Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/731,970

SUCTION DEVICE HAVING A COOLING DUCT AND METHOD FOR OPERAT-ING THE SUCTION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 03, 2024
Priority
Jun 12, 2023 — EU 23178650.0
Examiner
LARSON, JOHN MICHAEL
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Hilti Aktiengesellschaft
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 33% of cases
33%
Career Allowance Rate
1 granted / 3 resolved
-26.7% vs TC avg
Strong +100% interview lift
Without
With
+100.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
19
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
76.9%
+36.9% vs TC avg
§102
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 3 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 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 16-18 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. The term “minimum loss” in claims 16-18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “minimum” renders the loss of cooling capacity indefinite. 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 1-6, 8-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowerman (US 4099291). a housing (hood 64, col 2 lines 50-64 Fig 1); at least one component (electric motor 18, col 2 lines 12-31 Figs 1-2); and a duct for supplying cooling air for the at least one component the at least one component being arranged within the housing (duct defined as the channel defined by the housings of electric motor 18 and fan 20 which is arranged within the housing 64, col 2 lines 12-31 Figs 1-2); the duct being designed in such a way that cooling air is drawn in from an interior space of the housing and is led past the at least one component (the duct is designed such that cooling air is drawn in from an interior space of the housing 64 via conduit 82 and is led past the component 18, col 3 lines 7-16 Fig 1). PNG media_image1.png 681 441 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 488 740 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one component is an electronics unit (electric motor 18 is an electronics unit (electronics unit interpreted under BRI)). Regarding claim 3, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the electronics unit is arranged at an angle of inclination α within the duct, wherein the angle of inclination α is in a range between 0 and 90° (the motor 18 is arranged within the duct at an angle of inclination of 0° as seen in Figs above). Regarding claim 4, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one component is arranged at an angle of inclination α within the duct, wherein the angle of inclination α is in a range between 0 and 90° (the motor 18 is arranged within the duct at an angle of inclination of 0° as seen in Figs above). Regarding claim 5, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one component is arranged in an inlet region of the duct (inlet region defined as the region of the duct defined by motor 18’s housing, which is where the motor 18 is arranged, col 3 lines 7-16). Regarding claim 6, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the electronics unit is arranged in an inlet region of the duct (inlet region defined as the region of the duct defined by motor 18’s housing, which is where the motor 18 is arranged, col 3 lines 7-16). Regarding claim 8, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses at least one line for transmitting electrical energy, data and/or control commands (line defined as conductor 178, col 3-4 lines 52-11 Fig 8 shown below). PNG media_image3.png 399 665 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the at least one line for transmitting electrical energy, data and/or control commands is arranged between an electronics unit and a suction motor of the suction device (line 178 is arranged between electronics unit 86 and suction motor 18). Regarding claim 10, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the duct is formed by a first side region and a second side region, wherein at least one of the first and second side regions has a receiver for receiving or holding the at least one component (first side region defined as the upper half of the housings of 18 and 20 as seen in Fig 2 above and the second side region defined as the lower half of those housings, at least one or both of these regions having a receiver which is defined as geometry that component 18 is received by within its housing). Regarding claim 11, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the duct is formed by a first side region and a second side region, wherein at least one of the first and second side regions has a receiver for receiving or holding the electronics unit (first side region defined as the upper half of the housings of 18 and 20 as seen in Fig 2 above and the second side region defined as the lower half of those housings, at least one or both of these regions having a receiver which is defined as geometry that unit 18 is received by within its housing). Regarding claim 13, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an inlet region of the duct is designed so as to slope by an angle of inclination α (an inlet region defined as the junction of 18 and 20 as seen in Fig 2 above, which is designed to slope by an angle of inclination of 0° as see above). Regarding claim 14, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a central portion of the duct is formed parallel to an imaginary vertical axis (imaginary vertical axis defined as an axis bisecting a central portion of the duct in the longitudinal direction of Fig 2 and thus a central portion of the duct is parallel to the imaginary axis, imaginary axis shown below in annotated Fig 2). PNG media_image4.png 488 740 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 15, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a method for operating a suction device as recited in claim 1 comprising: drawing cooling air in from the interior space of the housing; and leading the cooling past the at least one component (col 3 lines 7-16 explain that air discharged from fan 20, which is drawn in from conduit 82, passes through the housing of motor 18 serving to cool the motor). Regarding claim 16, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the at least one component is arranged at an angle of inclination α within the duct, wherein the angle of inclination α is in a range between 0 and 90°, such that the cooling air is led past the at least one component with a minimum loss of cooling capacity (the motor 18 is arranged within the duct at an angle of inclination of 0° as seen in Figs above and so cooling air is led past the motor 18 with a minimum loss of cooling capacity, as best understood by examiner). Regarding claim 17, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the at least one component of the suction device is arranged in an inlet region of the duct, such that the cooling air is led past the at least one component with a minimum loss of cooling capacity (inlet region defined as the region of the duct defined by motor 18’s housing, which is where the motor 18 is arranged and so the cooling air is lead past the motor with a minimum loss of cooling capacity, col 3 lines 7-16). Claims 1, 15, 18 rejected under 102(a)(1) under a new interpretation of Bowerman. Regarding claim 1, Bowerman discloses a suction device comprising: a housing (hood 64, col 2 lines 50-64 Fig 1); at least one component (the end of conductor 178 that connects to the side of motor 18 as shown in Fig 8 above, col 4 lines 7-11); and a duct for supplying cooling air for the at least one component the at least one component being arranged within the housing (duct defined as the channel defined by the housings of electric motor 18 and fan 20 which is arranged within the housing 64, col 2 lines 12-31 Figs 1-2); the duct being designed in such a way that cooling air is drawn in from an interior space of the housing and is led past the at least one component (the duct is designed such that cooling air is drawn in from an interior space of the housing 64 via conduit 82 and is led past the component 178, the component is connected to an end of the motor 18 which the cooling air passes through and so cooling air is led past the component, col 3 lines 7-16 Fig 1). Regarding claim 15, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a method for operating a suction device as recited in claim 1 comprising: drawing cooling air in from the interior space of the housing; and leading the cooling past the at least one component (col 3 lines 7-16 explain that during operation of the suction device, air discharged from fan 20, which is drawn in from conduit 82, passes through the housing of motor 18 serving to cool the motor, the component is connected to an end of the motor 18 which the cooling air passes through and so cooling air is led past the component). Regarding claim 18, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the at least one component is arranged between an electronics unit and a suction motor of the suction device such that the cooling air is led past the at least one component of the suction device with a minimum loss of cooling capacity (the component is arranged between electronics unit 86 and suction motor 18 such that the cooling air discharged from fan 20 leading past the motor is also led past the component with a minimum loss of cooling capacity). 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowerman (US 4099291) in view of Norell (US 20110232026). Regarding claim 7, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above. However, Bowerman fails to disclose the electronics unit has cooling fins. Norell is also concerned with suction devices and teaches the electronics unit has cooling fins (cooling fins 34 [0020] Fig 2 shown below). PNG media_image5.png 716 348 media_image5.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the cooling fins of Norell to the electronics unit of Bowerman in order to maximize the amount of air pulled in by the fan to flow across the electronics unit, as taught by Norell [0020]. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowerman (US 4099291) in view of Norell ‘462 (US 20100083462). Regarding claim 12, Bowerman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Bowerman fails to disclose the duct is in sealing engagement with a seal of a suction motor of the suction device. Norell ‘462 is also concerned with suction devices and teaches the duct is in sealing engagement with a seal of a suction motor of the suction device (seal defined as motor boot gasket 646 which helps to seal and vibrationally isolate the fan and motor [0147] Fig 3A below). PNG media_image6.png 719 427 media_image6.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the seal of Norell ‘462 to the suction device of Bowerman in order to seal and vibrationally isolate the motor and fan assembly (Norell ‘462: [0147]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm. 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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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. /JOHN MICHAEL LARSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 03, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12673399
BREAKER BAR
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
33%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+100.0%)
2y 8m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 3 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month