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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3 and 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/26/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 (Figures 10-20) in the reply filed on 08/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that pages 9-11 of the “Remarks”, that the Examiner fails to establish "serious" search or examination burden imposed on the Examiner in having to search and examine Species I in addition to Species II. This is not found persuasive because as expressly recited in MPEP 808.02 (C) “A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together.” For example, if applicant elected Species 1 (Figures 1-9), that is drawn to a debris dispersal system, the examiner would be required to search terms such as “centrifugal blower with a blower shaft, a transmission drivingly coupling the blower shaft to an engine output shaft of an engine” and “elongated nozzle with left and right sections which are pivotally connected to the center section by left and right hinge assemblies” that indicate features of that group. For the elected Species 2 (Figures 10-20), that is drawn to a debris dispersal system, the examiner would be required to search terms such as “a blower with a pair of impellers separately mounted on the blower input shaft” and “pair of sperate elongated nozzles” indicate features of the elected group. Thus employing different search queries even though the two are classified together.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Furthermore, it is noted that there are claims that are drawn to non-elected species. The following claims are directed to the non-elected species:
Claim 2 has limitations directed to “height adjustment means for adjusting the height of the platform relative to the mower mounting bracket” which is drawn to Figures 1-9 (see paragraph 0047 of the specification), therefore is drawn to the non-elected species pf the debris dispersal system of Species 1 (Figures 1-9);
Claim 5 has limitations directed to “the blower assembly further comprises a transmission connected between an engine output shaft and a blower shaft, the transmission having a centrifugal clutch connected to the engine output shaft, and wherein the transmission does not drivingly engage the blower shaft until the engine output shaft reaches a set revolutions per minute” which is drawn to Figures 1-9 (see paragraph 0038 and 0057 of the specification), therefore is drawn to the non-elected species pf the debris dispersal system of Species 1 (Figures 1-9);
Claim 25 has limitations directed to “wherein a first portion of the nozzle is substantially horizontal, and a second portion of the nozzle is rotatable relative to the first portion” (the examiner notes that the specification fails to explicitly discloses the nozzle having a first and second portion), which as best understood by the examiner, is directed to Figures 1-9 (see paragraph 0042 of the specification and as best shown in figure 6), therefore is drawn to the non-elected species pf the debris dispersal system of Species 1 (Figures 1-9);
Thus, claims 2, 5, and 25 are also withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 06/17/2022. Claims 1-25 are currently pending. Claims 2-3, 5-9, and 25 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 4, and 10-24 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/29/2022 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 275 in figure 19. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“a locking mechanism configured to selectively secure a portion of the first and second discharge conduits in an upright configuration” in claim 19 and corresponding to structural element 275 which is a nut that may be tightened to secure or lock the conduit into an upright position as described in paragraph 0064. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof of performing the claim function;
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 § 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.
Claim 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation "each nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward from the nozzle" in lines 8-9. It is unclear which of the nozzles (i.e. plurality of nozzles) applicant is referring to since there is only “an elongated nozzle” (i.e. single nozzle) that is introduced in claim 11, line 7, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring the single elongated nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward from the nozzle.
Claims 14 and 15 recites the limitation " the first and second elongated nozzles" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the debris dispersal system as in claim 15, wherein the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable independently from each other.” In lines 1-2. It is unclear how claim 15 can be dependent on itself, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim to be dependent on claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “each nozzle further comprises at least one rolling support connected to an end portion of the nozzle” in lines 1-2. It is unclear which of the nozzles (i.e. plurality of nozzles) applicant is referring to since there is only “an elongated nozzle” (i.e. single nozzle) that is introduced in claim 11, line 7, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring the single elongated nozzle having at least one rolling support connected to an end portion of the nozzle.
Claims 17 recites the limitation " the first and second elongated nozzles" in lines 2-3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “wherein the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits is connected to the first and second elongated nozzles approximately halfway along the length of the respective nozzles” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be ““wherein the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits is connected to the first and second elongated nozzles
Claims 12-13, and 18-20 depends on claim 11 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
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 1, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczyk (US Pub. No. 2012/0255585) in view of Jones (US Patent No. 5,020,510), and Syracuse (US Pub. No. 2007/0199175).
Regarding claim 1, Kowalczyk discloses: a debris dispersal system (Figure 1 element 10 and see also paragraph 0036) for use with a riding mower (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the debris dispersal system comprising:
a blower assembly (element 24/26) supported on a platform (element 23);
the blower assembly including a blower (element 26 and see also paragraph 0037 where the prior art discloses 26 being “an air pressurizer, such as, a fan, a blower, a turbine, or a combination thereof”) and an engine (element 24 and see also paragraph 0036 where the prior art discloses element 24 as “an engine or motor”);
a mower mounting bracket (element 13) securable to a frame member of the riding mower (The examiner indicates that the frame member and any associated structure (riding mower) has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the mower mounting bracket (element 42) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the mower mounting bracket securable to a frame member of the riding mower, as recited.);
an elongated nozzle (element 50) extending laterally relative to the platform (see figure 1 showing portions of the elongated nozzle (elements 50) extending laterally (left and right direction) relative to the platform (element 23)), the elongated nozzle having at least one discharge opening oriented (element 56) for directing air downward from the nozzle (see paragraphs 0042-0043), the nozzle being connected to a discharge opening (element 21 and see paragraph 0043) of the blower by a discharge conduit (element 30); and
at least one rolling support connected to the platform (element 25).
However, Kowalczyk appears to be silent wherein the engine is drivingly connected to the blower, the platform pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket, and the elongated nozzle is suspended below the platform.
Jones is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-5 element 10 and see also col. 2, ll. 30-33) comprising a blower assembly (elements 38/42) supported on a platform (element 48), the blower assembly including a blower (see col. 3, ll. 5 where the prior art discloses element 42 as “a fan” and see col. 3, ll. 7-8 also where the prior art discloses having the fan be “oriented to blow air”), an engine (element 38), and wherein the engine is drivingly connected to the blower (see col. 3, ll. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Jones to provide wherein the engine is drivingly connected to the blower. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a known mechanical connecting between the engine and blower would necessarily provide the predictable result of controlling/driving the blower in order to blow air to a desired surface.
However, Kowalczyk modified appears to be silent wherein the platform pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket, and the elongated nozzle is suspended below the platform.
Syracuse is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0025) comprising a platform (elements 16), a mower mounting bracket (elements 46a/46b), and wherein the platform pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket (see paragraph 0027 where the prior art discloses elements 46a/46b (mower mounting bracket) are “pivotally connected at pivot connections” (elements 45a/45b) to attachment posts (element 43a/43b) of element 16 (platform)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Syracuse to provide wherein the platform pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a known pivotal mechanical connecting between the mounting bracket and platform would necessarily enable controlled rotational movement around an axis, thus increasing the range of motion of the system.
However, Kowalczyk modified appears to be silent wherein the elongated nozzle is suspended below the platform.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk to provide wherein the elongated nozzle is suspended below the platform, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging the elongated nozzle to be suspended below the platform would necessarily provide predictable result of directing pressurized air from the blower assembly to a desired surface (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 10, Kowalczyk modified discloses: the debris dispersal system as in Claim 1 wherein the platform is pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket to pivot about a substantially horizontal axis (Giving that the prior art discloses the a pivotal connection between the platform and mower mounting bracket (see paragraph 0027 of prior art Syracuse) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the platform is pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket to pivot about a substantially horizontal axis, as recited.) .
Regarding claim 11, Kowalczyk discloses: a debris dispersal system (Figure 1 and Figure 13 element 10 and see also paragraph 0036) for use with a vehicle (element 11), the system comprising:
a blower assembly (element 24/26) supported on a platform (element 23), the blower assembly including a blower (element 26 and see also paragraph 0037 where the prior art discloses 26 being “an air pressurizer, such as, a fan, a blower, a turbine, or a combination thereof”) and an engine (element 24 and see also paragraph 0036 where the prior art discloses element 24 as “an engine or motor”);
a mower mounting bracket (element 13) securable to a frame of the vehicle (see figure 1 frame portion of vehicle (element 11) by element 15); and
first and second rolling supports (element 25 and see paragraph 0036 where the prior art disclose element 25 as “wheels”) connected to the platform (see figure 1), the first and second rolling supports being disposed on opposite sides of the platform (see figure 13).
However, Kowalczyk appears to be silent wherein the engine is drivingly connected to the blower, the platform pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket, and first and second discharge conduits, each conduit having a proximal end connected to a discharge opening of the blower and a distal end connected to an elongate nozzle, each nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward from the nozzle.
Jones is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-5 element 10 and see also col. 2, ll. 30-33) comprising a blower assembly (elements 38/42) supported on a platform (element 48), the blower assembly including a blower (see col. 3, ll. 5 where the prior art discloses element 42 as “a fan” and see col. 3, ll. 7-8 also where the prior art discloses having the fan be “oriented to blow air”), an engine (element 38), and wherein the engine is drivingly connected to the blower (see col. 3, ll. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Jones to provide wherein the engine is drivingly connected to the blower. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a known mechanical connecting between the engine and blower would necessarily provide the predictable result of controlling/driving the blower in order to blow air to a desired surface.
However, Kowalczyk modified appears to be silent wherein the platform pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket and first and second discharge conduits, each conduit having a proximal end connected to a discharge opening of the blower and a distal end connected to an elongate nozzle, each nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward from the nozzle.
Syracuse is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0025) comprising a platform (elements 16), a mower mounting bracket (elements 46a/46b), and wherein the platform pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket (see paragraph 0027 where the prior art discloses elements 46a/46b (mower mounting bracket) are “pivotally connected at pivot connections” (elements 45a/45b) to attachment posts (element 43a/43b) of element 16 (platform)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Syracuse to provide wherein the platform pivotally connected to the mower mounting bracket. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a known pivotal mechanical connecting between the mounting bracket and platform would necessarily enable controlled rotational movement around an axis, thus increasing the range of motion of the system.
Furthermore, Kowalczyk modified discloses different embodiments (Figures 2-5) of the debris dispersal system, but appears to be silent first and second discharge conduits, each conduit having a proximal end connected to a discharge opening of the blower and a distal end connected to an elongate nozzle, each nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward from the nozzle.
Kowalczyk alternate embodiment discloses a debris dispersal system (Figures 2-4) comprising a blower assembly including a blower (elements 120/121/145/147 and see also paragraph 0049) and first and second discharge conduits (element 145 and see also paragraph 0050 where the prior art discloses element 145 as “conduits”), each conduit having a proximal end (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) connected to a discharge opening (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) of the blower and a distal end (see figure 2 annotated below Detail C) connected to an elongate nozzle (element 150), each nozzle having at least one discharge opening (element 156) configured to direct air downward from the nozzle (see paragraph 0052).
PNG
media_image1.png
778
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Kowalczyk alternate embodiment to provide first and second discharge conduits, each conduit having a proximal end connected to a discharge opening of the blower and a distal end connected to an elongate nozzle, each nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward from the nozzle. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a plurality of conduits directing air to the elongated nozzle would necessarily provide the predictable result of directing pressurized air from the blower assembly to a desired surface.
Regarding claim 16, Kowalczyk modified discloses: the debris dispersal system as in claim 11, wherein each nozzle further comprises at least one rolling support (element 172, see also paragraph 0044, and see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) connected to an end portion (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) of the nozzle.
PNG
media_image2.png
778
849
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczyk (US Pub. No. 2012/0255585) in view of Jones (US Patent No. 5,020,510), Syracuse (US Pub. No. 2007/0199175) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Berg (US Patent No. 1,533,368).
Regarding claim 4, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the nozzle is formed from upper and lower channels connected together to form an interior space therebetween and the at least one discharge opening in the nozzle comprises an elongated air discharge slot formed between the upper and lower channels in communication with the interior space.
Berg is also concern in providing a nozzle (Figures 1-3 and see also col. 1, ll. 25) and wherein the nozzle is formed from upper and lower channels (elements 56/57) connected together to form an interior space therebetween (interior space between elements 56/57 as best shown in figure 3) and the at least one discharge opening in the nozzle comprises an elongated air discharge slot (element 60) formed between the upper and lower channels in communication with the interior space (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Berg to provide wherein the nozzle is formed from upper and lower channels connected together to form an interior space therebetween and the at least one discharge opening in the nozzle comprises an elongated air discharge slot formed between the upper and lower channels in communication with the interior space. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing the nozzle with elongated air discharge slot would necessarily provide the predictable result of dispersing pressurized air to multiple different surface areas during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the system.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczyk (US Pub. No. 2012/0255585) in view of Jones (US Patent No. 5,020,510), Syracuse (US Pub. No. 2007/0199175) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Clements (US Patent No. 1,610,360).
Regarding claim 12, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 11, but appears to be silent wherein the blower comprises: a radial housing having first and second adjacent radial channels of substantially equal cross- sectional area, a first set of impeller blades disposed within the first radial channel, and a second set of impeller blades disposed within the second radial channel, wherein the first set of impeller blades and second set of impeller blades are mounted upon a common shaft.
Clements is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-3 and see also col. 1, ll. 1-5) comprising a blower assembly including a blower (elements ) and a motor (see col. 1, ll. 26-27 where the prior art discloses element A is “a motor casing” in which “a motor” is positioned), and wherein the blower comprises: a radial housing (elements E/F) having first and second adjacent radial channels (element X/Y) of substantially equal cross-sectional area (see figure 2 and see also col. 2, ll. 68-69), a first set of impeller blades (element
E
2
and see also col. 1, ll. 49 where the prior art disclose element
E
2
as “a fan”, which are well known in the art to comprise a set of impeller blades) disposed within the first radial channel (see figure 2), and a second set of impeller blades (element
F
2
and see also col. 2, ll. 65 where the prior art disclose element
F
2
as “a fan”, which are well known in the art to comprise a set of impeller blades) disposed within the second radial channel (see figure 2), wherein the first set of impeller blades and second set of impeller blades are mounted upon a common shaft (element
E
3
).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Clements to provide wherein the blower comprises: a radial housing having first and second adjacent radial channels of substantially equal cross-sectional area, a first set of impeller blades disposed within the first radial channel, and a second set of impeller blades disposed within the second radial channel, wherein the first set of impeller blades and second set of impeller blades are mounted upon a common shaft. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of set of impeller blades would necessarily provide the predictable result of increasing the amount of pressurized air being discharged from the blower assembly to a desired surface, thus enhancing the capabilities of the system.
Regarding claim 20, Kowalczyk modified: wherein the first radial channel is connected to the first discharge conduit at a first discharge opening (see figure 2 of the prior art of Kowalczyk showing the first discharge conduit (element 145 on the left side of element 147) having an opening, therefore as modified the first radial channel of the blower (prior art of Clements) located within the blower (element 122) of prior art of Kowalczyk would necessarily have the first radial channel operably connected to the first discharge conduit at the first discharge opening), the second radial channel is connected to the second discharge conduit at a second discharge opening (see paragraph 0050 where the prior art discloses element 145 as “conduits”, similarly see figure 2 of the prior art of Kowalczyk showing the second discharge conduit (element 145 which would be on the right side of element 147) having an opening, therefore as modified the second radial channel of the blower (prior art of Clements) located within the blower (element 122) of prior art of Kowalczyk would necessarily have the second radial channel operably connected to the second discharge conduit at the first discharge opening), and the first and second discharge openings are horizontally oriented (see figure 2 showing element 145 intended to be connected to element 147 which shows openings horizontally oriented (phantom lines), thus the first and second discharge openings would necessarily be horizontally oriented in order to be coupled to the horizontally openings of element 147).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczyk (US Pub. No. 2012/0255585) in view of Jones (US Patent No. 5,020,510), Syracuse (US Pub. No. 2007/0199175) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hall (US Pub. No. 2020/0120881).
Regarding claim 13, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 11, but appears to be silent wherein a portion of the first and second discharge conduits are rotatable about a substantially horizontal axis between zero and 90 degrees relative to vertical.
Hall is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0022) comprising a blower assembly including a blower (elements 42/50 and see also paragraph 0025) and an engine (element 18), a discharge conduit (element 100), and wherein a portion discharge conduit are rotatable about a substantially horizontal axis (see figure 1 arrows of element H) between zero and 90 degrees relative to vertical (see figure 1 showing a portion of the discharge conduit (element 100) rotatable about a substantially horizontal axis (left-right arrows of element H) relative to the vertical (up-down arrow of element V) and see also paragraph 0029 where the prior art discloses having “a rotational range of motion” of at least 180 degrees, thus having overlapping ranges that include between zero and 90 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Hall to provide wherein a portion discharge conduit are rotatable about a substantially horizontal axis between zero and 90 degrees relative to vertical. The resultant combination would have the rotational feature that is implemented on the discharge conduit of Hall now on upper portions of the first and second discharge conduits (element 145) in between element 147 of modified Kowalczyk. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing rotational range of motions via the articulating connection onto the discharge conduits would necessarily provide an articulating conduit which would prevent the conduits from having kinks or sharp bends during operations.
Regarding claim 19, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 11 and 13, but appears to be silent further comprising a locking mechanism configured to selectively secure a portion of the first and second discharge conduits in an upright configuration.
Hall is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0022) comprising a blower assembly including a blower (elements 42/50 and see also paragraph 0025) and an engine (element 18), a discharge conduit (element 100), a portion discharge conduit are rotatable about a substantially horizontal axis (see figure 1 arrows of element H), and further comprising a locking mechanism (element 142/148) configured to selectively secure a portion of the first and second discharge conduits in an upright configuration (see paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Hall to provide a locking mechanism configured to selectively secure a portion of the first and second discharge conduits in an upright configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known locking mechanism would necessarily prevent secure the conduit at a desired position without unwanted disengagement or movement during operations.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczyk (US Pub. No. 2012/0255585) in view of Jones (US Patent No. 5,020,510), Syracuse (US Pub. No. 2007/0199175) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tadashige (JPH04134531) and Lewis (US Pub. No. 2002/0022908).
Regarding claim 14, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 11 and further discloses utilizing first and second discharge conduits (element 145 and see also paragraph 0050 where the prior art discloses element 145 as “conduits”) connected to a single elongated nozzle (see figure 2 element 150). However, Kowalczyk modified appears to be silent wherein the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable about a substantially vertical axis when in an operational configuration, relative to the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits, respectively.
Tadashige is also concern in a debris system (Figures 1-8 and see also page 003, paragraph 002 under “configuration of the invention”) comprising a fan (element 16 and see also page 003, paragraph 002 under “configuration of the invention”) connected to a first and second conduits (elements 17A/17B), and further comprising first and second elongated nozzles (elements 23A/23B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Tadashige to provide first and second elongated nozzles. The resultant combination would have the first and second elongated nozzles and arrangement of Tadashige now having each elongated nozzles connected to a respective discharge conduit (element 145) of modified Kowalczyk. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a plurality of nozzles would necessarily allow the user to treat multiple different surface areas during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the system.
However, Kowalczyk modified appears to be silent wherein the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable about a substantially vertical axis when in an operational configuration, relative to the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits, respectively.
Lewis is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figure 3A-3C) and see also paragraph 0025) comprising a blower (element 110 and see also paragraph 0026), first and second discharge conduits (elements 147/148), first and second elongated nozzles (elements 149/150), and wherein the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable about a substantially vertical axis when in an operational configuration, relative to the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits, respectively (See figure 3a showing the left side of the first elongated nozzle in an upright position and the right side of the second elongated nozzle in a lowered position, thus being rotatable relative to distal ends of the first and second discharge conduits. Therefore, the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable about a substantially vertical axis when in an operational configuration, relative to the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits, respectively, as recited.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Lewis to provide wherein the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable about a substantially vertical axis when in an operational configuration, relative to the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits, respectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the plurality of nozzles be rotatable relative to the conduits would necessarily allow the user to stow or maneuver around obstacles during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the system.
Regarding claim 15, Kowalczyk modified discloses: the debris dispersal system as in claim [[15]] 14, wherein the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable independently from each other (see figure 3A and see also paragraph 0026 of the prior art of Lewis).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczyk (US Pub. No. 2012/0255585) in view of Jones (US Patent No. 5,020,510), Syracuse (US Pub. No. 2007/0199175) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tadashige (JPH04134531).
Regarding claim 17, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 11 and further discloses utilizing first and second discharge conduits (element 145 and see also paragraph 0050 where the prior art discloses element 145 as “conduits”) connected to a single elongated nozzle (see figure 2 element 150). However, Kowalczyk modified appears to be silent wherein the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits is connected to the first and second elongated nozzles approximately halfway along the length of the respective nozzles.
Tadashige is also concern in a debris system (Figures 1-8 and see also page 003, paragraph 002 under “configuration of the invention”) comprising a fan (element 16 and see also page 003, paragraph 002 under “configuration of the invention”) connected to a first and second conduits (elements 17A/17B) having distal ends (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A), and wherein the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits is connected to the first and second elongated nozzles (elements 23A/23B) approximately halfway along the length of the respective nozzles (see figure 4 annotated below showing portions of the distal end (Detail A) of the first and second discharge conduits (elements 17A/17B) connected to the first and second elongated nozzles (elements 23A/23B) approximately halfway along the length of the respective nozzles).
PNG
media_image3.png
528
902
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Tadashige to provide wherein the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits is connected to the first and second elongated nozzles approximately halfway along the length of the respective nozzles. The resultant combination would have the first and second elongated nozzles and arrangement of Tadashige now having each elongated nozzles connected to a respective discharge conduit (element 145) of modified Kowalczyk. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing the first and second discharge conduits connected halfway along the lengths of the plurality of nozzles would necessarily allow the user to treat multiple different surface areas during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczyk (US Pub. No. 2012/0255585) in view of Jones (US Patent No. 5,020,510), Syracuse (US Pub. No. 2007/0199175) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wisher (US Patent No 2,180,269).
Regarding claim 18, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 11, but appears to be silent wherein a portion of the first and second discharge conduits is formed from a nonrigid material.
Wisher is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-5 and see also col. 1, ll. 30-34) comprising a blower assembly having a blower (element 17 and see also col. 1, ll. 49), a discharge conduit (element 22), an elongated nozzle (element 23), and wherein a portion of the discharge conduit is formed from a nonrigid material (see col. 1, ll. 55 – col. 2, ll. 1 where the prior art disclose element 22 as “a flexible conduit”, thus being a nonrigid material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Wisher to provide wherein a portion of the discharge conduit is formed from a nonrigid material. The resultant combination would have the a portion of the first and second discharge conduits of modified Kowalczyk now being formed from a nonrigid material as taught by Wisher. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing nonrigid first and second discharge conduits would necessarily allow the user to flex the conduits at desired positions in order to maneuver around obstacles and into tight spaces, thus enhancing the capabilities of the system.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalczyk (US Pub. No. 2012/0255585) in view of Jones (US Patent No. 5,020,510), and Clements (US Patent No. 1,610,360).
Regarding claim 21 Kowalczyk discloses: a debris dispersal system (Figure 1 and Figure 13 element 10 and see also paragraph 0036) for use with a vehicle (element 11), comprising:
a blower assembly (element 24/26) supported on a frame (element 23), the blower assembly including an engine (element 24 and see also paragraph 0036 where the prior art discloses element 24 as “an engine or motor”), a blower (element 26 and see also paragraph 0037 where the prior art discloses 26 being “an air pressurizer, such as, a fan, a blower, a turbine, or a combination thereof”);
a nozzle assembly including at least one nozzle (element 50), each nozzle having at least one discharge opening (element 56) configured to direct air downward from the nozzle (see paragraphs 0042-0043).
However, Kowalczyk appears to be silent wherein the engine is drivingly connected to the blower, the blower having a radial housing with first and second internal radial channels of substantially equal cross-sectional area, a first set of impeller blades disposed within the first radial channel, and a second set of impeller blades disposed within the second radial channel, wherein the first set of impeller blades and second set of impeller blades are mounted to rotate about a common axis, and first and second discharge conduits, each having a proximal end connected to the blower and a distal end connected to the nozzle assembly in spaced relation
Jones is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-5 element 10 and see also col. 2, ll. 30-33) comprising a blower assembly (elements 38/42) supported on a platform (element 48), the blower assembly including a blow