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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupre (2013/0056546) in view of Ratnik et al. (5,154,348), further in view of Su (2015/0034737)
Regarding claim 1, Dupre teaches a snow making apparatus (fig 1) including a vertical ground support pole (11) having bottom and upper ends with said bottom end anchored in a ground surface a tower support sleeve (13) coaxially received over the upper end of said ground support pole for axial rotation thereon [0019], and an elongated pipe snow making tower (18, 19, 32) having upper and lower ends with snow making nozzles (20) adjacent the upper end and water and air inlets (21, 22) at the lower end thereof for connection to respective supplies of water and air under pressure from remote sources for ejection through said nozzles to manufacture snow in subfreezing ambient conditions (that is how Dupre works), said tower secured adjacent its lower end to the upper end of said tower support sleeve at a vertical incline for axial rotation (about 24) of said tower on said ground support pole (fig 1);
But fails to disclose an oscillating fluid drive secured to said tower for oscillating said tower on said ground support pole back and forth between preset limits, said fluid drive powered by said water or air supplied under pressure.
However, Ratnik et al. shows a snow maker that includes an oscillating mechanism (motors m1 and m2) secured to said tower for oscillating said tower on said ground support pole back and forth between preset limits (col 2, lines 46-49)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to add the oscillating mechanism, including preset limit stops of Ratnik et al. to the snow making apparatus of Dupre in order to evenly distribute the snow as taught by Ratnik et al. (col 2, lines 22-25).
The above combination still fails to disclose that the oscillating mechanism is fluid driven by the water or air supplied under pressure.
However, Su teaches an oscillating mechanism that is fluid driven by the water or air supplied under pressure. Additionally, the applicant has admitted that the 2015/0034737 publication is an example of the type of oscillating mechanism found in the present invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to substitute the fluid driven oscillating mechanism Su. for the electrical oscillating mechanism of Dupre as modified by Ratnik et al. This modification would provide the snow maker with a drive mechanism wherein the resilient ratchet portion of the hollow positioning rod allows the gear casing and the nozzles to quickly and smoothly move as taught by Su [0013].
One of ordinary skill in the art would know how to modify the base of Dupre as modified by Ratnik et al. to incorporate the fluid driven oscillating mechanism of Zhu et al.
Regarding claim 2, wherein said oscillating fluid drive is disposed between said elongated pipe snow making tower and said ground support pole (this is where the oscillating fluid drive is located in Ratnik).
Regarding claim 3, wherein said water inlet is connected to said oscillating fluid drive for driving the same with said water supplied under pressure (the examiner notes that Su is designed to work using water, so one of ordinary skill in the art would know to use the supplied water to operate the oscillating mechanism rather than the supplied air).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Su with the teachings of Dupre as modified by Ratnik et al. because there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the examiner is merely replacing one oscillating mechanism (that of Dupre as modified by Ratnik) what another oscillating mechanism (that of Su). This is a simple substitution of known elements that perform the same function of oscillating a spraying device.
In the above rejection, the examiner cites motivation for making the substitution that comes from the Su reference. That motivation is: This modification would provide the snow maker with a drive mechanism wherein the resilient ratchet portion of the hollow positioning rod allows the gear casing and the nozzles to quickly and smoothly move as taught by Su [0013]. Since the examiner has provided clear motivation for substituting the oscillating mechanism of Su for the one of Dupre as modified by Ratnik, the examiner has proven that there is motivation to combine the references.
The above rejection is being maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 1/26/2026