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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/24/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the detection of data from sensors, comparison of data, and determination of a position of the snow grooming vehicle are not mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The detection, comparison, and determination of a position can all be done mentally. A person is able to look at a surrounding of a snow grooming vehicle and a map, compare these two visuals, and roughly determine the position of the snow grooming vehicle in his mind.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a practical application of an improvement to the field of snow vehicle localization. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although it may be true that the invention is an improvement to the field of snow vehicle localization, a judicial exception cannot provide the improvement MPEP (2106.05a). In this case, the judicial exception is the steps to determine the position of the vehicle.
The 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant argues that Betz does not teach determining the position of the piste grooming vehicle and comparing data. However, the combination of Rohani with Betz teaches these limitations (see rejection below). Rohani teaches determining the position and comparing data of a vehicle, while Betz teaches the vehicle of Rohani can be a piste grooming vehicle.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
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 1-2, 4-7, and 10-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, 12, 14, 16, and 17, these claims recite “a position of the at least one reference element” twice. It is unclear if the second recitation refers back to the first recitation, or the second recitation is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a position of the at least one reference element”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second recitation of “a position of the at least one reference element” to mean any position of the at least one reference element.
Regarding claims 2, 4-7, 10-11, 13, 15, and 18, these claims depend from one of claims 1, 12, 14, and 17 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as one of claims 1, 12, 14, and 17 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of one of claims 1, 12, 14, and 17 noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12, and 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 17 recites “A snow grooming vehicle configured to move within a working region, the snow grooming vehicle comprising:
a location device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store a reference model of the working region comprising reference data relating to at least one reference element of the working region, wherein the at least one reference element is at least part of a physical object visible from within the working region and is at least partially covered by snowpack and the reference data comprises a position and a conformation of the at least one reference element, and
at least one sensor selected from a group of: a lidar, a radar, a camera, a video camera, a thermal camera, and a proximity sensor, the at least one sensor being configured to detect data relating to an area of the working region surrounding the snow grooming vehicle,
the location device being configured to:
compare the data detected by the at least one sensor with the reference data to verify whether at least a part of the data detected by the at least one sensor corresponds to at least a part of the reference data, wherein the comparison comprises seeking correspondences between a conformation of the area of the working region surrounding the snow grooming vehicle and the conformation of the at least one reference element, and
determine a position of the snow grooming vehicle within the working region based on the comparison between the data detected by the at least one sensor and the reference data and based on a position of the at least one reference element and at least a part of the area of the working region surrounding the snow grooming vehicle having a conformation corresponding to the conformation of the at least one reference element”.
The limitation of storing a reference model of the working region, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a memory, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the memory storing in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of memorizing a reference model of the working region and reference elements in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of detecting data relating to an area of the working region, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a sensor, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the sensor detecting in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of observing a surrounding region and detecting data in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of comparing the data detected by the at least one sensor with the reference data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a “location device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the location device “comparing data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of comparing two pieces of data in his mind. For example, the location device “comparing data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking about and comparing data from a sensor with reference data such as from a map. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of determining a position, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a “location device”, nothing in the claim precludes the determining from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a “location device” language, the claim encompasses the user thinking and determining a position of the vehicle based on looking at sensor data and reference data such as a map. Thus, this limitation is also a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a memory to store a reference model, sensors to detect data, and a location device to perform comparing data and determining a position. The memory, sensors, and location device in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic memories, sensors, and devices performing a generic computer function of storing, detecting, comparing, and determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a snow grooming vehicle, a sensor, a lidar, a radar, a camera, a video camera, a thermal camera, and a proximity sensor, a location device, and a memory amount to generic computer components. The claim recites acquiring a reference model. This task amounts to extra-solution activity in the form of data transmission and receiving, which are well understood, routine, and conventional functions and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10-11, 13, and 18 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a magnetic proximity sensor and an ultrasonic proximity sensor, which amount to generic computer components. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 17.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of the snow grooming vehicle based on the determined position of the vehicle. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Also, please note claims 14-15 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims recite a practical application of controlling a vehicle based on a location of the vehicle and a height of the snowpack.
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 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 1-2, 4-7, 10, and 12-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohani (US 20170307746 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Betz (US 20240150982 A1, cited in a previous office action) and Oyama (US 11370425 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Rohani teaches a method for locating a
acquiring a reference model of the working region comprising reference data relating to the at least one reference element (Rohani - Paragraphs 0009, 0037, 0047-0051, 0056) Reference model is mapped to digital map 130 or reference map
wherein the at least one reference element is at least part of a physical object visible from within the working region (Rohani - Paragraphs 0040-0041, 0047-0051, 0065) “vision system 106 may indicate that at the time of the data conflict a snow storm was occurring. As LIDAR systems and vision systems tend to be more adversely affected by snow than radar systems”
and the reference data comprises a position and a conformation of the at least one reference element (Rohani - Paragraphs 0046-0051) “a depth map that generically specifies object shapes… identifies specific object types, locations and a set of detailed object attributes”
detecting, via at least one sensor of the
comparing the data detected by the at least one sensor with the reference data to verify whether at least a part of the data detected by the at least one sensor corresponds to at least a part of the reference data (Rohani - Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0056)
wherein comparing the data detected by the at least one sensor with the reference data comprises seeking correspondences between a conformation of the area of the working region surrounding the
and determining a position of the
and based on a position of the at least one reference element and at least a part of the area of the working region surrounding the
Rohani does not teach a snow grooming vehicle.
However, Betz teaches a snow grooming vehicle (Betz - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0029, Fig. 2) “a piste grooming vehicle 1 is provided in the form of a piste groomer for grooming a ski piste or snowboard piste”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with a snow grooming vehicle of Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is important to maintain a certain snow depth on a piste. A snow grooming vehicle can do this with piste grooming devices such as a snow blower and a smoothing device, and a target map. One would have been motivated to combine Rohani with Betz as this achieves a snow groomer for improving the quality of the piste. As stated in Betz, “As a result, the piste grooming device can, as it were, be actuated in a predictive fashion and ultimately piste grooming which is improved with respect to the quality of the piste can be achieved” (Paragraph 0005).
Rohani does not teach a reference element partially covered by snowpack.
However, Oyama teaches a reference element is at least partially covered by snowpack (Oyama - Col. 11 Line 8 – Col. 11 Line 54) “the snow accumulation… a snow pole, a road sign, or a traffic signal”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with a reference element at least partially covered by snowpack of Oyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Rohani and Oyama are both in the field of determining vehicle positions. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows the vehicle to estimate its position within its environment (Oyama - Col. 11 Line 26 – Col. 11 Line 54).
Regarding claim 2, Rohani discloses the reference model comprises characterization data relating to a three-dimensional characterization of soil (Paragraph 0050-0052);
and the reference data relates to the at least one reference element of the working region (Paragraphs 0009, 0047-0051).
Regarding claim 4, Rohani discloses the data detected by the at least one sensor comprises the conformation of the area of the working region surrounding the
Rohani does not teach the snow grooming vehicle.
However, Betz teaches the snow grooming vehicle (Betz - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0029, Fig. 2) “a piste grooming vehicle 1 is provided in the form of a piste groomer for grooming a ski piste or snowboard piste”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with a snow grooming vehicle of Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is important to maintain a certain snow depth on a piste. A snow grooming vehicle can do this with piste grooming devices such as a snow blower and a smoothing device, and a target map. One would have been motivated to combine Rohani with Betz as this achieves a snow groomer for improving the quality of the piste. As stated in Betz, “As a result, the piste grooming device can, as it were, be actuated in a predictive fashion and ultimately piste grooming which is improved with respect to the quality of the piste can be achieved” (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 5, Rohani discloses acquiring the reference model of the working region comprises three-dimensionally scanning the working region (Paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0052-0056).
Regarding claim 6, Rohani discloses acquiring the reference model of the working region comprises three-dimensionally modelling the working region (Paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0052-0056).
Regarding claim 7, Rohani discloses detecting, via the at least one sensor of the
Rohani does not teach the snow grooming vehicle.
However, Betz teaches the snow grooming vehicle (Betz - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0029, Fig. 2) “a piste grooming vehicle 1 is provided in the form of a piste groomer for grooming a ski piste or snowboard piste”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with a snow grooming vehicle of Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is important to maintain a certain snow depth on a piste. A snow grooming vehicle can do this with piste grooming devices such as a snow blower and a smoothing device, and a target map. One would have been motivated to combine Rohani with Betz as this achieves a snow groomer for improving the quality of the piste. As stated in Betz, “As a result, the piste grooming device can, as it were, be actuated in a predictive fashion and ultimately piste grooming which is improved with respect to the quality of the piste can be achieved” (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 10, Rohani discloses the at least one sensor is selected from a group comprising: a lidar, a radar, a camera, a video camera, a thermal camera, and a proximity sensor (Paragraphs 0029, 0033-0034, 0056).
Regarding claim 12, Rohani does not specifically state a method for determining a height of a snowpack within a working region of a snow grooming vehicle, the method comprising; and comparing the position of the snow grooming vehicle with the reference model.
However, Betz teaches a method for determining a height of a snowpack within a working region of a snow grooming vehicle, the method comprising (Paragraph 0012, 0036-0038);
and comparing the position of the snow grooming vehicle with the reference model (Paragraph 0012, 0036-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with determining a height of a snowpack by comparing the position of the snow grooming vehicle with the reference model of Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is necessary to determine the depth of a snowpack on a piste in order to have a vehicle maintain the piste. A snow groomer is able to compare the position of the vehicle with the reference topography to determine a snow depth differential value and actuate the vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Rohani with Betz as this achieves improving the control of the snow groomer and quality of the piste. As stated in Betz, “As a result, the piste grooming device can, as it were, be actuated in a predictive fashion and ultimately piste grooming which is improved with respect to the quality of the piste can be achieved” (Paragraph 0005).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in claim 12 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, Rohani discloses a position of the vehicle.
Rohani does not specifically state comparing the position of the snow grooming vehicle with the reference model comprises calculating a difference between an altitude of the snow grooming vehicle and an altitude of the reference model.
However, Betz teaches comparing the position of the snow grooming vehicle with the reference model comprises calculating a difference between an altitude of the snow grooming vehicle and an altitude of the reference model (Paragraph 0012, 0036-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with the comparing comprising calculating a difference between an altitude of the snow grooming vehicle and an altitude of the reference model of Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is necessary to determine the depth of a snowpack on a piste in order to have a vehicle maintain the piste. A snow groomer is able to compare coordinates of the vehicle with the coordinates of the reference topography to determine a snow depth differential value and actuate the vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Rohani with Betz as this achieves improving the control of the snow groomer and quality of the piste. As stated in Betz, “As a result, the piste grooming device can, as it were, be actuated in a predictive fashion and ultimately piste grooming which is improved with respect to the quality of the piste can be achieved” (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 16, Rohani discloses a
a location device configured to locate the
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The vehicle taught/disclosed in claim 16 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Rohani discloses a
a location device comprising (Paragraphs 0027, 0037, Fig. 1; Location device is mapped to localization system 100);
at least one memory configured to store a reference model of the working region comprising reference data relating to at least one reference element of the working region (Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0044, 0059, Fig. 1);
wherein the at least one reference element is at least part of a physical object visible from within the working region (Rohani - Paragraphs 0040-0041, 0047-0051, 0065) “vision system 106 may indicate that at the time of the data conflict a snow storm was occurring. As LIDAR systems and vision systems tend to be more adversely affected by snow than radar systems”
and the reference data comprises a position and a conformation of the at least one reference element (Rohani - Paragraphs 0046-0051) “a depth map that generically specifies object shapes… identifies specific object types, locations and a set of detailed object attributes”
and at least one sensor selected from a group of: a lidar, a radar, a camera, a video camera, a thermal camera, and a proximity sensor, the at least one sensor being configured to detect data relating to an area of the working region surrounding the
the location device being configured to (Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0056, Fig. 1);
compare the data detected by the at least one sensor with the reference data to verify whether at least a part of the data detected by the at least one sensor corresponds to at least a part of the reference data (Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0056);
wherein the comparison comprises seeking correspondences between a conformation of the area of the working region surrounding the
and determine a position of the
and based on a position of the at least one reference element and at least a part of the area of the working region surrounding the
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim states “the proximity sensor”, however claim 17 (the parent claim) does not require “the proximity sensor”. Regarding the conditional phrase “at least one” in claim 17, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). Since the second half of the limitations of Claim 17 are not required, these limitations will be omitted.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohani, Betz, and Oyama, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miksa (US 20140379254 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 11, Rohani discloses the detected data and the reference data.
Rohani does not specifically state the detected data is in the same format as the reference data.
However, Miksa teaches the detected data is in the same format as the reference data (Paragraphs 0018, 0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with detected data in the same format as reference data of Miksa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that comparing two data types of the same format is simpler and does not require complex intermediate processing steps. The detected data and the reference data obtained can be directly compared to localize the vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Rohani with Miksa as this reduces processing complexity. As stated in Miksa, “the generation and storage of landmark data (described in more detail below) can be a relatively simple, automated procedure dependent on the nature of the measurement signals themselves, and does not require complex or manual processing to determine the identity and nature of objects for storage in the database. Furthermore, in the embodiment of FIG. 1, the processing of measurement signals from vehicle sensors during normal operation does not require an intermediate processing step to determine the identity and nature of objects from which the signals are obtained, instead the signals can be compared directly to the previously obtained measurement data” (Paragraph 0099).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohani (US 20170307746 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Betz (US 20240150982 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 14, Rohani does not specifically state controlling a snow grooming vehicle based on a location of the snow grooming vehicle within a working region and a height of a snowpack; wherein the height of the snowpack is further determined by comparing the position of the snow grooming vehicle with the reference model.
However, Betz teaches controlling a snow grooming vehicle based on a location of the snow grooming vehicle within a working region and a height of a snowpack (Paragraphs 0036-0038);
wherein the height of the snowpack is further determined by comparing the position of the snow grooming vehicle with the reference model (Paragraph 0012, 0036-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with determining a height of a snowpack by comparing the position of the snow grooming vehicle with the reference model, and controlling a snow grooming vehicle based on a location of the snow grooming vehicle and a height of the snowpack of Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is necessary to determine the depth of a snowpack on a piste in order to have a vehicle maintain the piste. A snow groomer is able to compare the position of the vehicle with the reference topography to determine a snow depth differential value and actuate the vehicle to maintain the piste where it is needed. One would have been motivated to combine Rohani with Betz as this achieves improving the control of the snow groomer and quality of the piste. As stated in Betz, “As a result, the piste grooming device can, as it were, be actuated in a predictive fashion and ultimately piste grooming which is improved with respect to the quality of the piste can be achieved” (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 15, Rohani discloses snow (Paragraphs 0040-0041).
Rohani does not specifically state the snow grooming vehicle is configured to move on the snowpack; and comprising at least one tool configured to modify the snowpack; and controlling the snow grooming vehicle further comprises operating the at least one tool to conform the snowpack to a target map representative of a desired surface to be obtained by processing the snowpack.
However, Betz teaches the snow grooming vehicle is configured to move on the snowpack (Paragraphs 0029-0033);
and comprising at least one tool configured to modify the snowpack (Paragraphs 0029-0033);
and controlling the snow grooming vehicle further comprises operating the at least one tool to conform the snowpack to a target map representative of a desired surface to be obtained by processing the snowpack (Paragraph 0012, 0033-0034, 0036, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rohani with a snow grooming vehicle with a tool for conforming the snowpack to a target map representative of a desired surface of Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is important to maintain a certain snow depth on a piste. A snow grooming vehicle can do this with piste grooming devices such as a snow blower and a smoothing device, and a target map. One would have been motivated to combine Rohani with Betz as this achieves a snow groomer and improving the quality of the piste. As stated in Betz, “As a result, the piste grooming device can, as it were, be actuated in a predictive fashion and ultimately piste grooming which is improved with respect to the quality of the piste can be achieved” (Paragraph 0005).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights