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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“guide device” in claim 1, where the “device” is the placeholder and “guide” is the functional language;
“power supply device” in claim 16, where the “device” is the placeholder and “power supply” is the functional language;
“hydraulic supply device” in claim 17, where the “device” is the placeholder and “hydraulic supply” is the functional language; and
“operating device” in claim 18, where the “device” is the placeholder and “operating” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17 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 17 recites the limitation "the snow groomer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to read --the snow generator.--
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) 11-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kircher et al. (US6161769. Kircher hereinafter).
With respect to claim 11, Kircher discloses a snow generating apparatus (Figs. 1-47, especially the embodiment in Figs. 36-38. 500) comprising: a snow generator (Col. 31, line 55 to Col. 33, line 20) configured to (capable of) cover a run with snow; a housing chamber (52, 540) configured to (capable of) be laid underground in the run (Col. 31, line 55 to Col. 33, line 20; Figs. 1, 14-18, 36-38A); and a lifting system (542, 544, 546, 552, 556) configured to (capable of) move the snow generator in a moving (upward) direction from a lowered (retracted) position to a lifted (extended) position (Figs. 1, 14-18, 36-38A), the lifting system comprising: a guide device (542, 546, 558, 568, 566), and a slide (544) slidably coupled to the guide device to move between the lowered position and the lifted position, wherein the slide defines an elongated shape (Figs. 36-38A), the slide extends in the moving direction and, when in the lowered position, the slide at least partly extends into the housing chamber.
With respect to claim 12, Kircher discloses wherein the guide device has a length (thickness of 542, 546) measured parallel to the moving direction which is smaller than a (longitudinal) length of the slide measured parallel to the moving direction.
With respect to claim 13, Kircher discloses wherein when in the lifted position, the slide (upper portion of 544) extends outside of the housing chamber.
With respect to claim 14, Kircher discloses wherein the guide device is fixed (542 is welded; 546 is trapped in) to the housing chamber (Fig. 36).
With respect to claim 15, Kircher discloses wherein the guide device comprises a train of guide rollers (558, 568, 566. Fig. 37) (rotatably) slidably engageable by the slide.
With respect to claim 16, Kircher discloses the snow generating apparatus of Claim 11, further comprising a power supply device (560 and drive mechanism leading to 544) at least partly mounted in the housing chamber and connected to the snow generator to (capable of) supply the snow generator with power.
With respect to claim 18, Kircher discloses the snow generating apparatus of Claim 11, further comprising an operating device (560 and drive mechanism leading to 544) configured to (capable of) move the slide between the lowered position and the lifted position, the operating device comprising a screw (unmarked nut on 558 in Fig. 37 and 544) mounted along the slide parallel to the moving direction and a nut screw (552) coupled to the screw and mounted to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the screw to move the screw in the moving direction.
With respect to claim 19, Kircher discloses wherein an assembly (530, 532, 550) defined by the snow generator and the slide is entirely located inside of the housing chamber when arranged in the lowered position.
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.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kircher.
With respect to claim 17, Kircher discloses the snow generating apparatus of Claim 11 except for a hydraulic supply device at least partly mounted in the housing chamber connected to the snow generator to hydraulically supply the snow generator.
However, Kircher teaches a hydraulic supply device (800 in embodiment and modification in Fig. 45; Col. 39, lines 35-62) at least partly mounted in the housing chamber connected to the snow generator to hydraulically supply the snow generator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a hydraulic supply device, as taught by Kircher, in embodiment in Fig. 45, to replace the power supply of Kircher, in order to provide as alternative power supply system (Fig. 45; Col. 39, lines 35-62). A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the hydraulically power supply because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the hydraulically power supply because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally equivalent power supply system. And because such a change would only produce an expected result, i.e, providing power to the snow generator. The use of alternative and functionally equivalent power supply system would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the economics and availability of components.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kircher in view of Miscovich (US3583637).
With respect to claim 20, Kircher discloses wherein the housing chamber defines a trapdoor configured to move between a closed position and an open position in association with the assembly being moved between the lowered position and the lifted position.
However, Miscovich teaches an underground sprayer (Figs. 1-3. Miscovich’s sprayer is similar to Kircher’s snow generator), comprising a housing chamber (underground well. Fig. 1) defines a trapdoor (70) configured to (capable of) move between a closed (covered) position and an open position (Fig. 1) in association with the assembly (lifting system including cylinder 32) being moved between the lowered position (phantom in FIG. 1) and the lifted position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a trapdoor, as taught by Miscovich, to Kircher’s snow generating apparatus, in order to safely house the snow generating apparatus underground (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, lines 29-47).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a snow generating apparatus: Ash ‘689, Dupre ‘103, Fairbank, Ash ‘127, Rumney et al., Dupre ‘151, Ratnik et al., Dupre ‘163, Werner and Dupre ‘137.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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 O. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 8, 2026