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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 16-17 in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the limitation “sucking off machining residues, comprising:” may need to be amended to - - sucking off machining residues, the processing machine comprising: - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: a plurality of second connectors in claim 1, first drive unit in claim 2, second drive unit in claim 3.
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.
A review of the disclosure including the originally filed specification and drawings reveals the following:
First connector 10 and third connector 35 are shown to be in tubular shapes with circular cross sections that carry fluid. However, each of the plurality of connectors 30’s are shown to be in a shape of a circular hole formed in a rectangular support member.
The first drive unit is disclosed in specification paragraph [0015].
The second drive unit is disclosed in specification paragraph [0016].
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.
Claims 3, 6-8, 10 and 16-17 are 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 6, lines 2-3 recites the limitation “wherein a fluid connection can be established between the first connector and the third connector by a movement in the second direction.” It is unclear which of the connectors is being moved in the second direction in order to establish the fluid connection between the first and third connectors.
Claim 3, line 2 recites the limitation “a second drive unit” which is unclear if there is a first drive unit and if so, what the relationship between the two drive units are.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second connector” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, line 3, the limitation of “a beam-shaped base” is vague and unclear what a beam shape is. A structural beam is known to have a variety of cross sectional shapes including I, T, L, C, rectangular and hollow shapes. As such, it is unclear which of the well-known shapes are being claimed.
Claim 10, lines 3-4, the limitation of “a plate-shaped manner” is vague and unclear what a plate-shaped is.
For examination purposes, a beam shape is considered to be a long structural member that has a length much larger than the dimensions of the sides making the cross-section of the member. Similarly, a plate shape is considered to be a structural member with a thickness smaller than other planar dimensions connected by the thickness.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Napier (US 1,803,402).
As applied to claim 1, Napier teaches a processing machine having a suction device (fan element 61 with motor 59 supported on support 60 adjustably clamped to tube 50, page 2, right-column, lines 108-111, Fig. 3) for sucking off machining residues, the processing machine comprising a first connector for a main fluid line (conduit 63); and a plurality of second connectors for connecting fluid lines (plurality of conduit 64’s), wherein the first connector can be moved in a first direction such that a fluid connection with at least one of the second connectors can be established (first connector 63 rotates which means the first connector moves in an X-Y plane, page 3, left-column, lines 30-35), wherein the first connector can also be moved in a second direction, the second direction crossing the first direction (by rotation the X direction crosses the Y direction, page 2, right-column, lines 108-130, page 3, left-column, lines 1-14,. Figs. 1-3).
As applied to claim 2, Napier teaches the invention cited including a first drive unit for moving the first connector in the first direction (handle 51 is swung to move the motor and first conduit 63, page 3, left-column, lines 30-33).
As applied to claim 3, Napier teaches the invention cited including a second drive unit for moving the second connector in the second direction (second connector 64’s are connected by support 66 to supporting base 15 in case of circular saw 14 and by base 24 in case of lathe 22 and through slots 12 are connected to rotatable support 5 by bolts 13 which means connectors 64’s rotate in a plane having X-Y directions, Fig. 1).
As applied to claim 4, Napier teaches the invention cited including wherein the second direction is a straight or curved direction (rotational movement has X-Y components which reads on claims curved and straight directions).
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergerhoff (EP1481760B1).
As applied to claim 1, Bergerhoff teaches a processing machine having a suction device (vacuum cleaner 13, Fig. 1) for sucking off machining residues, the processing machine comprising a first connector for a main fluid line (33); and a plurality of second connectors for connecting fluid lines (27-31, Fig. 5), wherein the first connector can be moved in a first direction (horizontal along double arrow A, Fig. 5) such that a fluid connection with at least one of the second connectors can be established (Fig. 5), wherein the first connector (33) can also be moved in a second direction (vertical direction in Fig. 5 and along arrow B in Fig. 6), the second direction crossing the first direction (the vertical direction crosses the horizontal direction, Fig. 5).
As applied to claim 2, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including a first drive unit for moving the first connector in the first direction (slide mechanism made between 34 and guides 35, Figs. 5 and 6).
As applied to claim 3, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including a second drive unit for moving the second connector in the second direction (any unit used to generate force to connect any of 27-31 into bores 22-26 in vertical direction, Figs. 5 and 6).
As applied to claim 4, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including wherein the second direction is a straight or curved direction (straight vertical direction along arrow B in Fig. 6).
As applied to claim 5, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including wherein the first connector is accommodated on a connector base (32) via at least one rail (35, Figs. 5 and 6) such that the first connector can be moved in the first direction, the connector base (32) being able to be moved in the second direction (vertical direction in Figs. 5 and 6).
As applied to claim 6, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including further comprising at least a third connector (32), wherein a fluid connection can be established between the first connector (33) and the third connector (32) by a movement in the second direction (by moving 33 downward in vertical direction, Fig. 5).
As applied to claim 7, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including wherein the second connectors (27-31) are arranged in a row (Fig. 5) and the third connector (32) is arranged adjacent to the row of the second connectors (Fig. 5).
As applied to claim 8, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including further comprising a cleaning unit (vacuum cleaner 44, Fig. 8) which can be supplied with a suction air flow via a connecting fluid line connected to the third connector (fluid line from end of 44 through 33 to 32).
As applied to claims 9 and 10, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including further comprising a support member (34, Figs. 5 and 6) for accommodating the first connector (33), wherein the second connectors (27-31) are fixed (by means of 35) to or formed on the support member (Fig. 5) and wherein the support member (34) can be moved along a beam-shaped base (guides 35) of the processing machine.
As applied to claim 11, Bergerhoff teaches the invention cited including further comprising a plurality of machining units, wherein the machining units are each in fluid connection with one of the second connectors via a connecting fluid line (machining units including router, grinding machine, circular saw, hand planar, and jigsaw are connected via connecting fluid lines 27-31, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 in alternative and claims 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napier (US 1,803,402) in view of Suzuki (US 5,326,200).
As applied to claims 2-3 and 16-17, Napier teaches the invention cited including first drive unit and second drive unit but does not explicitly teach the first and second drive units comprise a pneumatic cylinder, a hydraulic cylinder or a servomotor.
Suzuki teaches a suction apparatus used machine tool wherein the suction ducts 25 are driven by cylinders 24. The suction ducts 25 are connected to the supporting members 29 and slide up and down with guides 30 attached to the supporting frame 17. The upper cylindrical portions of the suction ducts 25 are connected to hoses connected to a suction blower device (not shown) and the brushes 26 are attached to the suction ports of the suction ducts 25. When the cylinders 24a of the step operation means are driven, the suction ports of the suction ducts 25 are regulated to become the same height as the upper face of the suction table 9. After the suction blower device is operated, when the upper face of the suction table 9 is passed in the brushes 26 of the suction ports of the suction ducts 25, dust is removed on the upper face of the suction table 9. Then the suction table 9 is returned to the original position thereof, the suction ducts 25 are returned the original position by driving the first cylinders 24a and the suction blower device is stopped (col. 4, lines 48). The suction ducts 25 can be driven by a servomotor and gear device instead of the cylinders 24a, 24b and 24c (col. 5, lines 38-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the first and second drive units of Napier with a cylinder or servomotor to move the position of the suction fluid lines, as taught by Suzuki, considering the many advantages of servomotor drive system including high precision and control, higher efficiency and lower energy use and greater flexibility for integrating into existing systems with minimal changes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crienjak et al. (US 5,606,767) teaches a vacuum operated dust and debris removal and collection system (title).
Sasaki (US 5,107,910) teaches a wood working machine including a dust collecting passageway formed between a motor for a spindle of each of the working heads and a motor hood for the motor (abstract).
Shoda (US 4,557,148) teaches a chip removing device for a multi-head machine tool (title).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 05/23/2026
Prosecution Insights