed components of the continuously variable transmission (CVT) and other drive train components (paragraph [0091]). Nelson further teaches that recreational vehicles should include a spike load reduction feature of CVT control logic which works in conjunction with an electronic throttle control system to reduce drive train acceleration upon detection of an airborne condition (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recreational vehicle which alters drive train acceleration based on detection of an airborne condition of Nelson into the recreational vehicle which alters damping of shock absorbers based on detection of an airborne condition of Brady. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the drive train components.
Regarding claim 2, Brady further discloses:
wherein the at least one airborne sensor is supported by the frame and spaced apart from the at least one adjustable shock absorber (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Brady further discloses:
wherein the at least one airborne sensor is positioned generally along a longitudinal centerline plane of the recreational vehicle (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Brady further discloses:
wherein the at least one airborne sensor includes an accelerometer (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, Brady further discloses:
wherein the at least one airborne sensor includes a gyroscope (paragraphs [0030] and [0121]).
Regarding claim 6, Brady does not disclose altering an adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of a driveline torque management system if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state. However, Nelson further discloses:
wherein the at least one adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of the driveline torque management system is associated with a prime mover of the driveline torque management system (paragraphs [0091-0095]; and FIG. 2, engine-42, CVT-48, primary clutch-50, secondary clutch-52, sub-transmission-56, final drive-58, motor-76, and actuator assembly-80).
Nelson teaches that, when a recreational vehicle is airborne, the wheels may accelerate rapidly. When the wheels again make contact with the ground upon landing, the wheel speed may decelerate abruptly, possible leading to damaged or stressed components of the continuously variable transmission (CVT) and other drive train components (paragraph [0091]). Nelson further teaches that recreational vehicles should include a spike load reduction feature of CVT control logic which works in conjunction with an electronic throttle control system to reduce drive train acceleration upon detection of an airborne condition (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recreational vehicle which alters drive train acceleration based on detection of an airborne condition of Nelson into the recreational vehicle which alters damping of shock absorbers based on detection of an airborne condition of Brady. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the drive train components.
Regarding claim 8, Brady does not disclose altering an adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of a driveline torque management system if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state. However, Nelson further discloses:
wherein the at least one adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of the driveline torque management system is associated with a transmission of the driveline torque management system (paragraphs [0091-0095]; and FIG. 2, engine-42, CVT-48, primary clutch-50, secondary clutch-52, sub-transmission-56, final drive-58, motor-76, and actuator assembly-80).
Nelson teaches that, when a recreational vehicle is airborne, the wheels may accelerate rapidly. When the wheels again make contact with the ground upon landing, the wheel speed may decelerate abruptly, possible leading to damaged or stressed components of the continuously variable transmission (CVT) and other drive train components (paragraph [0091]). Nelson further teaches that recreational vehicles should include a spike load reduction feature of CVT control logic which works in conjunction with an electronic throttle control system to reduce drive train acceleration upon detection of an airborne condition (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recreational vehicle which alters drive train acceleration based on detection of an airborne condition of Nelson into the recreational vehicle which alters damping of shock absorbers based on detection of an airborne condition of Brady. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the drive train components.
Regarding claim 10, Brady does not disclose altering an adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of a driveline torque management system if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state. However, Nelson further discloses:
wherein the at least one adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of the driveline torque management system is associated with a braking system of the driveline torque management system (paragraph [0134]).
Nelson teaches that vehicle or driveline brakes may be temporarily applied to reduce vehicle torque (paragraph [0134]). Nelson further teaches that recreational vehicles should include a spike load reduction feature of CVT control logic which works in conjunction with an electronic throttle control system to reduce drive train acceleration upon detection of an airborne condition (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recreational vehicle which alters drive train acceleration based on detection of an airborne condition of Nelson into the recreational vehicle which alters damping of shock absorbers based on detection of an airborne condition of Brady. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the drive train components.
Regarding claim 12, Brady further discloses:
wherein the at least one airborne sensor includes an accelerometer which provides an x-axis acceleration value, a y-axis acceleration value, and a z-axis acceleration value, the at least one controller determining if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state by comparing a magnitude of a resultant acceleration vector to a first threshold, the resultant acceleration vector being based on the x-axis acceleration value, the y-axis acceleration value, and the z-axis acceleration value (paragraphs [0161] and [0177-0186]; FIG. 7, acceleration A(x) (7) - 130, acceleration A(y) (8) - 132, and acceleration A(z) (9) - 134; and FIG. 10, acceleration A(z) < C for time > N - 184, jump/pitch condition modifier (1,2,9) - 186, (lsteer positionl > X) OR (Isteer ratel > B) -188, (brakes on) AND (acceleration A(x) > A) - 190, and (brakes on) AND (acceleration A(x) > A) -202).
Regarding claim 13, Brady further discloses:
wherein the at least one airborne sensor includes an accelerometer which provides an x-axis acceleration value, a y-axis acceleration value, and a z-axis acceleration value, the at least one controller determining if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state by comparing the x-axis acceleration value to a first threshold value, the y-axis acceleration value to a second threshold, and the z-axis acceleration value to a third threshold (paragraphs [0161] and [0177-0186]; FIG. 7, acceleration A(x) (7) - 130, acceleration A(y) (8) - 132, and acceleration A(z) (9) - 134; and FIG. 10, acceleration A(z) < C for time > N - 184, jump/pitch condition modifier (1,2,9) - 186, (lsteer positionl > X) OR (Isteer ratel > B) -188, (brakes on) AND (acceleration A(x) > A) - 190, and (brakes on) AND (acceleration A(x) > A) -202).
Regarding claim 14, Brady further discloses:
A recreational vehicle, comprising: (paragraphs [0024-0030]; and FIG. 1, vehicle-10, ground engaging member(s) (wheel, ski, tread) - 12, vehicle frame-14, adjustable shock(s) - 18, controller-20, and accelerometer-30);
a plurality of ground engaging members (paragraph [0024]);
a frame supported by the plurality of ground engaging members (paragraph [0024]);
at least one suspension coupling the plurality of ground engaging members to the frame, the at least one suspension including at least one adjustable shock absorber having at least one adjustable damping profile (paragraphs [0024-0025]);
at least one airborne sensor positioned on the recreational vehicle, the at least one airborne sensor monitoring a movement characteristic of the recreational vehicle (paragraph [0030]);
at least one controller operatively coupled to the at least one airborne sensor, and the at least one adjustable shock absorber (paragraphs [0024-0030]);
the at least one controller determining if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state and in response to determining the recreational vehicle is in the airborne state altering the at least one adjustable damping profile of the at least one adjustable shock absorber (paragraphs [0161] and [0177-0179]; FIG. 7, user mode (1) - 118, vehicle speed (2) - 120, and acceleration A(z) (9) - 134; and FIG. 10, acceleration A(z) < C for time > N - 184, and jump/pitch condition modifier (1,2,9) - 186); and
to a first damping profile if the airborne state spans a first time duration and to a second damping profile if the airborne state spans a second time interval, the second time interval being longer than the first time duration (paragraph [0178]).
Brady does not disclose altering an adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic of a driveline torque management system if the recreational vehicle is in an airborne state. However, Nelson further discloses:
a driveline torque management system operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of ground engaging members, the driveline torque management system having at least one adjustable driveline torque management system characteristic (paragraphs [0056] and [0091-0095]; FIG. 1, ATV-10, tires-22a,b, and wheels-24a,b; and FIG. 2, engine control logic-34, CVT control logic-35, controller-36, CVT-48, primary clutch-50, final drive-58, throttle operator-116, and suspension sensor-119); and
at least one controller operatively coupled to the driveline torque management system, and the at least one airborne sensor (paragraphs [0093] and [0095]).
Nelson teaches that, when a recreational vehicle is airborne, the wheels may accelerate rapidly. When the wheels again make contact with the ground upon landing, the wheel speed may decelerate abruptly, possible leading to damaged or stressed components of the continuously variable transmission (CVT) and other drive train components (paragraph [0091]). Nelson further teaches that recreational vehicles should include a spike load reduction feature of CVT control logic which works in conjunction with an electronic throttle control system to reduce drive train acceleration upon detection of an airborne condition (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recreational vehicle which alters drive train acceleration based on detection of an airborne condition of Nelson into the recreational vehicle which alters damping of shock absorbers based on detection of an airborne condition of Brady. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of protecting the drive train components.
Regarding claim 15, Brady further discloses:
wherein the second damping profile is stiffer than the first damping profile (paragraphs [0178-0179]).
Regarding claim 18, Brady further discloses:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive an output from one or more sensors associated with a magnitude of acceleration along an axis (paragraphs [0161] and [0177-0186]; FIG. 7, acceleration A(x) (7) - 130, acceleration A(y) (8) - 132, and acceleration A(z) (9) - 134; and FIG. 10, acceleration A(z) < C for time > N - 184, jump/pitch condition modifier (1,2,9) - 186, (lsteer positionl > X) OR (Isteer ratel > B) -188, (brakes on) AND (acceleration A(x) > A) - 190, and (brakes on) AND (acceleration A(x) > A) -202).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Nelson, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Roberge et al. (US-2011/0153174-A1, hereinafter Roberge).
Regarding claim 20, Brady in view of Nelson does not disclose recording information related to an airborne sensor. However, Roberge discloses an off-road vehicle capable of airborne operation, including the following features:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to record information related to information from the at least one airborne sensor (paragraph [0036]).
Roberge teaches that vehicle memory should receive and store data representing the speed of the vehicle over time and a time value, used to go back in time in the stored data from the moment where an airborne wheel(s) is identified, to retrieve the recorded speed of the vehicle when the airborne wheel(s) has left the ground (paragraph [0036]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system for recording data of an off-road vehicle when airborne of Roberge into the recreational vehicle which alters damping of shock absorbers and a driveline torque management system characteristic based on detection of an airborne condition of Brady in view of Nelson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing the rider with a history of recreational vehicle performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 11, 16 and 19 are 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 TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights