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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Reply of December 22, 2025.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 5 overcomes the previously presented objection to the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that claims 1 and 14 are allowable due to the subject matter of claim 12, previously indicated as allowable, being incorporated therein.
It is first noted that the subject matter was not fully incorporated into clam 1 and thus claim 1 could not be considered allowable for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12. Further, claim 12 did not depend from claim 14 and thus the incorporation of claim 12 into claim 14 would not result in claim 14 being considered allowable.
Secondly, the indicated allowability of claim 12 is withdrawn in view of the new interpretation of Chew (US 2,121,858). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
As shown in Figure 4 of Chew, the apertures, located between each of the flutes 12, are all larger near the base end 10 than the tip end 11. The language of claim 12 does not require that the apertures near the base end be larger than the apertures near the tip end as shown in Figure 2 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chew (US 2,121,858).
Regarding claim 1: Chew discloses a reaming tool vacuum assembly Fig 2 comprising:
a reaming tool Fig 2 comprising a reaming bit 10/11, the reaming bit comprising:
a tip end 11;
a base end 10;
a plurality of flutes 12 tapered toward the tip end Fig 2;
a plurality of apertures A (see reproduction of Figure 4 below) pg. 1, column 2, lines 16-20 positioned between the plurality of flutes Fig 2, 4, wherein the plurality of apertures define a plurality of openings through 18 to an interior chamber of the reaming bit Fig 2;
wherein at least one of the plurality of apertures increases in size approaching the base end of the reaming bit as shown in Fig 4, the apertures are larger at the base end than they are at the tip end;
a first rigid tube 20, 15 positioned in the interior chamber of the reaming bit Fig 2, wherein the reaming bit is rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the first rigid tube and independent of the first rigid tube pg. 2, column 1, lines 9-12; and
a vacuum 37 to provide suction in the interior chamber of the reaming bit via the first rigid tube pg. 2, column 2, lines 3-7.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12 and 18: Wherein each of the plurality of apertures increases in size approaching the base end of the reaming bit as shown in Fig 4, the apertures are larger at the base end than they are at the tip end.
Regarding claim 14: Chew discloses a method of use for a reaming tool vacuum assembly comprising:
rotating a reaming tool Fig 2 comprising a reaming bit 10/11 contacting an interior of a hole of a target material pg. 2, column 1, line 63- column 2, line 60, thereby reaming debris from the interior of the hole pg. 2, column 1, line 63-70, column 2, line 3-7; and
suctioning, via a plurality of apertures between flutes 12 – pg. 1, column 2, lines 16-20 of the reaming bit, at least a portion of the debris by a vacuum 37, pg. 2, column 1, line 63-70, column 2, line 3-7.
Regarding claim 15: Wherein suction is applied to an interior of the reaming bit by the vacuum via a first rigid tube 20, 15 at least partially inserted into the reaming bit Fig 2.
Regarding claim 16: Wherein the reaming tool is rotated around a longitudinal axis of the first rigid tube, independent of the first rigid tube pg. 2, column 1, lines 9-12.
Regarding claim 17: Wherein the reaming tool is rotated by torque applied to a wrench feature 35 via wrench 34 of the reaming tool pg. 2, column 1, lines 44-47.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew in view of Kesterson et al. (US 2007/0086867, Kesterson).
Chew discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the reaming tool vacuum assembly further comprising a flexible hose coupled to the first rigid tube and the vacuum.
Kesterson discloses a vacuum drilling system. The system includes a flexible hose 140 that is coupled to the end of a rigid tube 135 and a vacuum source [0013].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chew to include a flexible hose extending between the first rigid tube and the vacuum, as taught by Kesterson, in order to have been able to position the reaming tool vacuum assembly in multiple positions relative to the vacuum while still maintaining an air-tight coupling [0013]. This would have achieved the predictable results of allowing the assembly to be used in various places and configuration without significant modification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 13, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a reaming tool vaccum assembly that includes a second rigid tube protruding from the first rigid tube at an aperture in the first rigid tube and a debris collector affixed to the second rigid tube and aligned with the reaming bit, wherein the debris collector comprises an aperture defining an opening into an interior of the second rigid tube, thereby allowing the vacuum to provide suction into the debris collector as recited in the claimed combination.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6-8: These claims are considered allowable due to their dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 9: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a reaming tool vacuum assembly that includes a reaming tool with a backing plate having a first face contacting a first body portion and a second face having a wrench feature as recited in the claimed combination.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 is considered to be allowable due to its dependence on claim 9.
Regarding claim 13: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a reaming tool vacuum assembly that includes a first rigid tube that is of a substantially same diameter as the interior chamber of the reaming bit, thereby allowing one or more of the apertures of the reaming bit to be sealed based on a depth of insertion of the first rigid tube in the reaming bit as recited in the claimed combination.
Regarding claim 19: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a method of using a reaming tool vacuum assembly, that involves suctioning, via a second rigid tube protruding from the first rigid tube, another at least a portion of the debris from a debris collector coupled to the second rigid tube as recited in the claimed method.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 is considered allowable due to its dependence on claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights