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 .
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.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinma (EP 1 842 612 A1).
Claim 1:
Shinma discloses a contamination shield (abstract) comprising:
a sleeve (2) having a sleeve proximal end (19) and a sleeve distal end (4, 5), wherein the sleeve proximal end (19) is configured to attach to a chuck of a drill machine (fig. 1A, 3B; [0013] and [0014]); and
an enclosure (1) having an enclosure proximal end (23) and an enclosure distal end, wherein the enclosure proximal end (23) is joined to the sleeve distal end (4, 5), and wherein the enclosure (1) is formed of a plurality of circular baffles (figs. 1 and 5; [0012] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 5A, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
614
1066
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2:
Shinma discloses the contamination shield of claim 1, wherein the plurality of circular baffles each have at least one ridge and at least one recess and wherein the at least one ridge has a greater diameter than the at least one recess (figs. 1 and 5; [0012] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 5A, above).
Claim 3:
Shinma discloses the contamination shield of claim 1, further comprises a base ring (23) joined to the enclosure distal end (figs. 13; [0031] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 5A, above).
Claim 8:
Shinma discloses a drill machine (50) (fig.5A, [0016]) comprising: a chuck (chucking mechanism) (fig. 5A, [0016]); and the contamination shield (1, 2) of claim 1 (figs. 1A, 3B; [0012]-[0014] – see also annotated reproduction f fig. 5A, above).
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machida (JP 7 766 504 B2) as provided by Machida (US 2023/0241737 A1) as an English language equivalent.
Claim 1:
Machida discloses a contamination shield (abstract) comprising:
a sleeve (2) having a sleeve proximal end (4, 5) and a sleeve distal end (15), wherein the sleeve proximal end (4, 5) is configured to attach to a chuck of a drill machine (figs. 4-5; [0039] and [0054]); and
an enclosure (3) having an enclosure proximal end (26) and an enclosure distal end, wherein the enclosure proximal end (26) is joined to the sleeve distal end (15), and wherein the enclosure (3) is formed of a plurality of circular baffles (figs. 4-5; [0043]).
Claim 4:
Machida discloses the contamination shield of claim 1, wherein the plurality of circular baffles is made of plastic (resin) (fig. 3A, [0038]).
Claim 5:
Machida discloses the contamination shield of claim 1, wherein the enclosure is configured to move between a compressed state and a decompressed state (fig. 3A, [0057]).
Claim 6.
Machida discloses the contamination shield of claim 5, wherein a length of the enclosure in the decompressed state is greater than or equal to a length of a drill bit (B) (figs. 2 and 3A, [0041]).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Famulari (EP 0 295 225 A1).
Claim 1:
Famulari discloses a contamination shield (abstract) comprising:
a sleeve (5) having a sleeve proximal end and a sleeve distal end, wherein the sleeve proximal end is configured to attach to a chuck of a drill machine (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 19-34); and
an enclosure (1) having an enclosure proximal end and an enclosure distal end, wherein the enclosure proximal end is joined to the sleeve distal end (at locking ring 5), and wherein the enclosure (1) is formed of a plurality of circular baffles (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 19-34).
Claim 7:
Famulari discloses the contamination shield of claim 1, wherein the plurality of circular baffles have graduated diameters such that the enclosure is conical in shape (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 52-54 and col. 4, lines 26-29).
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.
In an alternative, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Famulari (EP 0 295 225 A1).
Claim 7:
Machida discloses the contamination shield of claim 1; and, Machida fails to disclose the plurality of circular baffles have graduated diameters such that the enclosure is conical in shape. Instead, Machida discloses multiple containment shields may have different shapes for different operations (Machida, [0064]).
Famulari discloses a contamination shield comprising a sleeve (5) and an enclosure (1) comprising a plurality of circular baffles (bellows) (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 19-34); wherein the plurality of circular baffles (bellows) have graduated diameters such that the enclosure is conical in shape (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 52-54 and col. 4, lines 26-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the contamination shield of Machida to have graduated diameters as taught by Famulari in order to improve compression behavior and surface conformity in Machida’s contamination shield (Famulari, col. 1, line 63 bridging col. 2, line 6 and col. 4, lines 39-51). The modification represents a predictable design choice within the same field addressing the same problem. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luu (US 2021/0069844 A1) discloses a dust-proof drilling apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726