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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, line 2, “at least one of the tool” should read “at least one if the tools”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarvis (U.S. Patent No. 4265475).
Regarding claim 1, Jarvis teaches a device for moving snow, comprising (Abstract):
a handle (13) having a first end (57) and a second end (15) (Column 1, lines 60-63; Fig. 2, elements 13, 15, 57);
a blade (12) removably coupled to the second end (15) of the handle (13), the blade (12) including a body having an upper edge, a lower edge for engaging a snow-covered surface, and a front surface facing the handle (13) (Column 1, lines 63-66; Fig. 1, elements 12, 13; Fig. 2, elements 12, 15; annotated figure);
and a bracket (42, 43) for connecting the handle (13) to the blade (12), the bracket (42, 43) being connected to the body of the blade (12) and configured to position the handle (13) in a substantially perpendicular orientation relative to the blade (12) to facilitate pulling the blade (12) toward a user of the device to remove snow from the snow-covered surface (Column 1, lines 63-66; Fig. 1, elements 12, 13, 15, 42, 43). Additional details are given in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
822
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Jarvis teaches the blade (12) comprises a central section, an upper section, and a lower section (Fig. 4, element 12; annotated figure),
wherein the central section, the upper section, and the lower section are substantially planar (Column 1, lines 63-66; Fig. 4, element 12; annotated figure). Additional details are given in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
248
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Jarvis teaches a grip (34) coupled to the first end (57) of the handle (13) (Column 2, lines 44-49; Fig. 2, elements 13, 34, 57).
Regarding claim 9, Jarvis teaches the grip (34) is an insulated grip (Column 2, lines 44-49; Fig. 2, element 34).
Regarding claim 13, Jarvis teaches a method of removing snow using a device, comprising:
grasping the device, the device comprising:
a handle (13) having a first end (57) and a second end (15) (Column 1, lines 60-63; Fig. 2, elements 13, 15, 57);
a blade (12) removably coupled to the second end (15) of the handle (13), the blade (12) including a body having an upper edge, a lower edge for engaging a snow-covered surface, and a front surface facing the handle (13) (Column 1, lines 63-66; Fig. 1, element 12, 13; Fig. 2, elements 12, 13, 15; annotated figure);
and a bracket (42, 43) for connecting the handle (13) to the blade (12), the bracket (42, 43) being connected to the body of the blade (12) and configured to position the handle (13) in a substantially perpendicular orientation relative to the blade (12) to facilitate pulling the blade (12) toward a user of the device to remove snow from the snow-covered surface (Column 1, lines 63-66; Fig. 1, elements 12, 13, 42, 43);
placing the lower edge of the blade (12) down into snow that covers the snow-covered surface (Fig. 1, element 12);
pulling the device toward the user (Column 2, lines 3-5);
and moving the snow toward the user and off the surface (Column 2, lines 3-5; Column 3, lines 5-15; Fig. 1; annotated figure).
Additional details are given in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
822
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Jarvis teaches moving the snow toward the user includes removing the snow from the surface without pushing or lifting the device (Column 3, lines 5-15).
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lovell (US 20170362789).
Regarding claim 15, Lovell teaches a multi-purpose device, comprising:
a handle (12) having a first end and a second end (Paragraph 0054, lines 1-6; Fig. 1A, element 12; annotated figure);
an attachment mechanism at the second end of the handle (12), the attachment mechanism comprising a connector configured to removably couple a tool (16) to the handle (12) (Paragraph 0013, lines 1-6); and
a plurality of tools configured to couple to the handle (12) by the attachment mechanism, the plurality of tools including at least one of a snow removal tool, a duster, an ice removal tool, an ice breaker, a rake, a squeegee, a broom, a mop, a paint roller, a duster, or a blade (Paragraph 0054, lines 6-13). Additional details are given in the figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
708
370
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Lovell teaches one of the plurality of tools is the blade (16), the blade (16) including a body having an upper edge, a lower edge for engaging a snow-covered surface, and a front surface (Paragraph 0054, lines 1-6; Fig. 1, element 16; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
708
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Lovell teaches the blade (16) is connected to the handle (12) by the attachment mechanism in a second orientation such that the front surface of the blade (16) faces away from the handle (12) (Paragraph 0013, lines 1-6; Fig. 1, elements 12, 16).
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) 2, 3, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Lovell (US 20170362789).
Regarding claim 2, Jarvis fails to teach a curved blade. Lovell teaches a snow shovel wherein the body of the blade (16) is a curved body (Paragraph 0054, lines 1-6; Fig. 1, element 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Lovell in Jarvis in order to facilitate the creation of a curved blade that is configured to move snow as taught by Lovell (Paragraph 0054, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 3, Jarvis fails to teach a blade with side walls. Lovell teaches a snow shovel wherein the blade (16) comprises a pair of side walls (16A, 16B), each of the pair of side walls (16A, 16B) extending along a perimeter of the body between the upper edge and the lower edge (Paragraph 0055, lines 1-4; Fig. 1, elements 16, 16A, 16B; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Lovell in Jarvis in order to facilitate the creation of side walls that defines a rotational axis for the blade and can assist in moving snow as taught by Lovell (Paragraph 0054, lines 4-6; Paragraph 0055, lines 1-3).
PNG
media_image6.png
708
370
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Jarvis fails to teach the first and second end being one piece. Lovell teaches a snow shovel with a handle (12) wherein the first end and the second end are a unitary piece (Fig. 1A, element 12; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Lovell in Jarvis in order to facilitate the creation of a unitary handle that can extend as taught by Lovell (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-3).
PNG
media_image7.png
837
438
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Jarvis fails to teach telescoping ends. Lovell teaches a snow shovel with a handle (12) wherein the first end and the second end are configured to be telescoping (Paragraph 0012, lines 3-4; Paragraph 0057, lines 1-6; Fig. 1B, elements 12; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Lovell in Jarvis in order to facilitate the creation of a telescoping handle that allows the user to reposition the shovel in a variety of ways as taught by Lovell (Paragraph 0052, lines 2-6).
PNG
media_image8.png
856
384
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Settembre et al (US 20110258889).
Regarding claim 5, Jarvis fails to teach a yoke clamp. Settembre et al teaches a snow shovel with a yoke clap, the yolk clamp comprising a sliding collar coupled to the handle (12) (Paragraph 0047, lines 10-15; Fig. 1, element 12; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Settembre et al in Jarvis to facilitate the creation of a yoke clamp that creates a sturdy connection for the user to remove snow without wear or tear as taught by Settembre et al (Paragraph 0047, lines 13-15).
PNG
media_image9.png
390
989
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Jarvis fails to teach a yoke clamp with struts. Settembre et al teaches a snow shovel with a yoke clamp and at least two struts (14), each of the at least two struts (14) including a first end and a second end (Paragraph 0047, lines 10-15; Fig. 1, element 14; annotated figure);
Wherein each of the first ends of the at least two struts (14) are coupled to the sliding collar and each of the second ends of the at least two struts (14) are coupled to an upper section of the blade (16) via a rigid angled bracket (Fig. 1, elements 14, 16; annotated figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Settembre et al in Jarvis to facilitate the creation of a struts that help secure the handle to the blade as taught by Settembre et al (Paragraph 0047, lines 10-13).
PNG
media_image10.png
390
989
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Jarvis fails to teach a change in the angle of the blade. Settembre et al teaches a snow shovel wherein the sliding collar is configured to change an angle of the blade (16) relative to the handle (12) when the sliding collar is moved up and down the handle (12) (Paragraph 0045, lines 11-22; Fig. 1, elements 12, 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Settembre et al in Jarvis to facilitate the creation of a sliding collar that can change the blade angle to assist the shovel when encountering uneven surfaces as taught by Settembre et al (Paragraph 0045, lines 11-16).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Vaslas (US 4103954).
Regarding claim 10, Jarvis fails to teach a sliding grip. Vaslas teaches a snow shovel wherein the grip (45) is a sliding grip configured to be adjusted up and down the handle (30) (Column 4, lines 26-34; Fig. 2, elements 30, 45; Fig. 5, element 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Vaslas in Jarvis to facilitate the creation of a sliding grip that allows the user to adjust the grip to accommodate the user’s height as taught by Vaslas (Column 5, lines 19-24)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovell in view of Jarvis (US 4265475).
Regarding claim 17, Lowell fails to teach a blade facing the handle. Jarvis teaches a snow shovel wherein the blade (12) is connected to the handle (13) by the attachment mechanism in a first orientation such that the front surface of the blade (12) faces the handle (13) (Column 1, lines 63-66; Fig. 1, element 12; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Jarvis in Lowell to facilitate the creation of a snow shovel that can be pulled in order to move snow as taught by Jarvis (Column 2, lines 3-5; Column 3, lines 5-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovell in view of Chalmers (US 6003916).
Regarding claim 19, Lovell fails to teach a heated tool. Chalmers teaches a snow shovel with a heating device (28) configured to heat at least one of the plurality of tools (12) (Column 2, lines 13-24; Fig. 1, element 12; Fig. 2, element 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Chalmers in Lowell to facilitate the creation of a heating device that can heat the snow and reduce the effort needed to remove it as taught by Chalmers (Column 1, lines 44-49).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovell in view of Sun et al (CN 206157655).
Regarding claim 20, Lovell fails to teach a dispensing device. Sun et al teaches a snow removal device with a dispensing device (4) configured to dispense at least one of salt and a deicing solution onto at least one of the tools or a surface directly adjacent to the tool (Page 3, paragraphs 3, 14; Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 1, elements 3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Sun et al in Lowell to facilitate the creation of a dispensing device that can uniformly dispense salt as taught by Sun et al (Page 3, paragraph 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights