DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior rejection of claims 5-7 under § 112(b) is herein withdrawn in view of Remarks filed 23 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krejci (US 6,643,958 B1) in view of Slocum et al. (US 5,784,756 A).
CLAIM 1 Krejci ‘958 (“Krejci”) discloses a handheld snow removing system (10) comprising:
an intake scoop (11) comprising a rotating intake auger (36);
a discharge chute (24) configured to direct a flow of material to a point outside of the handheld snow removing system; and
a fan chamber (the chamber between the top of gear 50 and top end 22) disposed between the intake scoop (11) and the discharge chute (24); and
an energy-conversion device (43, 49 and 50, collectively) configured to drive a fan and the rotating intake auger (36).
Krejci fails to teach a fan. Slocum et al. ‘756 (“Slocum”) discloses a debris removing system comprising a fan (15) configured to create a suction force within a fan chamber (16) to create a flow of material from an intake scoop (21b), through the fan chamber, and out through an outlet (“outlet of the fan 16” col. 6, ll. 46-8). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art system (Krejci, 10) with the addition of a fan positioned in the fan chamber (Krejci, chamber between the top of gear 50 and top end 22), as suggested by Slocum. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for accelerating the passage of snow through the discharge chute (Krejci, 24), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 3 In the combination of Krejci and Slocum, Slocum teaches the intake scoop (Slocum, 21b) comprising a flexible front edge (Slocum, col. 6, ll. 30-7) configured to lift material into the intake scoop when the handheld debris removing system is directed along a surface to be cleaned. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front edge (Krejci, 13) of the prior art system, such that it would have comprised a flexible front edge (Slocum, edge of 21b). The motivations for making the modification would have been to protect the front edge from damage and facilitate compliant contact with the ground, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 8 In the combination of Krejci and Slocum, Slocum discloses the interchangeability of a rotating auger and a rotating brush for directing material into a nozzle (Fig. 9; and col. 3, ll. 30-5). It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotating intake auger (Krejci, 36) of the prior art system (Krejci, 10) such that it would have comprised a rotating brush, as suggested by Slocum (Fig. 9; and col. 3, ll. 30-5). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means having relatively less rigidity for producing a sweeping effect on a surface, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 10 In the combination of Krejci and Slocum, the handheld snow removing system (Krejci, 10) is configured to be lifted and operated by an operator using either one or two hands (Krejci, per “lightweight” in col. 2, ll. 16-8; and via handles 31 and 34).
CLAIM 24 In the combination of Krejci and Slocum, a direction of the flow of material out of the discharge chute (Krejci, 24) is adjustable (Krejci, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krejci (US 6,643,958 B1) in view of Slocum et al. (US 5,784,756 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walch et al. (US 5,448,794 A).
CLAIM 2 In the combination of Krejci and Slocum, the energy-conversion device includes a driver (Krejci, Fig. 3, motor 43) and gears (Krejci, 49, 50) coupled to the rotating intake auger (Krejci, 36), wherein the energy-conversion device is configured to drive the fan (Slocum, 16) and the rotating intake auger (Krejci, 36). Krejci fails to teach a singular belt. Walch et al. ‘794 (“Walch”) discloses a handheld vacuum system (10) comprising a fan (74, 90), a rotating intake brush (34), and an energy-conversion device configured to drive the fan and the brush, wherein the energy-conversion device includes a driver (36) and a singular belt (38) coupled to the driver, the fan (directly to 90, indirectly to 74), and the rotating intake brush (34). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a singular belt (Walch, 38) for the gears (Krejci, 49, 50) coupled to the driver (Krejci, 43) and the rotating intake auger (Krejci, 36) in the prior art system, and to have further coupled the belt to the fan (Slocum, 16), as suggested by Walch. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include a cost-efficient and compact art-recognized alternative for driving the fan and the auger, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 5 In the prior art combination, none of references teaches an electric motor with batteries. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art driver (Krejci, 43) such that it would have been embodied as an electric motor comprising one or more batteries, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the same as well-known and suitable for supplying power to hand operated tools. The motivation for making the modification would have been to power the snow removing system by readily available and highly portable means, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 6 In the prior art combination, the driver (Walch, 36) of Walch is an electric motor connected by a cord to an external source of electricity (Walch, col. 6, ll. 38-41). It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art driver (Krejci, 43) such that it would have been embodied as an electric motor connected by a cord to an external source of electricity, as suggested by Walch. The motivation for making the modification would have been to power the snow removing system by readily available, consistent, and exhaust free means, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 7 In the prior art combination, the prior art system (Krejci, 10) comprises a fuel reservoir (Krejci, 44), but the prior art fails to teach expressly gasoline. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the driver (Krejci, 43) a gasoline-powered engine, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the same as well-known in the art of power tools, including snow removing systems. The motivation for making the modification would have been to power the prior art system by readily available means, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13-17, 21 and 26 are allowed.
Claims 22, 23 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 under §103 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 in view of Walch et al. (US 5,448,794 A).
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The combination of Krejci and Slocum, as applied to CLAIM 1.
Applicant argues the fan (Slocum, 15) of Slocum is not combinable with the system of Krejci because (a) it is centrifugal, and (b) Slocum teaches against “extra duct work” (Slocum, col. 6, ll. 46-9). The examiner disagrees because the prior art combination does not include a centrifugal fan, specifically. Rather, the prior art is relied upon for its teaching of device configured to create a suction force within a fan chamber (Slocum, 16) to create a flow of material from an intake scoop (Slocum, 21b), through the fan chamber, and out through an outlet (Slocum, “outlet of the fan 16” col. 6, ll. 46-8). No specific fan type is required by claim 1, nor has a specific type been relied upon in the obviousness rejection. Additionally, the examiner contends that placement of a fan in the fan chamber (Krejci, Fig. 3, the chamber between the top of gear 50 and top end 22) would have minimized the use of unnecessary duct work, consistent with the teachings of Slocum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
20 February 2026