DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract as filed exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 2, 3,13, and 20 recite “in combination with” an appear to describe a structure or device which is not recited as part of the system for collecting debris of claim 1, such as the rotary cutting tool and the vacuum source. Phrased differently: it is unclear whether the structures recited as being in combination with the device of claim 1 are positively required in claims 2, 3, 13, and 20. It is unclear whether the vacuum source of claim 2, the source of vacuum in claim 20, and the rotary cutting tool of claims 3 and 13 are part of the system for collecting debris claimed in claim 1. The examiner will interpret the phrase “in combination with” as having substantially the same meaning as “further comprising” and thus being positively required by each of the respective claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 17, and 19-21
Claims 1-8, 10, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0093320 to Sullivan (hereinafter “Sullivan”).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses a system (110; see Fig. 1) for collecting debris produced as a result of cutting through a surface of a component (see paragraph [0005]), the system comprising: a shield (105, see Fig. 1 or 300, see Fig. 3, both attached to shield main body 110) configured to be placed in an operative position against a component surface whereupon the shield and component surface cooperatively define an accumulation volume (area within moons 320, 360), the shield having at least one opening (through passages 113 and 117/118; see Fig. 1 for numerals) communicating from the accumulation volume to externally of the shield, the system further comprising an adaptor (117, 118) on the shield (shield main body 110) configured to be releasably operatively engaged by first, second, and third connectors (exemplary connector 127 shown in Fig. 1), the first, second, and third connectors having different configurations whereat the first, second, and third connectors having releasably operatively engage the adaptor (see paragraph [0041]-[0042]; conduit 126 connected to adaptor via inner circumference of 117, outer circumference of 117; or outer circumference of 118), the first, second, and third connectors respectively on first, second, and third conduit (vacuum hose 126; see paragraph [0041]), each with a passage (bulk of hose 126; see Fig. 1), the first, second, and third connectors releasably operatively engageable with the adaptor (see paragraph [0042]; various hoses can be attached to adaptor), one in place of the others, whereby a communication path (debris may travel at least from 113 through body at 121 and bottom of protector 110; see paragraph [0040]) is defined from the accumulation volume through the at least one shield opening (at 110) in the passage (hose of selected size) on one of the first, second, and third conduits on a selected one of the first, second, and third connectors that is releasably operatively engaged with the adaptor, the communication path usable to direct debris produced from cutting through a surface of a component from the collection volume to externally of the shield (see paragraph [0040]). The examiner understands that the various hoses which can be attached to the dust protector to each include the respective connectors, even though Figure 1 only appears to show a first connector 127 (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sullivan discloses in combination with a vacuum source (125) for generating a low-pressure region to cause movement of debris produced from cutting through the surface (see paragraphs [0039]-[0040]) from the accumulation volume to a location externally of the shield (debris passes through 105 or 300 and 110).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sullivan discloses in combination with a rotary cutting tool (120) that is connected to the shield (110) and operable to cut through a surface of a component (see paragraph [0039] and Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 3, and further Sullivan discloses that the cutting tool (120) is operated by a drive (conventionally powered; see paragraph [0003]; see Fig. 3, entire drill machine completely separable from shield 110) located externally of the shield (110).
Regarding claim 5, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sullivan discloses that the adaptor (117, 118) has one cylindrical surface (see Fig. 1) and the first connector (127) has one cylindrical surface (see Fig. 1), and with the first connector (127) releasably operatively engaged with the adaptor (at 117) one of the: a) the one cylindrical surface of the adaptor (see paragraph [0042]; and b) the another cylindrical surface of the second connector surrounds and frictionally engages the other of the another cylindrical surface on the adaptor and the another cylindrical surface on the second connector. The examiner understands clauses a) and b) to be alternatives.
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 5, and further Sullivan discloses the adaptor (117, 118) has another cylindrical surface (see Fig. 1; see paragraph [0042]; select another surface of inner cylindrical surface of 117, outer surface of 117, and inner surface of 118) and the second connector (attachment point of the second of the “various hoses” recited in paragraph [0042]) has another cylindrical surface (attachments understood to mate with the circular portions of 117, 118; see paragraph [0042]), and with the second connector (attachment point of second hose) releasably operatively engaged with the adaptor (at surface of 117 or 118) one of the: a) the another cylindrical surface of the adaptor (see paragraph [0042]; and b) the another cylindrical surface of the second connector surrounds and frictionally engages the other of the another cylindrical surface on the adaptor and the another cylindrical surface on the second connector. The examiner understands clauses a) and b) to be alternatives.
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 6, and further Sullivan discloses that the adaptor (117, 118) has a further cylindrical surface (see Fig. 1; see paragraph [0042]; select another surface of inner cylindrical surface of 117, outer surface of 117, and inner surface of 118) and the third connector (attachment point of the third of the “various hoses” recited in paragraph [0042]) has a further cylindrical surface (attachments understood to mate with the circular portions of 117, 118; see paragraph [0042]) and with the third connector (attachment point of third hose) releasably operatively engaged with the adaptor (at surface of 117 or 118) one of the: a) the further cylindrical surface of the adaptor (see paragraph [0042]; and b) the further cylindrical surface of the third connector surrounds and frictionally engages the other of the further cylindrical surface on the adaptor and the further cylindrical surface on the third connector. The examiner understands clauses a) and b) to be alternatives.
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 7, and further Sullivan discloses that the one cylindrical surface (inner surface of 117; see paragraph [0042], the another cylindrical surface (outer surface of 117), and the further cylindrical surface (surface of 118) on the adaptor have the same central axis (see Fig. 1; center line is shown to be the same).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 5, and further Sullivan discloses in combination with the first connector (at 127) and wherein the one cylindrical surface (at surface of portion 127; see ribs) of the first connector (127) has a central axis (longitudinal axis shown in Fig. 1) the one cylindrical surface on the first connector (at 127) has a non-uniform diameter along an axial length of the one cylindrical surface on the first connector (ribs understood and shown to be non-uniform diameter; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 3, and further Sullivan discloses that the rotary cutting tool (120) is configured to produce a hole in a component surface as the rotary cutting tool is operated (drill is understood to be conventional and to form holes in operation; see paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sullivan discloses in combination with at least one of a) the first connector (at 127) of the first conduit (126); b) the second connector on the second conduit; and c) the third connector on the third conduit (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 20, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 19, and further Sullivan discloses further in combination with a source of vacuum (125) for generating a low-pressure region in the passage on a selected one of the: a) first conduit (125) and the first connector (at 127; see paragraph [0039]); b) the second conduit and the second connector; and c) the third conduit and the third connector (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 21, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sullivan discloses that the adaptor (117, 118) is permanently connected to the shield (connected to main body 110; see Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 9 and 22
Claims 9 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan as applied to claims 5 and 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 5, and further Sullivan discloses that the one cylindrical surface (at 117) on the adaptor (117, 118) has a central axis (see Fig. 1, centerline shown). Sullivan does not explicitly disclose that the one cylindrical surface on the adaptor has a non-uniform diameter along an axial length of the one cylindrical surface on the adaptor.
However, the connector (at 127) of the hose (126) appears to have a non-uniform diameter along the length thereof, and cooperates with the surface (at 117) of the adaptor (see Fig. 1). The MPEP teaches that reversal of parts may be an obvious modification (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A). The surfaces at the adaptor (117,118) and the connector (at 127) cooperate with one another and would be reasonably expected to cooperate in the same manner regardless of whether the ribs illustrated at portion 127 are on the adaptor or the connector. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus taught by Sullivan such that the surface shown on the connector at 127 is located instead on the adaptor and the cylindrical surface shown at 117, 118 is instead on the hose (126). The modified device would be reasonably expected to secure the hose to the shield body (110) in substantially the same manner as shown in Figure 1 of Sullivan.
Thus, Sullivan teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 22, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sullivan does not explicitly disclose that the adaptor (117, 118) is releasably connected to the shield.
The MPEP teaches that it may be known in the art to make components separable where parts are shown as being integrally formed (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). Sullivan teaches that it is advantageous for the hoses to connect to the bottom of the shield (body 110; see paragraph [0041]) allowing for multiple different hose sizes and attachment points. While Sullivan does not explicitly contemplate additional hose sizes, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find that separate modular attachment points could be used to connect further hose sizes, advantageously providing manufacturing flexibility, which is understood by Sullivan to be desirable (see paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Sullivan to provide the adaptor components in a separable form. (See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). Such separable adaptors would allow for more than three possible vacuum hose sizes.
Thus, Sullivan teaches the limitations of claim 22.
Claims 11-14 and 16
Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0141820 to Mikon et al. (hereinafter “Mikon”).
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Sullivan teaches that the shield (main body 110 and attachments 105 and 300) may include a cup-shaped body (attachment 300) with a peripheral wall extending around an axis (see Fig. 3) and a top wall (330) and a bottom opening (space between walls 370). Sullivan does not explicitly disclose that the cup-shaped body has an outturned flange at the bottom of the peripheral wall that is abuttable to a surface of a component whereby the surface of the component blocks the bottom opening on the cup-shaped body.
However, it is known in the art of debris removal devices to provide a cup-shaped body having a flange. For example, Mikon teaches such a body.
Mikon teaches a debris catching device (10) having a passage (24) through which a cutting tool (36) may extend. The device (10) includes a cup-shaped body (18) defining a wall (see paragraph [0035]; wall forming body) having a first end (toward opening 24) and a second end (toward flanged portion 22) with a flanged portion (22) at a second end for abutting a workpiece (38; see Figs. 3 and 4). Mikon teaches that the flange (22) prevents dust from escaping around the second end of the debris catching device (see paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Sullivan to include another and conventional cup-shaped debris removal attachment, such as the attachment taught by Mikon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting apparatus would advantageously include improved security against dust or debris escaping from the opening end during operation of the cutting device while the dust collector abuts a workpiece. Because Sullivan teaches that different attachment structures may be used with its debris collecting apparatus, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that additional collector attachments could be used without modification of the principles of operation Sullivan.
Thus, the combination of Sullivan and Mikon teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sullivan and Mikon teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further Mikon teaches that the top wall (wall of body 18) is axially collapsible (compare deformation between Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sullivan and Mikon teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further Mikon teaches that the device is in combination with a rotary cutting tool (saw 28 or drill 36) and a bearing (reinforcement 44; see paragraph [see paragraph [0042]) is provided on the top wall (wall of body 18) of the cup-shaped body (18) to guide rotary movement of the rotary cutting tool (reinforcement supports deformation against force of drill body and chuck 34; see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sullivan and Mikon teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further Mikon teaches that the peripheral wall (wall of body 18) has a locally reinforced region (at reinforcement 44) and the at least one opening (aperture 24 extends through reinforcement 44; see Fig. 6) on the shield extends through the locally reinforced region of the peripheral wall (wall of body 18). In the combination, the aperture through the first end of the body of Mikon would be understood to connect to the shield main body 110 of Sullivan, such that each opening of the shield is in fluid communication with the opening at the reinforced region.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sullivan and Mikon teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further Mikon teaches that the shield is configured so that the top wall axially collapsed (compare Figures 3 and 4) defines an upwardly opening cup shape (see collapsed configurations in Figs. 4 and 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 18 are 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 15, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein a releasable cap has as surface that surrounds and frictionally engages one of the one cylindrical surface, the another cylindrical surface, and the further cylindrical surface on the adaptor and blocks the at least one shield opening,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the adaptor consists of first and second joinable parts which capture the peripheral wall at the locally reinforced region to maintain the adaptor operatively connected to the peripheral wall,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. The examiner notes that the Sullivan teaches a multi-part shield module (300), however the shield module is not positioned to perform the claimed function, and outside of Applicant’s own Specification there does not appear to be motivation to modify the device to perform the recited capturing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0368655 to Bergman et al. teaches a debris catching device for a cutting tool, with a port (206) for connecting the device to a vacuum system (see Fig. 3).
United States Patent 3,583,821 to Shaub et al. teaches a dust catching device (1) for use with a cutting device and including a bearing (3) for supporting the cutting device on the dust catching device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726