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 Objections
Claim 28 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the suction hose” should read --the flexible suction hose-- to maintain consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13-14, 21-22, 24-27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellbach et al. (DE19860182A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/17/2025 and hereinafter referred to as Hellbach, in view of Pruiett (US20210038046).
Regarding claim 13, Hellbach discloses a suction-extraction device for a demolition hammer (Fig. 1 elements 10 and 26) having a housing (Fig. 1 element 10) and a tool fitting (Fig. 1, 0017, where a clamping device corresponds to a tool fitting) for receiving a demolition chisel (Fig. 1 element 26, 0017), the suction-extraction device comprising: a flexible suction hose (Fig. 1 element 18); a suction body (0006, where an attachment corresponds to a suction body) connected to a free end of the flexible suction hose (0006, where the end of the flexible suction hose which has the suction head corresponds to a free end of the flexible suction hose) and for sucking up dust from a working region of the demolition chisel (Fig. 1 element 80 corresponds to a working region, 0017); and a fastener (Fig. 1 element 44, 0015), the flexible suction hose mountable on the housing of the demolition hammer (Fig. 1, 0014-0015, where the suction hose is mounted to the housing of the demolition hammer via the fastener through elements 38 and 46) at a fastening point of the flexible suction hose via the fastener (Fig. 1, 0015, where the point along the flexible suction hose where the fastener is attached to the flexible suction hose corresponds to a fastening point of the flexible suction hose), the fastening point of the flexible suction hose being spaced apart from the free end (Fig. 1) so that, during suction operation, the suction body is pivotable with respect to the demolition chisel (0016-0017, where element 54 being "adjustable in three spatial directions", which the three spatial directions are shown in Fig. 1 as elements 64, 68, and 70, means that the flexible suction hose and therefore also the suction body is also pivotable along the same three spatial directions).
Hellbach fails to disclose the suction body having a suction dome; the suction dome having a plurality of suction slots arranged uniformly spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction of the suction dome, wherein each of the suction slots opens into a respective suction channel.
Pruiett is also concerned with a suction-extraction device and teaches the suction body (Fig. 2A element 40) having a suction dome (Fig. 2A element 46, 0041); the suction dome having a plurality of suction slots (Fig. 2B the openings each defined by a separate element 64 corresponds to a plurality of suction slots) arranged uniformly spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction of the suction dome (Fig. 2B, where direction indicated by element 87 corresponds to a circumferential direction), wherein each of the suction slots opens into a respective suction channel (Fig. 2B, 0042, where each element 64 corresponds to a suction channel which the suction slots open into). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Hellbach discloses the invention except that the suction body has an unspecified structure instead of the suction body having a structure which includes a suction dome; the suction dome having a plurality of suction slots arranged uniformly spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction of the suction dome, wherein each of the suction slots opens into a respective suction channel. Pruiett shows that the suction body having a structure which includes a suction dome; the suction dome having a plurality of suction slots arranged uniformly spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction of the suction dome, wherein each of the suction slots opens into a respective suction channel is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. both structures are used to vacuum debris from a surface). Therefore, because these two suction body types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a suction body having an unspecified structure for a suction body having a structure which includes a suction dome; the suction dome having a plurality of suction slots arranged uniformly spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction of the suction dome, wherein each of the suction slots opens into a respective suction channel for a suction body having an unspecified structure.
Regarding claim 14, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the suction body is pivotable in a radial direction (Hellbach, Fig. 1, 0016-0017, where element 64 seems to correspond to Applicant's definition of a radial direction based on Fig. 1 of Applicant's supplied drawing, but examiner notes that the suction body being pivotable along the three spatial directions shown in Fig. 1 means that the suction body is pivotable in a radial direction).
Regarding claim 21, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and further discloses the suction dome has a suction slot (Pruiett, Fig. 2B any one of the openings in the suction dome defined by element 64 corresponds to a suction slot) extending in an axial direction along the suction dome (Pruiett, Fig. 2A, where the vertical direction that the slot extends is an axial direction along the suction dome).
Regarding claim 22, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 21, as described above, and further discloses the suction slot opens into a suction channel (Pruiett, Fig. 2B element 64) situated in an interior of the suction dome (Pruiett, Figs 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 24, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and further discloses the suction body has a carrier piece (Pruiett, Fig. 2A element 44, 0039) to which the flexible suction hose can be fastened on one side (Pruiett, Figs. 1 and 2A, 0039, where the side of the suction body which corresponds to element 51 corresponds to one side) and the suction dome on the other side (Pruiett, Fig. 2A, 0044, where the side of the suction body which corresponds to element 78 corresponds to the other side)
Regarding claim 25, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses during the intended suction operation, the suction body does not enclose the demolition chisel (Hellbach, Fig. 1, 0003-0004 and 0006, where it specifically teaches away from wanting to surround the demolition chisel with the suction extraction device, and therefore the suction body would also not surround the demolition chisel).
Regarding claim 26, Hellbach, as modified, discloses a method for operating the suction-extraction device as recited in claim 13 comprising using the suction-extraction device to suck up dust from the working region of the demolition chisel received in the tool fitting of the demolition hammer (Hellbach, 0017, "During operation of the hammer drill 10 and the suction device 14, material, for example masonry or the like, released by the chisel 26 in the work station 80 is sucked in through the suction hose 18").
Regarding claim 27, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the suction dome has a central connection region (Pruiett, Fig. 2B element 54), the suction channels opening into the central connection region (Pruiett, Fig. 2B, last sentence of 0046).
Regarding claim 29, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 24, as described above, and further discloses the carrier piece has a plurality of latching lugs (Pruiett, Fig. 2A element 74, 0043-0045, where the embodiment of “the second conduit portion includes the flanged portion and is received within the first conduit having a recess therein” described in 0045 is being used).
Regarding claim 30, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 29, as described above, and further discloses the plurality of latching lugs are arranged uniformly spaced apart from one another along the circumferential direction (Pruiett, Fig. 2A, 0043).
Regarding claim 31, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 29, as described above, and further discloses the carrier piece is releasably connected to the suction dome via the plurality of latching lugs (Pruiett, Fig. 2A, 0044).
Regarding claim 32, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the suction body is constructed in two parts (Pruiett, Fig. 2A where element 44 corresponds to one part and element 46 corresponds to the other part, 0038).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellbach et al. (DE19860182A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/17/2025 and hereinafter referred to as Hellbach, in view of Pruiett (US20210038046), and in further view of Seimears (US11739870).
Regarding claim 15, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to disclose the fastening element is in the form of a retaining clip.
Seimears is also concerned with securing a hose to another structure and teaches the fastening element is in the form of a retaining clip (Fig. 3A elements 310 and 320). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Hellbach, as modified, discloses the invention except that the connection between the spacer element (38) and the flexible suction hose is a sleeve (44) instead of a retaining clip. Seimears shows that a retaining clip is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. both connections are used to surround and retain a flexible suction hose in place). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a retaining clip connection for a sleeve connection.
Regarding claim 16, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the retaining clip has an eye (Seimears, Fig. 3A element 315) designed to clamp around the flexible suction hose (Seimears, 12:7-27).
Regarding claim 17, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further discloses the eye clamps around the flexible suction hose completely (Seimears, Fig. 4A, 12:14-16).
Regarding claim 18, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further discloses a diameter of the eye is widenable by a manual actuation so that the eye is displaceable along a length of the flexible suction hose (Seimears, Figs. 4A-4B, 12:60-13:25, where Fig. 4B shows the eye having a first diameter and Fig. 4A shows the eye having a second diameter, where the second diameter is larger than the first diameter and therefore the diameter of the eye is widenable by manual actuation (e.g. screwing of element 320), and when the eye is widened the eye is capable of being displaced along a length of the flexible suction hose).
Regarding claim 19, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the retaining clip has two holding arms (Fig. 3A elements 330 and 335) designed to engage in two mounting openings in the housing of the demolition hammer (the two holding arms are capable of engaging in two mounting openings in the housing of the demolition hammer). Examiner notes that the structure of "two mounting openings in the housing of the demolition hammer" are not necessary to reject the limitations of claim 19 as the invention is drawn towards a suction-extraction device which only needs to be capable of being used on a demolition hammer. Therefore, because the demolition hammer is not positively claimed, the additional elements of the demolition hammer are also not positively claimed, which means that that the two holding arms of the suction-extraction device only need to be capable of engaging with two mounting openings.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellbach et al. (DE19860182A1), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Hellbach, in view of Pruiett (US20210038046), and in further view of Nemedi (US20200215653).
Regarding claim 28, Hellbach, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 24, as described above, and but fails to disclose the suction hose is screwed into an internal thread of the carrier piece.
Nemedi is also concerned with a suction extraction device and teaches the suction hose (Fig. 1 element 22) is screwed into an internal thread of the carrier piece (Fig. 1, 0025, where element 30 corresponds to a carrier piece and “the connector 30 can have a threaded interior portion that threadably receives a threaded portion of the hose 22” corresponds to the suction hose is screwed into an internal thread of the carrier piece). Hellbach, as modified, discloses the invention except that the connection between the suction hose and the carrier piece has an unspecified structure instead of the suction hose being screwed into an internal thread of the carrier piece. Nemedi shows that the suction hose being screwed into an internal thread of the carrier piece is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. both structures are used to connect a suction hose to a carrier piece). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute the suction hose being screwed into an internal thread of the carrier piece for an unspecified connection structure between the suction hose and the carrier piece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is 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 33, the closest arts of record, Hellbach et al. (DE19860182A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 6/17/2025 and hereinafter referred to as Hellbach, and Pruiett (US20210038046), fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features:
“the suction dome has a plurality of suction apertures arranged uniformly spaced apart from one another along the circumferential direction of the suction dome and spaced in an axial direction from the plurality of suction channels” as recited in claim 33. Examiner finds that Pruiett, which is being used to teach a suction dome (see rejection of claim 13 above), only teaches a single set of suction slots which open directly into suction channels, and examiner finds that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suction dome to include a set of suction apertures which are separated from the plurality of suction channels in an axial direction without a teaching to do so as this would require hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the suction-extraction device of Hellbach with the teachings of Pruiett because Pruiett is concerned with hair removal for a vacuum cleaner and Hellbach is concerned with removing debris from a hammer drill and that Pruiett and Hellbach have different modes of operation because of this. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to paragraph 0036 of Pruiett which discusses that the suction body (40) is an attachment used to connect to a suction hose to “form the ‘dirty’ air inlet” (see 0036) of the vacuum cleaner, and examiner finds that while a stated benefit of the suction body of Pruiett is that it collects hair, the suction body of Pruiett still collects general debris, and that Hellbach is also concerned with a suction body attached to a suction hose for collecting general debris. Examiner finds that this also gives Pruiett and Hellbach the same modes of operation (i.e. collecting, through suction, debris through a suction body which is attached to a suction hose). Therefore, examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723