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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/14/2026 has been entered.
.
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 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 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the reason for replacing the motor driven oscillation mechanism of Dupre as modified by Ratnik with the fluid driven oscillation mechanism is Su is to provide the snow maker with a drive mechanism wherein the nozzles to quickly and smoothly move. This is taught by Su [0013]. The examiner notes that the 103 rejection above is merely substituting a known motor divine oscillation mechanism for a nozzle with a known fluid driven oscillation mechanism for a nozzle. This is a simple, obvious substitution of known elements that perform the same function.
With regards to the applicant’s second point to consider, just because it takes 31 years to come up with a snow maker that is driven by a fluid driven oscillation mechanism, doesn’t mean it is not obvious.
The above rejection is being maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 4/24/2026
Prosecution Insights