DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, filed as preliminary amendment, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1 and 9 are directed to a method, which is of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1 and 9 recite: detecting switch engagement at the single tool activation switch; directing auger rotation for the rotatable auger in response to detecting switch engagement; and directing wheel rotation for the drive wheels in response to detecting switch engagement.
The limitations from claims 1 and 9, detecting switch engagement at the single tool activation switch (a person is looking at the snow blower and looking whether the power switch is On or not); directing auger rotation for the rotatable auger in response to detecting switch engagement; (the person is pushing the auger starting switch to start the rotation of the auger);and directing wheel rotation for the drive wheels in response to detecting switch engagement (the person is pressing motor switch to start the movement of the snow blower), which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically, a concept performed in the human mind including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions of assessing movement of snow blower.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites, tool activation switch which is electro- mechanical system. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind.
Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of an electro-mechanical system does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process group. Thus claim 1 and 9 recite a mental process.
Therefore Claims 1 and 9 are abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims only recite the steps of: detecting switch engagement …… activation switch; auger rotation …… in response to detecting switch engagement; and directing wheel rotation …… detecting switch engagement.
These steps amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. As directing wheel is considered to be extra-solution activity and it does not appear to be more than what is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (WURC). The MPEP provides support that the additional limitations in the claim are directed to well-understood routine and conventional steps:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II recites:
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other Step 2B considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The MPEP further recites with respect to claims directed to insignificant solution activity:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
None of the dependent claims when taken separately or in combination with each dependent claim with parent claim overcomes the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible. Therefore, Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are also non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (USP 2021/0408946) in view of Kimoto et al. (JP-2022-113638A).
As Per Claim 1, Ding teaches, a method (via electric tool and method for controlling same, via Figs. 1-3) of operating a snow thrower ( Figs. 1-3) comprising a frame (11, [0035]), a rotatable auger (311, [0038]) mounted to the frame, one or more drive wheels ((20, 211)[0033]) mounted to the frame apart from the rotatable auger (311) , and a single tool activation switch (23,33)[0039]) held above the drive wheels ((20, 211),[0033]) the method comprising: detecting ( control assembly 22) switch engagement at the single tool activation switch; (via the detection unit detecting whether the working unit 30 works within a preset time window, [0036][0037], [0044] also see [0037-0043], Figs. 4-7).
However, Ding does not explicitly teach, directing auger rotation for the rotatable auger in response to detecting switch engagement; and directing wheel rotation for the drive wheels in response to detecting switch engagement.
In a related field of Art, Kimoto et al. (Kimoto) teaches, electric work machine being equipped with a control device 44, wherein, directing auger rotation for the rotatable auger in response to detecting switch engagement; and directing wheel rotation for the drive wheels in response to detecting switch engagement. (via control device 44 controlling the rotations of auger switch and work motor 32, thus controlling/ directing auger rotation and wheel rotation, [0044-0045] also see [0043], Figs.4-5 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding and Kimoto before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Ding, to include the teachings (the control device 44) of Kimoto and configure with the system of Ding, in order to controlling /directing the auger rotational movement and initiating snow blower’s movement. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to start snow blower and start blowing snow from the designated area (i.e., an added feature to enhance snow removal process).
As per Claim 2, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein directing auger rotation is based on an element speed input movably mounted on a control platform attached to the frame.
( Ding : via “The working switch assembly 33 includes an operation trigger switch (not shown) and operation handles 331 that cooperate with the operation trigger switch. The operation handle 331 is pivotally mounted to an armrest frame 121 and is close to an armrest handle 122. When the operation handle 331 is pressed, the operation handle 331 abuts against the operation trigger switch, such that the working control assembly 32 controls the working motor to work, thereby driving the auger 311 to work, thus implementing a snow sweeping function;”, [0038]).
As per Claim 3, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein directing wheel rotation is based on a wheel speed input movably mounted on a control platform attached to the frame ([Ding : 0036]).
As per Claim 4, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 3. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein the wheel speed input defines a forward speed range, reverse speed range, and a neutral position. ([Ding : 0036]).
As per Claim 5, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein directing auger rotation comprises activating an auger motor supported on the frame, and wherein directing wheel rotation comprises activating a wheel motor supported on the frame apart from the auger motor. (Ding : [0038]).
As per Claim 6, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein the snow thrower further comprises a first and a second handle extending separately from the frame, and wherein the single tool activation switch is movably mounted to the first handle and spaced apart from the second handle. (Ding : via pair of handles 121 [0035], [0037], [0038], Figs. 1-2).
As per Claim 8, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, detecting switch release at the single tool activation switch; halting auger rotation in response to detecting switch release; and halting wheel rotation in response to detecting switch release (Ding : ([0037], [0038], [0040]).
As Per Claim 9, Ding teaches, a method (via electric tool and method for controlling same, via Figs. 1-3) of operating a power tool (Figs. 1-3) comprising a frame ((11) [0035]), a rotatable work element (311) mounted to the frame ([0038]), and one or more drive wheels mounted to the frame apart from the rotatable work element, ((20, 211)[0033]), [0039]) the method comprising: detecting ( control assembly 22) switch engagement at a single tool activation switch; (via the detection unit detecting whether the working unit 30 works within a preset time window, [0036][0037], [0044] also see [0037-0043], Figs. 4-7).
However, Ding does not explicitly teach, directing element rotation for the rotatable work element in response to detecting switch engagement; and directing wheel rotation for the drive wheels in response to detecting switch engagement.
In a related field of Art, Kimoto et al. (Kimoto) teaches, electric work machine being equipped with a control device 44, wherein, directing element rotation for the rotatable work element in response to detecting switch engagement; and directing wheel rotation for the drive wheels in response to detecting switch engagement ( via thus controlling/ directing auger rotation and wheel rotation, [0044-0045] also see [0043], Figs.4-5 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding and Kimoto before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Ding, to include the teachings (the control device 44) of Kimoto and configure with the system of Ding, in order to controlling /directing the auger rotational movement and initiating snow blower’s movement. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to start snow blower and start blowing snow from the designated area (i.e., an added feature to enhance snow removal process).
As per Claim 10, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein directing element auger rotation is based on an element speed input movably mounted on a control platform attached to the frame. ( Ding : via “The working switch assembly 33 includes an operation trigger switch (not shown) and operation handles 331 that cooperate with the operation trigger switch. The operation handle 331 is pivotally mounted to an armrest frame 121 and is close to an armrest handle 122. When the operation handle 331 is pressed, the operation handle 331 abuts against the operation trigger switch, such that the working control assembly 32 controls the working motor to work, thereby driving the auger 311 to work, thus implementing a snow sweeping function;”, [0038]).
As per Claim 11, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein directing wheel rotation is based on a wheel speed input movably mounted on a control platform attached to the frame. ([Ding : 0036]).
As per Claim 12, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein the wheel speed input defines a forward speed range, reverse speed range, and a neutral position ([Ding : 0036]).
As per Claim 13, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein directing element rotation comprises activating an element motor supported on the frame, and wherein directing wheel rotation comprises activating a wheel motor supported on the frame apart from the element motor. (Ding : [0038]).
As per Claim 14, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein the power tool further comprises a first and a second handle extending separately from the frame, and wherein the single tool activation switch is movably mounted to the first handle and spaced apart from the second handle (Ding : via pair of handles 121, [0035], [0037], [0038], Figs. 1-2).
As per Claim 16, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, detecting switch release at the single tool activation switch; halting element rotation in response to detecting switch release; and halting wheel rotation in response to detecting switch release (Ding : ([0037], [0038], [0040]).
As Per Claim 17, Ding teaches, a power tool (via electric tool and method for controlling same, via Figs. 1-3) comprising: a frame ((11) [0035]); a rotatable work element (311) mounted to the frame ([0038]); one or more drive wheels (20, 211) mounted to the frame apart from the rotatable work element; (20, 211)[0033], [0039]); an element speed (via speed regulating buttons 131, 132) input attached to the frame above the drive wheels ([0036]); a wheel speed input attached to the frame above the drive wheels; ([0036]); a single tool activation switch spaced apart from the element and wheel speed inputs; (via power switch 134 [0036]) and a controller ( vai control assembly 22) in operative communication with the element speed input, the wheel speed input, and the single tool activation switch, the controller being configured to direct an operation routine comprising: detecting switch engagement at the single tool activation switch, (via the detection unit detecting whether the working unit 30 works within a preset time window, [0036][0037], [0044] also see [0037-0043], Figs. 4-7).
However, Ding does not explicitly teach, directing element rotation for the rotatable work element based on the element speed input in response to detecting switch engagement, and directing wheel rotation for the drive wheels based on the wheel speed input in response to detecting switch engagement based on the wheel speed input.
In a related field of Art, Kimoto et al. (Kimoto) teaches, electric work machine being equipped with a control device 44, wherein, directing element rotation for the rotatable work element based on the element speed input in response to detecting switch engagement, and directing wheel rotation for the drive wheels based on the wheel speed input in response to detecting switch engagement based on the wheel speed input (via control device 44 controlling the rotations of auger switch and work motor 32, thus controlling/ directing auger rotation and wheel rotation, [0044-0045] also see [0043], Figs.4-5 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding and Kimoto before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Ding, to include the teachings (the control device 44) of Kimoto and configure with the system of Ding, in order to controlling /directing the auger rotational movement and initiating snow blower’s movement. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to start snow blower and start blowing snow from the designated area (i.e., an added feature to enhance snow removal process).
As per Claim 18, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 17. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein the wheel speed input defines a forward speed range, reverse speed range, and a neutral position ([Ding : 0036]).
As per Claim 19, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 17. However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, wherein directing element rotation comprises activating an element motor supported on the frame, and wherein directing wheel rotation comprises activating a wheel motor supported on the frame apart from the element motor (Ding : [0038]).
As per Claim 20, Ding as modified by Kimoto teaches the limitation of Claim 17 However, Ding in view of Kimoto teaches, the power tool further comprising a first and a second handle extending separately from the frame, wherein the single tool activation switch is movably mounted to the first handle and spaced apart from the second handle (Ding : via pair of handles 121 [0035], [0037], [0038], Figs. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable when they overcome 101 rejection and when rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C