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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species 2 in the reply filed on 5/1/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is found not persuasive. Each of the noted species contain potentially inventive structures or concepts and each application must be limited to a single inventive concept. As stated previously, a search for a snow blower with a heater element within a chute may not produce the same results for a search conducted on a snow blower with a breaker blade positioned between a gap of the auger blade. While these two species are aimed at preventing clogs in the snow blower, they are related to two entirely different structures (the chute and the auger). For example, Villanueva (US 9032649) (cited by Applicant) appears to disclose a heat motor with an exhaust outlet which is similar to Species 3 (recited in claim 3). Villanueva does not disclose the heater comprising heater wires similar to Species 2 (recited in claim 2). If this application is not restricted, many different pieces of prior art would need to be searched and presented for all species, creating an examination burden.
Further, the previous claim set filed 12/11/2026 presented independent claims 10 and 17 which contained no heater, but still contained a resilient flap (claim 11; species 4), vibration arm (claim 12; species 5), etc. in the dependent claims. This strengthens the examiner’s understanding that the inventive concepts outlined in the noted species are exclusive. All that being said, rejoinder of unelected species and withdrawn claims will be considered in the event that allowable claims encompass multiple species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites “the chute” in line 9. Claim 1 and claim 10 introduce “a chute”. It is unclear to which chute this limitation is referring. Examiner suggests amending the claim to read –the chute extending from the top wall above the rotatable auger, the chute comprising--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiernan (US 3465455).
Regarding claim 1, Mattson discloses a snow blower comprising:
a frame (12);
a rotatable auger mounted to the frame (13/14);
one or more wheels mounted to the frame apart from the rotatable auger to support the snow blower (wheels depicted in Fig 1);
a chute extending from the frame above the rotatable auger (chute 18); and
an active heater supported on the frame in thermal communication with the chute to heat a predefined area thereof (jacket 19 convers the chute and is supplied by warm exhaust gases from the engine; col 2, lines 48-51).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 5438770) in further view of Asgari (US 20160002371).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a snow blower comprising:
a frame (6);
a rotatable auger mounted to the frame (auger 7);
one or more wheels mounted to the frame apart from the rotatable auger to support the snow blower (tracks 8 and 8’ are considered to comprise wheels);
a chute extending from the frame above the rotatable auger (chute 3 is considered to be extending above the auger).
Miller discloses an engine where the exhaust heats the chute (engine 4 exhaust heats chute through hose 21). This engine is considered to be an active heater; however, the engine is not considered to meet the elected species of the active heater comprising an electric heating element with wires. Asgari discloses a similar snow removal device with a discharge chute (Fig 1 depicts the snow removal device 10 with discharge chute 22) and teaches the discharge chute including a drying section connected to a heating element in the form of electrical wire (drying section 70; para [0024]).
Miller and Asgari are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of snow removal devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to incorporate the teachings of Asgari and combined the use of a drying section in the discharge chute that is coupled to electrical wires. One would have made this combination to ensure full vaporization of any residual water or snow from upstream of the chute (Asgari; para [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Miller and Asgari discloses the snow blower wherein the active heater comprises an electric heating element disposed on the chute at the predefined area in conductive thermal communication therewith (the electrical wires of the combination are considered to be disposed on the chute at the predefined area).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Miller and Asgari discloses the snow blower further comprising
a controller in operative communication with the auger motor and configured to direct a blower operation (claim language is broad; an operator is considered to control the snow blower using controls 13, 14 and 17/18) comprising:
receiving an operational sensor signal,
determining a motor output setting based on the received operational sensor signal, and
directing the auger motor to rotate the rotatable auger according to the determined motor output setting (the operator is capable of deciding when to operate the machine, determine whether to slide the sleeve 17 to the right to engage the clutch and direct the auger and tracks to be operated together).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Asgari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thorud et al. (US 5177888).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Miller and Asgari fails to specifically disclose the chute of the snow blower further comprising a resilient chute body deformable about a chute axis perpendicular to an auger axis.
However, Thorud discloses a similar snow blower (10) and teaches the chute being made of a resilient material (chute 30 and axis is perpendicular to the auger axis; claim 2; “molded plastic”).
Miller, Asgari, and Thorud and considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of snow blowers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller and Asgari to incorporate the teachings of Thorud and made the chute body from a resilient material. One would have made the chute from this material over metal in order to reduce weight while providing rigidity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mattson et al. (US 3468041) discloses a similar electric motor-driven snow blower with an active heater similar to the claimed the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights