Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the response to this Office action, the Office respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Office in prosecuting this application.
The Office has cited particular figures, elements, paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the Office.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
- Applicant’s Amendment filed February 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
- Claim(s) 1, 14, 15, 19 is/are amended
- Claim(s) 12-13 is/are canceled
- Claim(s) 1-11, 14-20 is/are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al, A design rationale for safer terrain park jumps that limit equivalent fall height, September 1, 2015, pages 227-239 (provided on IDS dated November 8, 2022) in view of Joe Pasteris, Understanding Different Types of Skiing, REI Coop Expert Advice February 7, 2018 and FIS Press Release, August 21, 2013 .
Consider claim 1, Levy teaches a jumping structure (see Levy page 229, figure 1) comprising: a ramp made with snow and comprising a transition zone (see Levy figure 1, approach, approach-takeoff transition), and
a take-off zone defined by a take-off angle at a take-off point of the take-off zone (see Levy figure 1, takeoff, takeoff point and page 230, second column where ΘT takeoff angle, page 231, figure 2 description where ΘT=18⁰); and
a landing zone made with snow and comprising a first zone (see Levy figure 1, landing area) and a second zone (see Levy figure 1 landing transition),
wherein the first zone defines a plurality of variable slopes along a riding direction (see Levy figure 6 for example where an entire infinite family of curves are illustrated as small dots corresponding to possible constant EFH landing surfaces
with the desired EFH features),
Levy does not specifically disclose the first zone comprises a plurality of segments aligned along the riding direction, each segment extending a length along a dimension, wherein the length along the dimension of each segment is at least one of different from the length along the dimension of of a previous segment relative to the riding direction and different from the length along the dimension of a following segment relative to the riding direction, and
the plurality of segments comprise:
a first group of segments, wherein the dimension of each segment of the first group of segments is at least one of: smaller than the dimension of the previous segment relative to the riding direction and greater than the dimension of the following segment relative to that segment along the riding direction, and
a second group of segments, wherein the dimension of each segment of the second group of segments is at least one of: greater than the dimension of the previous segment relative to that segment along the riding direction and smaller than the dimension of the following segment relative to that segment along the riding direction.
In a related field of endeavor, Pasteris teaches different types of skiing including freestyle skiing which includes multiple different jumps and aerial maneuvers (see Pasteris Freestyle skiing). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Levy to have incorporated multiple different feature types of jumps having varied dimensions so as to facilitate freestyle skiing structures having varied jump features.
Also in a related field of endeavor, FIS Press Release disclosed the design of the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games slopestyle course as having three jumps that get progressively bigger along its 635 meter length.
PNG
media_image1.png
982
1840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill, without inventive inspiration, with benefit of Levy, FIS and Pasteris teachings would have been motivated to modify Levy to have incorporated multiple different feature types of jumps having varied lengths relative to adjacent segments of a course so as to facilitate freestyle skiing structures having varied jump features with varied dimensions as disclosed by FIS with respect to the design of the slopestyle course using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 3, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first zone defines a variable slope that increases along the riding direction (see Levy figure 6 for example where an entire infinite family of curves are illustrated as small dots corresponding to possible constant EFH landing surfaces with the desired EFH features and figure 1 where in the travel direction the slope increase down to run-out region).
Consider claim 4, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein one of: a start point of the first zone, relative to the riding direction, is at a same altitude as the take-off point, and a difference in altitudes between the start point of the first zone and the take-off point is no more than one meter (see Levy figure 6 showing maximum jump height of 3.8 meters and the difference between take-off point and start of the calculated constant EFH Landing surface being approximately 4 times smaller means it is less than 1 meter and page 235, second column where (' is the vertical distance between the present location on the design speed jumper path !. at the start of the transition) and the parent slope. This ensures that the constant EFH landing surface and transition surface are position continuous.).
Consider claim 5, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first zone has a curved profile along the riding direction (see Levy figure 1, Constant EFH Landing Surface).
Consider claim 7, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first zone of the landing zone has a length in a range of 14 meters to 22 meters (see Levy figure 6 showing a maximum jump length of 29.5 meters and figure 2 showing horizontal distance relative to vertical distance along safe surfaces where landing occurs on landing area of most of the safe surface options just beyond 14 meters and prior to 20 meters. therefore, the recited length of a first zone would fall within the recited range).
Consider claim 8, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches further comprising a table comprising a hillock and a knuckle zone arranged between the take-off zone and the landing zone (see Levy figure 1, curved portion between takeoff point and landing transition), wherein the table extends for a length in a range of 10 meters to 24 meters (see Levy figure 2, horizontal distance and intersection of safe surfaces with design speed jumper path; figure 5, horizontal distance and intersection of design speed jumper path safe surfaces and landing transition. Where curved portion between takeoff point and landing transition falls within the recited range of 10-24 meters).
Consider claim 9, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches further comprising a starting area defining a first portion having a first slope relative to the riding direction (see Levy figure 1, Approach) and a second portion following the first portion relative to the riding direction which has a second slope less than the first slope (see Levy figure 1, Approach-Takeoff transition).
Consider claim 10, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches further comprising an exit zone located after the landing zone with respect to the riding direction (see Levy figure 1, Landing transition, Run-out).
Consider claim 11, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein each segment if the first zone defines a different slope than a previous segment relative to the riding direction and a following segment relative to the riding direction (see Levy figure 2 where multiple safe surfaces are illustrated and Pasteris Freestyle skiing where incorporation of different level of safe surfaces for each segment would provide different jump features for freestyle skiing).
Consider claim 14, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches a jump slope comprising: a first jumping structure (see Levy page 229, figure 1 and Pasteris Freestyle skiing) comprising: a first ramp made with snow and comprising a first transition zone (see Levy figure 1, approach, approach-takeoff transition), and
a first take-off zone defined by a first take-off angle at a first take-off point of the first take-off zone (see Levy figure 1, takeoff, takeoff point and page 230, second column where ΘT takeoff angle, page 231, figure 2 description where ΘT=18⁰); and
a first landing zone made with snow and comprising a first zone (see Levy figure 1, landing area) and a second zone (see Levy figure 1 landing transition),
wherein the first zone defines a first plurality of variable slopes along a first riding direction (see Levy figure 6 for example where an entire infinite family of curves are illustrated as small dots corresponding to possible constant EFH landing surfaces with the desired EFH features);
the first zone comprises a plurality of segments aligned along the riding direction, each segment extending a length along a dimension, wherein the length along the dimension of each segment is at least one of different from the length along the dimension of a previous segment relative to the riding direction and different from the length along the dimension of a following segment relative to the riding direction, and the plurality of segments comprise: a first group of segments, wherein the dimension of each segment of the first group of segments is at least one of: smaller than the dimension of the previous segment relative to that segment along the riding direction and greater than the dimension of the following segment relative to that segment along the riding direction, and a second group of segments, wherein for each segment the dimension of each segment of the second group of segments is at least one of: greater than the dimension of the previous segment relative to that segment along the riding direction, and smaller than the dimension of the following segment relative to that segment along the riding direction (see Levy figure 2 where multiple safe surfaces are illustrated and Pasteris Freestyle skiing where incorporation of different levels of safe surfaces for each segment would provide different jump features for freestyle skiing); and
a second jumping structure (see Levy page 229, figure 1 and Pasteris Freestyle skiing) comprising: a second ramp made with snow and comprising a second transition zone (see Levy figure 1, approach, approach-takeoff transition), and
a second take-off zone defined by a second take-off angle at a second take-off point of the second take- off zone (see Levy figure 1, takeoff, takeoff point and page 230, second column where ΘT takeoff angle, page 231, figure 2 description where ΘT=18⁰ and page 236 first column where software is programmed to limit the potential for unrealistic jump designs or other abuses of the design method by systematically guiding the user through the design process and limiting all user-entered parameters to commonly accepted, reasonable ranges); and
a second landing zone made with snow and comprising a third zone (see Levy figure 1, landing area) and a fourth zone (see Levy figure 1 landing transition),
wherein the third zone defines a second plurality of variable slopes along a second riding direction (see Levy figure 6 for example where an entire infinite family of curves are illustrated as small dots corresponding to possible constant EFH landing surfaces with the desired EFH features),
wherein a difference in altitudes between a starting point of the first zone of the first jumping structure and the second take-off point of the second jumping structure is within a range of 10 meters to 40 meters (see Levy figure 2, horizontal distance and intersection of safe surfaces with design speed jumper path; figure 5, horizontal distance and intersection of design speed jumper path safe surfaces and landing transition. Where completing a safe jump for different safe surfaces before entering a second jump having a different safe surface would render the recited 10-40 meters obvious in order to provide a freestyle course having multiple successive jumps).
Claim(s) 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al, A design rationale for safer terrain park jumps that limit equivalent fall height, September 1, 2015, pages 227-239 (provided on IDS dated November 8, 2022), Joe Pasteris, Understanding Different Types of Skiing, REI Coop Expert Advice February 7, 2018 and FIS Press Release, August 21, 2013 in view of Ski Jumping Hills, General Description, Maintained by the Ski Jumping Committee, USSA Eastern Division, Feb 15, 1997.
Consider claim 2, Levy as modified by Pasteris and FIS teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Levy does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of variable slopes are each in a range of 25 degrees to 45 degrees.
Close review of description of figure 2 discloses in order to guarantee limited EFH at all speeds up to a design speed, a design speed path must intersect a particular safe landing surface chosen from the infinite family before it interests the parent slope which is disclosed as 18⁰. Further, page 231, first column, lines 33-39 disclose “The boundary conditions for these five landing surfaces were chosen to lie equally spaced along the parent slope. and the one for the lowest lies where the design speed jumper path intersects the parent slope”.
In a related field of endeavor, Ski Jump Hills teaches inrun (parent slope) has an angle of 28-36 degrees (see Ski Jump Hills page 2 first paragraph). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have selected an angle of 28-36 degrees instead of 18 degrees so as to design safe landing surface for different common ski jump hills using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 6, Levy as modified by Pasteris, FIS and Ski Jump Hills teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the take-off angle at the take-off point is in a range of 32 degrees to 43 degrees (see Levy figure 6, take off angle 21.1 and page 236 first column where software is programmed to limit the potential for unrealistic jump designs or other abuses of the design method by systematically guiding the user through the design process and limiting all user-entered parameters to commonly accepted, reasonable ranges and Ski Jump Hills where inrun has an angle of 28-36 degrees and take off is angled downward at 7 to 12 degrees resulting in the recited range).
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al, A design rationale for safer terrain park jumps that limit equivalent fall height, September 1, 2015, pages 227-239 (provided on IDS dated November 8, 2022) in view of Joe Pasteris, FIS Press Release, August 21, 2013 , Understanding Different Types of Skiing, REI Coop Expert Advice February 7, 2018 and Kirchmair et al, International Patent Publication No. WO2020104860.
Consider claim 15, Levy teaches a method of making a jumping structure (see Levy page 229, figure 1) comprising:
a take-off zone defined by a take-off angle at a take-off point of the take-off zone (see Levy figure 1, takeoff, takeoff point and page 230, second column where ΘT takeoff angle, page 231, figure 2 description where ΘT=18⁰), and
a landing zone comprising a first zone (see Levy figure 1, landing area) and a second zone (see Levy figure 1 landing transition),
wherein the first zone defines a plurality of variable slopes along a riding direction (see Levy figure 6 for example where an entire infinite family of curves are illustrated as small dots corresponding to possible constant EFH landing surfaces
with the desired EFH features);
Levy does not specifically disclose the first zone comprises a plurality of segments aligned along the riding direction, each segment extending a length along a dimension, wherein the length along the dimension of each segment is at least one of different from the length along the dimension of a previous segment relative to the riding direction and different from the length along the dimension of a following segment relative to the riding direction, and
the plurality of segments comprise:
a first group of segments, wherein the dimension of each segment of the first group of segments is at least one of: smaller than the dimension of the previous segment relative to that segment along the riding direction, and greater than the dimension of the following segment relative to the riding direction, and
a second group of segments, wherein the dimension of each segment is at least one of: greater than the dimension of the previous segment relative to that segment along the riding direction and smaller than the dimension of the following segment relative to that segment along the riding direction.
In a related field of endeavor, Pasteris teaches different types of skiing including freestyle skiing which includes multiple different jumps and aerial maneuvers (see Pasteris Freestyle skiing). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Levy to have incorporated multiple different feature types of jumps having varied dimensions so as to facilitate freestyle skiing structures having varied jump features.
Also in a related field of endeavor, FIS Press Release disclosed the design of the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games slopestyle course as having three jumps that get progressively bigger along its 635 meter length.
PNG
media_image1.png
982
1840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill, without inventive inspiration, with benefit of Levy, FIS and Pasteris teachings would have been motivated to modify Levy to have incorporated multiple different feature types of jumps having varied lengths relative to adjacent segments of a course so as to facilitate freestyle skiing structures having varied jump features with varied dimensions as disclosed by FIS with respect to the design of the slopestyle course using known techniques with predictable results.
Levy is silent regarding shaping snow with a snow working tool of a snow groomer vehicle. In a related field of endeavor, Kirchmair teaches a snow groomer vehicle for preparing ski slopes and snow parks (see Kirchmair figure 1, element 1 snow groomer and page 1, line 10-page 3, line 5 where it is known, the preparation of ski slopes requires an ever increasing care, both for safety reasons and because modern skiing equipments can be better exploited on regular surfaces, without marked irregularities and with a snowpack that is as homogeneous as possible. Moreover, many ski resorts now offer skiers the use of so-called snowparks, namely limited and restricted areas provided with structures dedicated to the execution of tricks, such as kicker and landing ramps with different configurations and degrees of difficulties, with bumps, boxes, rails, half-pipes and so on. The snowpack is processed by snow groomer vehicles, which are equipped with tools designed for this purpose. In particular, a snow groomer vehicle usually comprises a front mounted shovel or dozer blade as well as a rear tiller and finisher. The blade can be lifted, lowered and oriented so as to move a desired amount of snow, which, by so doing, can be removed, accumulated, distributed and shaped depending on the needs. The rear tool with tiller and finisher, on the other hand, allows users to obtain the desired finishing of the surface of the snowpack).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have utilized a snow groomer vehicle so as to process snowpack as necessary so as to form Levy’s ski jumping structure using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 16, Levy as modified by Pasteris, FIS and Kirchmair teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and further teaches further comprising: detecting geographic coordinates of the snow groomer vehicle (see Kirchmair page 12, line 18-page 13, line 19 where satellite navigation device 13, for example a GNSS ("Global Navigation Satellite System") device, is configured to determine, with a precision in the order of magnitude of centimetres, its position and three- dimensional orientation and, as a consequence, the position and three-dimensional orientation of the snow groomer vehicle 1. The satellite navigation system 13 basically allows operators to determine longitude LG, latitude LT and height from the ground H, besides the direction of a reference axis (figure 4) . The height from the ground H corresponds to the thickness of the snowpack at the coordinates of the satellite navigation system 13 and of the snow groomer vehicle 1. The height from the ground H, in particular, may be determined from the difference between a height detected by the satellite navigation device 13 and a height from the ground defined by a reference map M.sub.R at a corresponding longitude LG and latitude LT . The reference map M.sub.R may be obtained using the satellite navigation device 13 in the absence of snow and may be stored in the satellite navigation system 13 or in the control system 15. In the first case, the height from the ground H is directly provided by the satellite navigation system 13; in the second case, the satellite navigation system 13 may provide a height relative to a reference height (for example, the sea level) and the height from the round H is determined by the control system 15 using the reference map M.sub.R.); and
forming at least one of the take-off zone and the landing zone by acting on a parameter of the snow working tool based on the detected geographic coordinates (see Levy figure 1 and Kirchmair page 12, line 18-page 13, line 19 where for example satellite navigation device 13, for example a GNSS ("Global Navigation Satellite System") device, is configured to determine, with a precision in the order of magnitude of centimetres, its position and three- dimensional orientation and, as a consequence, the position and three-dimensional orientation of the snow groomer vehicle 1and height from the ground H corresponds to the thickness of the snowpack at the coordinates of the satellite navigation system 13 and of the snow groomer vehicle 1 may correspond to recited features).
Consider claim 17, Levy as modified by Pasteris, FIS and Kirchmair teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches further comprising controlling the parameter of the snow working tool based on the detected geographic coordinates and parameter values coupled to geographic coordinate values stored in a memory of a snow groomer vehicle control unit (see Kirchmair page 16, line 15-page 17, line 13 where processing unit 30 is configured to determine an ideal position of the using devices, in particular of the blade 8, and to operate (among others) the actuators 25-28 of the blade 8 based on target maps MTI, ..., MTN stored in the memory device 31 and representing desired surfaces to be obtained from the processing of the snowpack).
Consider claim 18, Levy as modified by Pasteris, FIS and Kirchmair teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches further comprising: detecting a snow depth at a location of the snow grooming vehicle, and forming at least one of the take-off zone and the landing zone by acting on the parameter of the snow working tool based on at least one of the detected snow depth, the detected geographic coordinates and stored instructions related to working parameters of the parameter of the snow working tool coupled to at least one of snow depth values and geographic coordinate values (see Levy figure 1 and Kirchmair page 12, line 18-page 13, line 19 where for example satellite navigation device 13, for example a GNSS ("Global Navigation Satellite System") device, is configured to determine, with a precision in the order of magnitude of centimetres, its position and three- dimensional orientation and, as a consequence, the position and three-dimensional orientation of the snow groomer vehicle 1and height from the ground H corresponds to the thickness of the snowpack at the coordinates of the satellite navigation system 13 and of the snow groomer vehicle 1 may correspond to recited features and page 16, line 15-page 17, line 13 where processing unit 30 is configured to determine an ideal position of the using devices, in particular of the blade 8, and to operate (among others) the actuators 25-28 of the blade 8 based on target maps MTI, ..., MTN stored in the memory device 31 and representing desired surfaces to be obtained from the processing of the snowpack).
Consider claim 19, Levy as modified by Pasteris, FIS and Kirchmair teaches a method of making a jump structure (see Kirchmair figure 1, element 1 snow groomer and page 1, line 10-page 3, line 5 where it is known, the preparation of ski slopes requires an ever increasing care, both for safety reasons and because modern skiing equipments can be better exploited on regular surfaces, without marked irregularities and with a snowpack that is as homogeneous as possible. Moreover, many ski resorts now offer skiers the use of so-called snowparks, namely limited and restricted areas provided with structures dedicated to the execution of tricks, such as kicker and landing ramps with different configurations and degrees of difficulties, with bumps, boxes, rails, half-pipes and so on. The snowpack is processed by snow groomer vehicles, which are equipped with tools designed for this purpose. In particular, a snow groomer vehicle usually comprises a front mounted shovel or dozer blade as well as a rear tiller and finisher. The blade can be lifted, lowered and oriented so as to move a desired amount of snow, which, by so doing, can be removed, accumulated, distributed and shaped depending on the needs. The rear tool with tiller and finisher, on the other hand, allows users to obtain the desired finishing of the surface of the snowpack) configured to be ridden along a riding direction (see Levy page 229, figure 1), the method comprising: making a ramp comprising a transition zone (see Levy figure 1, approach, approach-takeoff transition), and
a take-off zone defined by a take-off angle at a take-off point of the take-off zone (see Levy figure 1, takeoff, takeoff point and page 230, second column where ΘT takeoff angle, page 231, figure 2 description where ΘT=18⁰); and
making a landing zone comprising a first zone (see Levy figure 1, landing area) and a second zone (see Levy figure 1 landing transition),
wherein the first zone defines a plurality of variable slopes along the riding direction (see Levy figure 6 for example where an entire infinite family of curves are illustrated as small dots corresponding to possible constant EFH landing surfaces with the desired EFH features),
the first zone comprises a plurality of segments aligned along the riding direction, each segment extending a length along a dimension, wherein the length along the dimension of each segment is at least one of different from the length along the dimension of at least one of a previous segment relative to the riding direction and different from the length along the dimension of a following segment relative to the riding direction, and the plurality of segments comprise: a first group of segments, wherein each segment of the first group of segments is at least one of: smaller than the dimension of the previous segment relative to that segment along the riding direction and greater than the dimension of the following segment relative to that segment along the riding direction, and a second group of segments, each segment of the second group of segments is at least one of: greater than the dimension of the previous segment relative to that segment along the riding direction and smaller than the dimension of the following segment relative to that segment along the riding direction (see Levy figure 2 where multiple safe surfaces are illustrated and Pasteris Freestyle skiing where incorporation of different levels of safe surfaces for each segment would provide different jump features for freestyle skiing).
Consider claim 20, Levy as modified by Pasteris, FIS and Kirchmair teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the method is implemented with a snow grooming vehicle and at least one snow working tool of the snow grooming vehicle (see Kirchmair figure 1, element 1 snow groomer and page 1, line 10-page 3, line 5 where it is known, the preparation of ski slopes requires an ever increasing care, both for safety reasons and because modern skiing equipments can be better exploited on regular surfaces, without marked irregularities and with a snowpack that is as homogeneous as possible. Moreover, many ski resorts now offer skiers the use of so-called snowparks, namely limited and restricted areas provided with structures dedicated to the execution of tricks, such as kicker and landing ramps with different configurations and degrees of difficulties, with bumps, boxes, rails, half-pipes and so on. The snowpack is processed by snow groomer vehicles, which are equipped with tools designed for this purpose. In particular, a snow groomer vehicle usually comprises a front mounted shovel or dozer blade as well as a rear tiller and finisher. The blade can be lifted, lowered and oriented so as to move a desired amount of snow, which, by so doing, can be removed, accumulated, distributed and shaped depending on the needs. The rear tool with tiller and finisher, on the other hand, allows users to obtain the desired finishing of the surface of the snowpack).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the rejection above, it is clear that Levy discloses various safer terrain park jumps that limit equivalent fall height. Further, Pasteris teaches various types of skiing including freestyle skiing that can include moguls, jumps and aerial maneuvers. Both are in the same field of endeavor and would be relevant to one of ordinary skill in the skiing art. As articulated above, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have incorporated multiple different feature types of jumps having varied dimensions so as to facilitate freestyle skiing structures having varied jump features. Further as disclosed by FIS, design of the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games slopestyle course as having three jumps that get progressively bigger along its 635 meter length would clearly suggest to one of ordinary skill that selection of various different dimensions to facilitate for example progressively bigger jumps along a course path would fall within usual and ordinary design option selection.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Pasteris cannot disclose the recited features without any disclosure of dimensions, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention the FIS Profile where it is clear to one of ordinary skill that each segment of the slopestyle course utilizes different portions of the 635 meter length.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Toki, JP2001070497 (playing facility for jump for snow sports), Brown, WO2008122821 (artificial ski slope assembly), Northam, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080293506 (hydroplane sporting environment and devices), Sandler et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090040301 (digital pan, tilt and zoom video across large event areas such as ski run), Delgado et al, ES 1076848 (snowboard and ski training jump), Lee et al, KR20130117592 (impact absorption device), Moyerman et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180005129 (predictive classification in action sports), Moyerman et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180001139 (accelerated pattern recognition in action sports), Pedrotti, WO 2023044102 (speed and landing zone management system), Gasser, Standards for the Construction of Jumping Hills – 2012, pages 1-23, Gasser, Construction Norm 2018, Implementing Provisions for Art. 411 of the ICR Ski Jumping, pages 1-11, BMALLON, OlympStats, Nordic Combined, Ski Jumping, Olympic Ski Jumping Hills, January 6, 2014, pages 1-5, Kipp et al, USSA sport education, Course Setting Handbook, 2016, pages 1-43.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dorothy H Harris whose telephone number is (571)270-7539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/Dorothy Harris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625