DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ Amendment filed 2/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are pending with claims 11 and 12 being previously cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wedge”, and the “at least one wedge surface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-10 and 13-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanner et al. (US 4113037) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 20190247991) and in view of Calmusky (US 3499656).
Regarding claim 1: Wanner discloses a tool for a mobile power tool for machining rock or mineral materials (Figs. 1-6; abstr.; col. 2, lines 21-38). Wanner discloses a shaft 51, 52 and a tool head 53 (Fig. 4; col. 4, lines 3-19). Wanner discloses that a suction-extraction channel 60, 68 for transporting rock dust is formed at least along a part of the shaft (Fig. 4; col. 4, lines 43-62; col. 5, lines 17-33). Wanner discloses that the tool head and a channel element 61 which are arranged longitudinally at least along a part of the shaft of the tool are couplable and/or are coupled to the shaft in a releasable manner (Fig. 4 – illustrates several connections and thus meets the claimed limitation). Wanner does not explicitly disclose the channel element having a dovetail profile. Hartmann discloses that a wide array of other attachment modalities are known, among others, dovetail joints ([0033]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the tool of Wanner so that the channel element includes a dovetail profile as taught by Hartmann. As both Wanner and Hartmann are directed to drilling machines having a suction-extraction channel for drilling debris, as Wanner is silent regarding dovetail profiles, as dovetail connection profiles are well known in the arts, and as Hartmann explicitly teaches that dovetail joints are well-known and can be used interchangeably for attachment modalities, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific connection configuration from a finite selection of connection configurations. Such a simple substitution or addition would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Wanner, as modified by Hartmann, does not explicitly disclose that the tool head is coupled and/or is couplable to the shaft in a releasable manner by a wedge, by at least one wedge surface and/or by a coupling pin. Calmusky discloses that a tool head can be coupled to the shaft in a releasable manner by means of a coupling pin 42 (Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 27-35). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the tool of Wanner, as modified by Hartmann, so that the tool head is coupled and/or is couplable to the shaft in a releasable manner by means of a coupling pin as taught by Calmusky. As both Wanner and Calmusky are directed to attachments of a drill head to a shaft, as various connections are well known in the art for coupling a shaft and a drill head, and as Calmusky explicitly teaches a pin connection, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific connection configuration from a finite selection of connection configurations. Such a simple substitution or addition would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Wanner discloses that the tool head has an inlet channel 60 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3: Wanner discloses that a lateral channel is formed between the channel element and the tool head (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4: Wanner discloses that the tool has a suction-extraction funnel which is designed to guide into the suction-extraction channel rock dust flowing in from a direction of the tool head (Figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 5: Wanner discloses that the cross-sectional area of the suction-extraction channel is increased in a region of the shaft in a direction pointing away from the toolhead (Figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 6: Wanner discloses that the channel element is designed in multiple parts and/or is designed to be able to be swung open (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 7: Wanner discloses that the channel element is designed as a sleeve element which encloses the shaft (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8: Wanner discloses that the channel element is designed as a covering element which covers over the shaft only in certain regions (Figs. 1-6; col. 5, line 60-col. 6, line 12).
Regarding claim 9: Wanner discloses that the shaft has at least one suction-extraction groove by which at least one part of the suction-extraction channel is formed and/or can be formed (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 10: Wanner discloses that the tool has at least one spacer 12. 56 for maintaining a suction-extraction space between the shaft and the channel element (Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 13: Wanner discloses that the tool has a suction-extraction adapter 31 and/or the tool can be connected to a suction-extraction adapter (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14: Wanner discloses a shank 51 arranged at an end of the shaft situated opposite to the tool head is coupled and/or is couplable to the shaft in a releasable manner (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15: Wanner discloses that the cross-sectional area of the suction-extraction channel is increased in an end region of the shaft in the direction pointing away from the tool head (Figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 16: Wanner discloses that the channel element is able to be swung open longitudinally (Fig. 4-6 – illustrates several connections and thus meets the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 17: Wanner discloses that the covering element consists of an elastic material, plastic, and/or a rubber (Figs. 1-6; col. 5, line 60-col. 6, line 12).
Regarding claim 18: Wanner discloses that a lateral channel is formed between the channel element and the tool head (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19: Wanner discloses that the tool has a suction-extraction funnel which is designed to guide into the suction-extraction channel rock dust flowing in from a direction of the tool head (Figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 20: Wanner discloses that the cross-sectional area of the suction-extraction channel is increased in the region of the shaft in the direction pointing away from the tool head (Figs. 1, 2, 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments, filed 2/2/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-20 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Applicants’ arguments, directed to claims 1-10 and 13-20 are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
It should be noted that applicants’ broadly recited claims allow the examiner’s current interpretation and rejections. It is the examiners understanding, from reviewing the specification and drawings, that the suction-extraction groove 42 is formed in the shaft 12 (i.e. cut into the shaft not just “along” the shaft) and that the suction-extraction channel 16 is a channel defined by the suction-extraction groove 42 and the channel element 18. Further it appears that channel element 18 is also within the suction-extraction groove 42 (applicants’ Fig. 8 and [0062]). It should be noted that these distinctions are not clearly recited in the instant claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
2/23/2026