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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-8, 11, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the exhaust tube". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Pard (US 20060232028). .
Regarding claim 1, Pard teaches a powered snow vehicle 10 ([0026], Abstract) comprising:
a frame 12 defining an engine compartment ([0026], Fig. 1);
an engine 44 retained in the engine compartment 18 ([0030], Fig. 1);
a track 30 ([0028], Fig. 1);
at least one front ski 48 ([0029], Fig. 1); and
a muffler 70 having a majority portion positioned below the engine 44 ([0032], Figs. 1 and 4-6).
Regarding claim 2, Pard teaches wherein the muffler 70 comprises an outlet 78 on a bottom surface of the muffler 70 ([0011] and [0033], Fig. 4).
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 5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pard in view of Yatagai (US 20040188161).
Regarding claim 5, Pard does not teach an exhaust tube as claimed.
However, Yatagai teaches a snowmobile engine structure wherein an exhaust tube 44 connects to an engine outlet 43, extends upward along a first lateral side of an engine 19, along a top of the engine 19, downward along a second lateral side of the engine, and then connects to a muffler 45 ([0047], Figs. 4-5 of Yatagai).
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 engine and muffler of Pard to have the engine and exhaust structure of Yatagai in order to advantageously provide a compact snowmobile engine structure ([0008]-[0009] of Yatagai).
Regarding claim 19, Pard does not teach an exhaust tube as claimed.
However, Yatagai teaches a snowmobile engine structure comprising an exhaust tube 44 connected to an exhaust port 43 on an engine 19, extending up along a first side of the engine, extending over a top of the engine 19, extending down along an opposite second side of the engine 19, and connecting to the muffler 45 ([0047], Figs. 4-5 of Yatagai; the exhaust tube 44 extends upwards, across a top region of the engine 19).
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 engine and muffler of Pard to have the engine and exhaust structure of Yatagai in order to advantageously provide a compact snowmobile engine structure ([0008]-[0009] of Yatagai).
Regarding claim 20, Pard does not teach an exhaust tube as claimed.
However, Yatagai teaches a snowmobile engine structure comprising an exhaust tube 44 between an engine 19 and the muffler 45, the exhaust tube 44 defining an inverted U-shape as the exhaust extends up along a first side of the engine 19, over or along a top of the engine 19, and down along an opposite second side of the engine 19 ([0047], Figs. 4-5 of Yatagai).
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 engine and muffler of Pard to have the engine and exhaust structure of Yatagai in order to advantageously provide a compact snowmobile engine structure ([0008]-[0009] of Yatagai).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pard in view of Bjork (US 3605404).
Regarding claim 6, Pard does not teach wherein the muffler has a rectangular cross-sectional shape.
However, Bjork teaches a pollution and noise reducing muffler wherein the muffler has a rectangular shape (Col. 1, lines 23-24 of Bjork).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the muffler of Bjork for the muffler of Pard in order to advantageously provide Pard with a muffler which maximizes noise reduction (Col. 1, lines 23-24 of Bjork).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pard in view of Bjork, and further in view of Dunne (US 5260242).
Regarding claim 7, Pard as modified does not expressly teach wherein the muffler has a vertical thickness of not more than 12.7 cm.
However, Dunne teaches a muffler design with a length dimension of 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 21-24 of Dunne).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a muffler of similar dimensions to Dunne in the modified snowmobile of Pard/Bjork in order to provide a compact, standardized muffler design. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the modified muffler of Bjork/Dunne to have a vertical thickness of 12.7 cm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Pard as modified teaches wherein the vertical thickness is not more than 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 21-24 of Dunne).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pard in view of Abe (US 20050241867).
Regarding claim 11, Pard teaches the powered snow vehicle 10 comprising a fuel tank 64 ([0031], Fig. 1), but does not teach the fuel tank being rearward of the engine and below a seat.
However, Abe teaches a snow vehicle 10 comprising:
a fuel tank 25 rearward of an engine compartment ([0070], Fig. 1 of Abe); and
a seat 24 above the fuel tank 25 ([0070], Fig. 1 of Abe).
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 of Pard to have the seat and fuel tank positions of Abe in order to advantageously allow a user to inspect the fuel pump immediately after lifting a seat ([0071] of Abe).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pard in view of Bedard (US 10293883).
Regarding claim 13, Pard teaches wherein the engine 44 is behind a steering assembly 42 ([0029], Fig. 1). Pard does not teach an exhaust expansion tube.
However, Bedard teaches a snowmobile exhaust system 90 wherein an engine 26 is behind a steering assembly 80 (Col. 5, lines 14-15, Fig. 1 of Bedard), and comprising an exhaust expansion tube 93 between the engine 26 and the steering assembly 80 (Col. 4, lines 21-29, Fig. 1 of Bedard; the exhaust pipe 93 expands from a smaller diameter to a larger diameter and is located between the steering assembly and the engine in a front-rear direction).
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 exhaust system of Pard to include an exhaust expansion tube as Bedard teaches in order to advantageously provide an exhaust system that improves engine efficiency (Col. 4, lines 21-29 of Bedard).
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 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
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights