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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Application filed January 31, 2024, in which claim(s) 1-20 is/are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending of which Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6 is/are presented in independent form.
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new primary references being used in the current rejection. After an updated search, Examiner has applied the following updated rejection based on Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al (US 2009/0148246), hereinafter Nishikawa.
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa discloses an electric hammer (Fig. 5, item 1), comprising:
a motor (Fig. 1 and 5, item 18) including a rotational shaft (Fig. 5, item 19) extending in a first direction (Fig. 5, first direction runs in from the top of the tool to the bottom of the tool, through shaft 19);
a body (Fig. 1, item 2) incorporating the motor (Fig. 1, motor 18 is within housing 2);
a striker assembly (Fig. 5, item 44, 46) operable in response to the motor being driven (Para. 0061), the striker assembly being configured to strike a bit (Fig. 5, item 26) attached along a striking axis (Fig. 5, striking axis runs from front of the tool to the back of the tool, along the striker assembly 44, 46) orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 5, striking axis is perpendicular to first direction);
a dust collection fan (Fig. 5, item 14) rotatable in response to the motor being driven (Para. 0044);
a dust collection channel (Fig. 5, item 15, 11,10, 10b) having a suction port (Fig. 5, item 10b) being open toward a tip (Fig. 5, item 26a) of the bit, the dust collection channel being configured to generate a suction force (Para. 0064) in the suction port in response to rotation of the dust collection fan (Para. 0064); and
a dust collector (Fig. 5, item 12, 13) located on the dust collection channel (Para. 0050), the dust collector being configured to collect dust (Para. 0050) sucked through the suction port (Para. 0050).
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa discloses the electric hammer according to claim 1, wherein the dust collection channel (Fig. 5, item 15) is partially located in the body (Fig. 5, air passage 15 is located in body 2) (Para. 0066).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishikawa discloses wherein the dust collector (Fig. 5, item 12, 13) includes a filter (13) having a filter surface facing downward (see Fig. 5 – the filter is angled downward under BRI since Applicant has not provided a coordinate system or specified what “downward” is in relation to – for example in particular uses of the drill, the filter would be angled “downward”), and the dust collector allows air to pass through the filter upward from below the filter (at least Para. [0044]).
Regarding Claim 7, Nishikawa discloses wherein the dust collection channel (Fig. 5, item 15, 11,10, 10b) includes an external hose (Figs. 1 & 2, generally referenced at “31”; this item is considered to be the “external” hose as it is separated from other parts of the housing) extending from the suction port (10b) to the body (2), and the body includes a connection port (near fan 14) connecting with a part of the dust collection channel (Fig. 5, item 15, 11,10, 10b) located in the body.
Regarding Claim 8, Nishikawa discloses wherein the striking axis extends vertically (Fig. 1; in working condition striking axis extends vertically), the bit (26) is attachable to a lower portion of the striker assembly (Fig. 1), and the connection port is open downward (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Nishikawa discloses wherein the dust collector is detachable from the body (at least Para. [0044]).
Regarding Claim 14, Nishikawa discloses wherein the dust collector (Fig. 5, item 12, 13) includes a filter (13) having a filter surface facing downward (see Fig. 5 – the filter is angled downward under BRI since Applicant has not provided a coordinate system or specified what “downward” is in relation to – for example in particular uses of the drill, the filter would be angled “downward”), and the dust collector allows air to pass through the filter upward from below the filter (at least Para. [0044]).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Marsh, US 20220314384.
Regarding Claim 4, Marsh discloses an electric hammer (Fig. 1, rotary hammer 4), comprising:
a motor (Fig. 3A, motor 48);
a body (Fig. 1, housing 12) incorporating the motor;
a striker assembly (Fig. 1, drive assembly 52) operable in response to the motor being driven, the striker assembly being configured to strike a bit (Fig. 1, tool bit 32) attached along a striking axis (3A, A2);
a dust collection fan (Fig. 3A, suction fan 92) rotatable in response to the motor being driven;
a dust collection channel (Fig. 3A, telescoping suction pipe 40) having a suction port (Fig. 3, nozzle 76) being open toward a tip of the bit, the dust collection channel being configured to generate a suction force in the suction port in response to rotation of the dust collection fan ([0076]); and
a dust collector (Fig. 3A, dust container 84) located on the dust collection channel, the dust collector being configured to collect dust sucked through the suction port wherein the motor (3A, 48) is located between the dust collector (3A, 84) and the striker assembly along the striking axis (see Fig. 3A, 52/A2).
Regarding Claim 6, Marsh discloses an electric hammer (Fig. 1, rotary hammer 4), comprising:
a motor (Fig. 3A, motor 48);
a body (Fig. 1, housing 12) incorporating the motor;
a striker assembly (Fig. 1, drive assembly 52) operable in response to the motor being driven, the striker assembly being configured to strike a bit (Fig. 1, tool bit 32) attached along a striking axis (3A, A2);
a dust collection fan (Fig. 3A, suction fan 92) rotatable in response to the motor being driven;
a dust collection channel (Fig. 3A, telescoping suction pipe 40) having a suction port (Fig. 3, nozzle 76) being open toward a tip of the bit, the dust collection channel being configured to generate a suction force in the suction port in response to rotation of the dust collection fan ([0076]); and
a dust collector (Fig. 3A, dust container 84) located on the dust collection channel, the dust collector being configured to collect dust sucked through the suction port and a cooling fan (Fig. 3A, cooling fan 64) configured to cool the motor, wherein
the motor (3A, 48) is disposed between the dust collection fan (92) and the cooling fan (64) along a rotational shaft of the motor in an axial direction of the rotational shaft (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 16, Marsh further discloses wherein the dust collector (84) includes a filter Fig. 3A, filter 88) having a filter surface facing downward (see Fig. 3A – the filter is angled downward under BRI since Applicant has not provided a coordinate system or specified what “downward” is in relation to), and the dust collector allows air to pass through the filter (inherent of filter structure) upward from below the filter (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 19, Marsh further discloses a cooling fan (Fig. 3A, cooling fan 64) configured to cool the motor, wherein the dust collection fan (92) and the cooling fan (64) are located on opposite ends of a rotational shaft of the motor in an axial direction of the rotational shaft (see Fig. 3A).
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 3 and 11-13, and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2021/0129307), hereinafter Tsuji.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Nishikawa is silent about the electric hammer according to claim 1, wherein the motor is located along the striking axis.
However, Tsuji teaches an electric hammer (Tsuji, Fig. 3, item 101) wherein the motor (Tsuji, Fig. 3, item 2, motor axis is A2) is located along the striking axis (Tsuji, Fig. 3, striking axis is A1, through striking mechanism 35) (Tsuji, Para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Nishikawa and Tsuji to modify the electric hammer of Nishikawa to include the motor orientation of Tsuji. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to distribute the components of the tool in such a way that reduces excess vibration (Tsuji, Para. 0003).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, as combined, the prior art discloses wherein the motor is located between the dust collector and the striker assembly is located along the striking axis opposite to the striker assembly with the motor in between. By the combination where the motor is located along the striking axis, the assembly would meet the claimed limitation where the motor is in “between” (under BRI and inasmuch as applicant is currently claiming).
Regarding Claim 15, Nishikawa further discloses wherein the dust collector (Fig. 5, item 12, 13) includes a filter (13) having a filter surface facing downward (see Fig. 5 – the filter is angled downward under BRI since Applicant has not provided a coordinate system or specified what “downward” is in relation to – for example in particular uses of the drill, the filter would be angled “downward”), and the dust collector allows air to pass through the filter upward from below the filter (at least Para. [0044]).
Claims 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Marsh, US 20220314384.
Regarding Claims 17 and 20, Nishikawa discloses a cooling fan (Fig. 1, 17) configured to cool the motor (Para. [0046]), wherein the dust collection fan (14) and the cooling fan are located on opposite ends of a rotational shaft of the motor in an axial direction of the rotational shaft. While Nishikawa discloses the two fans being on “opposite ends”, Nishikawa fails to show them on an opposite end of a rotational shaft of the motor.
However, Marsh teaches an analogous drill assembly with a cooling fan (Fig. 3A, cooling fan 64) configured to cool the motor, wherein the dust collection fan (92) and the cooling fan (64) are located on opposite ends of a rotational shaft of the motor in an axial direction of the rotational shaft (see Fig. 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have contemplated this arrangement since Marsh teaches that this arrangement is well known in the art (Fig. 3A). It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill that this would be a simple substitution of one fan design for another. Furthermore, it would create a more efficient airflow in the drill.
Claims 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2021/0129307), hereinafter Tsuji and further in view of Marsh, US 20220314384.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art discloses the invention as claimed above. Nishikawa further discloses a cooling fan (Fig. 1, 17) configured to cool the motor (Para. [0046]), wherein the dust collection fan (14) and the cooling fan are located on opposite ends of a rotational shaft of the motor in an axial direction of the rotational shaft. While Nishikawa discloses the two fans being on “opposite ends”, Nishikawa fails to show them on an opposite end of a rotational shaft of the motor.
However, Marsh teaches an analogous drill assembly with a cooling fan (Fig. 3A, cooling fan 64) configured to cool the motor, wherein the dust collection fan (92) and the cooling fan (64) are located on opposite ends of a rotational shaft of the motor in an axial direction of the rotational shaft (see Fig. 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have contemplated this arrangement since Marsh teaches that this arrangement is well known in the art (Fig. 3A). It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill that this would be a simple substitution of one fan design for another. Furthermore, it would create a more efficient airflow in the drill.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Brewster 9,776,296.
Regarding Claim 10, Nishikawa discloses the invention as claimed above. Nishikawa does not disclose a detector configured to detect the dust collector being attached to the body; and a controller configured to control driving of the motor, wherein the controller does not drive the motor when the detector detects the dust collector being not attached. However, Brewster teaches an analogous assembly utilizing these features (col. 14, lines 9-67 and col. 15, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Nishikawa and added a controller as taught by Brewster; because Brewster teaches that this feature is known in the art and is beneficial for proper drill functionality (col. 14, lines 9-67 and col. 15, lines 1-3).
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 ANNA K KINSAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731