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 Amendments
The amendments filed March 30, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 10-16, 18-24, and 26-28 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 11, 15, 21, and 24. Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 21 are withdrawn. Claims 7-8, 17, and 25 are cancelled by applicant. Claims 26-28 are newly presented. The previous drawing objection is withdrawn due to the newly submitted and accepted “Drawings” dated 03/30/2026. The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. The previous 103 rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained and applicant’s arguments on pages 12-14 are found unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments of amended independent claim 11 have been addressed in the rejection below and are also found unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments on pages 15-17 regarding independent claim 21 and the prior art of Clements (US Patent No. 1,610,360) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as indicated in the rejection below. Office action is non-final to afford applicant the opportunity to respond to new grounds of rejections.
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.
Claims 27-28 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 27 recites the limitation "The debris dispersal system as in claim 1 in combination with the riding mower and the frame member thereof." in lines 1-2. The metes and bounds of what is required in the limitation is unclear since claim 1 is directed to a debris dispersal system for use with a riding mower, therefore indicating intended use of the system while also having the riding mower and any associated structure (i.e. the frame member) not being positively recited as part of the system, thus rendering the claim unclear. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the combination of debris dispersal system with the riding mower and the frame member to be intended use and met with the structure of the debris dispersal system of claim 1 being capable of being operably attached to the frame member of the riding mower.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "The debris dispersal system as in claim 11 in combination with the riding mower and the frame member thereof." in lines 1-2. The metes and bounds of what is required in the limitation is unclear since claim 11 is directed to a debris dispersal system for use with a riding mower, therefore indicating intended use of the system while also having the riding mower and any associated structure (i.e. the frame member) not being positively recited as part of the system, thus rendering the claim unclear. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the combination of debris dispersal system with the riding mower and the frame member to be intended use and met with the structure of the debris dispersal system of claim 11 being capable of being operably attached to the frame member of the riding mower.
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, and 27 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 27, Kowalczyk modified discloses: the debris dispersal system as in claim 1 in combination with the riding mower and the frame member thereof (The examiner indicates that the riding mower and any associated structure (the frame member) has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the debris dispersal system as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the debris dispersal system as in claim 1 in combination with the riding mower and the frame member thereof, as recited.).
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 1 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 11, 16, and 28 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), and Tadashige (JPH04134531).
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 first and second elongated nozzles, each first and second elongated nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward, and the first and second elongated nozzle suspended below the platform by the first and second discharge conduits respectively.
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 first and second elongated nozzles, each first and second elongated nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward, and the first and second elongated nozzle suspended below the platform by the first and second discharge conduits respectively.
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 first and second elongated nozzles, each first and second elongated nozzle having at least one discharge opening configured to direct air downward, and the first and second elongated nozzle suspended below the platform by the first and second discharge conduits respectively.
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 elongate nozzle (element 150), and the 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, 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.
However, Kowalczyk modified discloses only utilizing one elongated nozzle and does not explicitly disclose comprising first and second elongated nozzles, each first and second elongated nozzle having at least one discharge opening, and the first and second elongated nozzle suspended below the platform by 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) having distal ends (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A). Tadashige further teaches first and second elongated nozzles (elements 23A/23B) connected to the distal ends of the first and second conduits (see figure 4 annotated below) and each first and second elongated nozzle having at least one discharge opening (see figure 4 annotated below Detail B).
PNG
media_image2.png
538
718
media_image2.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 first and second elongated nozzles, each first and second elongated nozzle having at least one discharge opening. 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 discloses appears to be silent wherein the first and second elongated nozzle suspended below the platform by the first and second discharge conduits respectively.
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 the first and second elongated nozzle suspended below the platform by the first and second discharge conduits respectively, 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 first and second 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 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_image3.png
778
849
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Kowalczyk modified discloses: the debris dispersal system as in claim 11 in combination with the riding mower and the frame member thereof (The examiner indicates that the riding mower and any associated structure (the frame member) has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the debris dispersal system as in claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the debris dispersal system as in claim 11 in combination with the riding mower and the frame member thereof, as recited.).
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), and Tadashige (JPH04134531) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Peters (US Patent No. 7,600,290).
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.
Peters is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-5A and see also col. 3, ll. 27-31) comprising a blower assembly including a blower (elements 2/3( and an engine (element 4), and wherein the blower comprises: a radial housing (elements 24/29) having first and second adjacent radial channels (see figure 5 showing a first radial channel that necessarily extends to the left from the divider plate (element 27) and ending at the discharge port (element 23) and see also figure 5 showing a second radial channel that necessarily extends to the right from the divider plate (element 27) and ending at the discharge port (element 30)) of substantially equal cross-sectional area (see figure 5), a first set of impeller blades (element 25) disposed within the first radial channel (see figure 5 showing element 25 (first set of impeller blades) in between element 27 and 24, thus the first set of impeller blades (element 25) would necessarily be disposed within the first radial channel), and a second set of impeller blades (element 28) disposed within the second radial channel (see figure 5 showing element 28 (second set of impeller blades) in between element 27 and 29, thus the second set of impeller blades (element 28) would necessarily be 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 (element 26).
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 Peters 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 Peters) 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 Peters) 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 13-15 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), and Tadashige (JPH04134531) 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 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.
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 82), a nozzle (element 100) and wherein the nozzle is rotatable about a substantially vertical axis when in an operational configuration, relative to the distal end of the conduit (see paragraph 0028).
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 the nozzle is rotatable about a substantially vertical axis when in an operational configuration, relative to the distal end of the conduit. The resultant combination would have the rotational feature that is implemented on the nozzle of Hall now on upper portions of the first and second elongated nozzles (element 23A/23B of prior art Tadashige) being relative to the distal end of the first and second discharge conduits, respectively (element 145) of modified Kowalczyk. 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 14, wherein the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable independently from each other (Giving that the prior art discloses the first and second elongated nozzles comprising the rotational features as modified (see rejection of claim 14 above) and there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the first and second elongated nozzles are rotatable independently from each other, as recited,).
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 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), and Tadashige (JPH04134531) 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 and 26 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 Peters (US Patent No. 7,600,290).
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, and wherein: the first set of impeller blades creates a first discharge of air directed through the first radial channel and first discharge conduit; and the second set of impeller blades creates a second discharge of air directed through the second radial channel and second discharge conduit.
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.
Furthermore, Kowalczyk modified discloses different embodiments (Figures 2-5) of the debris dispersal system, but appears to be silent 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, and wherein: the first set of impeller blades creates a first discharge of air directed through the first radial channel and first discharge conduit; and the second set of impeller blades creates a second discharge of air directed through the second radial channel and second discharge conduit.
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 the blower (see figure 2 annotated below showing the proximal end (Detail A) being operably connected to portions of the blower (via element 147)) and a distal end (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) connected to the nozzle assembly in spaced relation (see figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
778
828
media_image4.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 having a proximal end connected to the blower and a distal end connected to the nozzle assembly in spaced relation. 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.
However, Kowalczyk modified appears to be silent wherein 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 wherein: the first set of impeller blades creates a first discharge of air directed through the first radial channel and first discharge conduit; and the second set of impeller blades creates a second discharge of air directed through the second radial channel and second discharge conduit.
Peters is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-5A and see also col. 3, ll. 27-31) comprising a blower assembly including a blower (elements 2/3) and an engine (element 4), a first discharge conduit (element 7), a second discharge conduit (element 8). Peters further teaches wherein the blower having a radial housing (elements 24/29) with first and second internal radial channels of substantially equal cross-sectional area (see figure 5 showing a first internal radial channel that necessarily extends to the left from the divider plate (element 27) and ending at the discharge port (element 23) and see also figure 5 showing a second internal radial channel that necessarily extends to the right from the divider plate (element 27) and ending at the discharge port (element 30) and also having substantially equal cross-sectional area), a first set of impeller blades (element 25) disposed within the first radial channel (see figure 5 showing element 25 (first set of impeller blades) in between element 27 and 24, thus the first set of impeller blades (element 25) would necessarily be disposed within the first radial channel), and a second set of impeller blades (element 28) disposed within the second radial channel (see figure 5 showing element 28 (second set of impeller blades) in between element 27 and 29, thus the second set of impeller blades (element 28) would necessarily be 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 (axis that necessary goes through element 26) and wherein: the first set of impeller blades creates a first discharge of air directed through the first radial channel and first discharge conduit (see col. 4, ll. 32 where the prior art discloses element 24 as “right blower housing” (portion of the radial housing), see also col. 4, ll. 15-16 where the prior art discloses element 3 as “right side housing assembly”, and see figure 2 showing element 3 being connected to the first discharge conduit (element 7) in order to for air to exit (discharge) from element 11. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the first set of impeller blades (element 25) which are well known in the art to create a discharge of air and being operably connected within the first radial channel which is connected to the first discharge conduit, thus the prior art would be capable of having the first set of impeller blades creates a first discharge of air directed through the first radial channel and first discharge conduit, as recited.); and the second set of impeller blades creates a second discharge of air directed through the second radial channel and second discharge conduit (see col. 4, ll. 34 where the prior art discloses element 29 as “left blower housing” (portion of the radial housing), see also col. 4, ll. 15 where the prior art discloses element 2 as “left side housing assembly”, and see figure 1 showing element 2 being connected to the second discharge conduit (element 8) in order to for air to exit (discharge) from element 12. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second set of impeller blades (element 28) which are well known in the art to create a discharge of air and being operably connected within the second radial channel which is connected to the second discharge conduit, thus the prior art would be capable of having the second set of impeller blades creates a second discharge of air directed through the second radial channel and second discharge conduit, 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 further modified Kowalczyk with the teachings of Peters to provide 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 wherein: the first set of impeller blades creates a first discharge of air directed through the first radial channel and first discharge conduit; and the second set of impeller blades creates a second discharge of air directed through the second radial channel and second discharge conduit. 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 26, Kowalczyk modified discloses: the debris dispersal system as in Claim 21, wherein the first set of impeller blades and second set of impeller blades are mounted on a common shaft (see prior art of Peters, element 26).
Claims 22 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 Peters (US Patent No. 7,600,290) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Syracuse (US Pub. No. 2007/0199175).
Regarding claim 22, Kowalczyk modified discloses: the debris dispersal system as in Claim 21, further comprising a mower mounting assembly (element 13) securable to the vehicle (element 11).
However, Kowalczyk appears to be silent wherein the mower mounting assembly is pivotally connected to the frame.
Syracuse is also concern in providing a debris dispersal system (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0025) comprising a frame (elements 16), a mower mounting bracket (elements 46a/46b), and wherein the mower mounting assembly is pivotally connected to the frame (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 (frame)).
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 mower mounting assembly is pivotally connected to the frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a known pivotal mechanical connecting between the mounting bracket and frame would necessarily enable controlled rotational movement around an axis, thus increasing the range of motion of the system.
Claims 23 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 Peters (US Patent No. 7,600,290) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hall (US Pub. No. 2020/0120881).
Regarding claim 23, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 21, 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.
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.
Claims 24 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 Peters (US Patent No. 7,600,290) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tadashige (JPH04134531).
Regarding claim 24, Kowalczyk modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 21 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 at least one nozzle of the nozzle assembly comprises first and second nozzles, and wherein the first set of impeller blades advances pressurized air through the first nozzle; and the second set of impeller blades advances pressurized air through the second nozzle.
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 wherein the at least one nozzle of the nozzle assembly comprises first and second 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 advancing pressurized air would necessarily allow the user to treat multiple different surface areas during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the system. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill will understand that the reference as modified contains the same elements which would therefore be capable of having the first set of impeller blades would necessarily advances pressurized air through the first nozzle and the second set of impeller blades would necessarily advances pressurized air through the second nozzle, as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-14 of the “Remarks”, the applicant argues the rejections of claims 1 and 11, specifically:
In rejecting Claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner acknowledges that Kowalczyk, the primary reference, is silent on (i.e. does not disclose) the elongated nozzle suspended below the platform. Without identifying this configuration in any prior art, the examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging the elongate nozzle to be suspended below the platform would necessarily provide predictable result of directing pressurize air form the blower assembly to a desired surface with a citation to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Applicant respectfully submits that suspending the elongated nozzle below the platform does modify the operation of the device relative to the prior art. By suspending the nozzle from the platform supporting the blower assembly which is pivotally connected to a mower mounting bracket securable to a frame member of the riding mower versus the tow behind trailer assemblies or configurations shown in Fig. 1 of Kowalczyk and Syracuse, the nozzle may be positioned closer to the mower and the nozzle follows the same path of a mower to which it is mounted whereas the nozzle mounted on a trailer towed behind a mower or the like, such as shown in Fig. 1 of Kowalczyk will not follow the exact path of the mower through any turns as the trailer will track inward toward the inside of the turn of the towing vehicle or mower. Spacing the nozzle closer to the mower and following the same path of the mower should result in better dispersal of the clippings left behind the mower.
By connecting the platform from which the nozzle is suspended to a mower mounting bracket that is securable to a frame member of the riding mower versus mounting the nozzle on a trailer, use of the debris dispersal system is facilitated as the operator does not have to worry about jackknifing of a trailer when operating the mower or vehicle in reverse. In addition, many mowers do not have a hitch ball or other towing feature to which a trailer may be connected. To use a trailer mounted debris dispersal system, an operator may have to pull such a debris blower behind a separate tractor or the like requiring a second pass over the previously cut grass to disperse the clumps of grass generated by the mower.
In addition, by suspending the nozzle below the platform on which the blower assembly is supported, the discharge conduit connecting the nozzle to the blower may be of a fixed length. In Kowalczyk and Syracuse, where the pressurized air outlet assemblies, i.e. air knife 50 of Kowalczyk and blower attachment housing 19 of Syracuse are pivotally connected to and towed behind the respective blower and motor assemblies (24 and 26 of Kowalczyk and 35 of Syracuse), a flexible conduit, such as flex hose 34 of Kowalczyk and flexible tubing 74 of Syracuse, is required for connecting the pressurized air outlet assembly to the blower and motor assembly. No such flexible conduit is required for the claimed configuration.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the arguments of suspending the elongated nozzle below the platform does modify the operation of the device relative to the prior art. The applicant is relying on not positively recited structure (i.e. mower mounting securable to a frame member of the riding mower versus the tow behind trailer assemblies or configurations shown in Fig. 1 of Kowalczyk and Syracuse) in order demonstrate that suspending the elongated nozzle below the platform does modify the operation of the device relative to the prior art. Therefore, arguments are merely conclusionary and has not demonstrated or provided evidence in how the prior art would not be capable of continuing to function of directing pressurized air from the blower assembly to a desired surface. Thus, arguments are found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 15-18 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights