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 .
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.
Claim 28 is 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.
Regarding claim 28, “the receptacle” lacks antecedent basis.
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 13-15, 18-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta (20130206440) and further in view of Bellardini (USP 5359751).
Regarding Claim 13, Ikuta teaches a suction-extraction aid (140-Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (141-Fig. 2);
a suction hose receptacle (144-Fig. 2).
However, Ikuta is silent regarding a joint having at least one axis of rotation, the joint pivotably connecting the suction hose receptacle to the housing, wherein the suction hose receptacle is pivotable between at least a first position relative to the housing and a second position relative to the housing.
Bellardini teaches a suction-extraction aid (10-fig. 1, housing 12 is a part of attachment 10) comprising: a housing (12-Fig. 1), and a joint (34-Fig. 1) having at least one axis of rotation (Fig. 4, 34 is a ball joint, which would allow for at least one axis of rotation), the joint pivotably connecting the suction hose receptacle to the housing (Fig. 4), wherein the suction hose receptacle is pivotable between at least a first position relative to the housing and a second position relative to the housing (Fig. 4, joint 34 allows housing 12 to pitch and yaw relative to tube 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's invention, to have modified the suction-extraction aid as disclosed by Ikuta, to have incorporated the joint as taught by Bellardini, SO to allow the extraction aid to move relative to the hose, in order to reduce shear force on the hose at the connection of the hose with the extraction aid as the extraction aid moves about the contours of a work piece.
Regarding Claim 14, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Ikuta discloses wherein the housing includes a tool receptacle (143-Fig. 2) configured to receive an application tool (119-Fig. 2) along a receiving axis (Fig. 2, bot 119 defines a receiving axis through members 141 and 143).
Regarding Claim 15, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Ikuta discloses wherein the housing has a contact surface (Figs. 2-3, port 141a and the distal section of hood 141) configured to contact a work surface such that the receiving axis passes through an opening defined by the contact surface (Figs. 2-3 and paragraph [0047], bit 119 passes through hood 141 and port 141a to contact a workpiece, wherein the examiner notes that a section hood 141 and port 141a is capable of contacting the workpiece).
Regarding Claim 18, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Ikuta discloses wherein the housing includes an air-guiding element (145-Fig. 2) separating the connecting region into a first section (Fig. 2, bottom 144a), through which the receiving axis passes (Fig. 2, the axis as defined by longitudinal length bit 119 passes through bottom portion of 141a), and a second section that is spaced apart from the receiving axis (Fig. 2, upper portion of 141a and spaced apart from bit 119).
Regarding Claim 19, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Bellardini teaches wherein the suction hose receptacle has a first rotational degree of freedom configured such that the suction hose receptacle pivots about a first axis of rotation (Fig. 4, pivot joint 34 is a ball joint configuration, which allows for both pitch and yaw or a combination of both, of the tool 10 relative to the tube 35).
Regarding Claim 20, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Ikuta discloses wherein the suction hose receptacle is spaced apart from and perpendicular to the receiving axis of the tool receptacle in the parent claim and Bellardini teaches the first axis of rotation (Fig. 4, joint 34 allow the hose connection to manipulate the yaw of suction hose receptacle relative to tool 10, wherein in Ikuta, the through hole for bit 119 through hood 141 is perpendicular to the yaw of the ball joint of Bellardini).
Regarding Claim 21, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Bellardini teaches wherein the first rotational degree of freedom is the only rotational degree of freedom of the suction hose receptacle (Fig. 4, motion along the yaw axis in joint 34 is the only rotational of the connection 32 to tool 10).
Regarding Claim 22, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Bellardini teaches wherein the suction hose receptacle further includes a second rotational degree of freedom defined by a second axis of rotation that crosses the receiving axis (Fig. 4, joint 34 has a pitch rotation of connector 35 and tool 10, wherein in view of the connection of hood 141 and hose 146 of Ikuta, the pitch rotation joint 34 would cross the axis as defined by the length of bit 119).
Regarding Claim 23, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Bellardini teaches wherein the suction hose receptacle is pivotable in an angular range of at least 45° (Fig. 4, it would appear that the joint 34 is pivotable in an angular range of at least 45 degrees).
Regarding Claim 24, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Bellardini teaches wherein the suction hose receptacle defines a connecting axis (Fig. 4, the length of tube 35 defines a connection axis), and the suction hose receptacle has a first position in which the receptacle axis is arranged substantially parallel to the receiving axis (Fig. 4, the ball joint configuration of joint 34 allows for first position of the connection hose 146 and hood 141 of Ikuta).
Regarding Claim 26, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Bellardini teaches wherein the joint includes at least one of a ball joint, a condyloid joint, a saddle joint, a hinge joint, or a pivot joint (Fig. 4, pivot joint 34 is a pivot joint in the form of a ball joint).
Claims 16-17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta (20130206440) and as modified by Bellardini (USP 5359751) in the parent claim, and further in view of Richards (US Pub 20200156199).
Regarding Claim 16, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Ikuta
discloses the housing in the parent claim.
However, Ikuta is silent wherein the housing further comprises a support element having a support surface arranged spaced apart from the contact surface and configured to contact the work surface.
Richards teaches wherein a housing (Fig. 5, assembly of hub 234, arm 238 and shroud 242) further comprises a support element (234-Fig. 5) having a support surface (Fig. 4, hub 234 has a surface) arranged spaced apart from a contact surface (Fig. 5, the surface of shroud 242 which contacts a workpiece) and configured to contact the work surface (Fig. 5, surface of hub 234 is capable of contacting the workpiece).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's invention, to have modified the housing as disclosed by Ikuta, to have incorporated the housing as taught by Richards, so to allow for the housing to have two contact points with a workpiece, in order to help adjust the and keep the shroud in contact with the workpiece during tool operation.
Regarding Claim 17, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini and Richards in the parent claim, Ikuta discloses wherein the housing defines a first air channel (Fig. 2, suction port 141a above partition 145) configured to draw in fresh air (port 141a is capable of pulling in fresh air from the atmosphere), a second air channel (Fig. 2, suction port 141a below partition 145) configured to extract drilling cuttings by suction air (port 141a is capable of pulling in dust for bit 119 operation), and a connecting region in which the first and second air channels are connected (Fig. 2, ports 141a are connected to one another via hood 141 before and after partition 145), the connecting region being delimited by the contact surface (Fig. 5, hood 141 and partition 145 delimit the internal contact surface of ports 141a).
Regarding claim 27, as combined above, Richards teaches where in the tool receptacle (Richards, Fig. 5, tool receptacle is within suction inlet 246) and the support element (Richards, Fig. 5, item 234) are arranged on opposite sides of the joint (Richards, Fig. 5, item 238).
Claims 25 and 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta (20130206440) and as modified by Bellardini (USP 5359751) in the parent claim, and further in view of Miwa (US Pub 20120063856).
Regarding Claim 25, Ikuta and as modified by Bellardini in the parent claim, Ikuta
discloses the tool receptacle in the parent claim.
However, Ikuta is silent wherein the tool receptacle has a receiving element and a spring configured to act on the receiving element with a force.
Miwa teaches wherein a tool receptacle (Fig. 4, the entire assembly for receiving bit 119) has a receiving element (251-Fig. 4) and a spring (257-Fig. 4) configured to act on the receiving element with a force (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0076], spring 257 biases member 251).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's invention, to have modified the tool receptacle as disclose by Ikuta, to have incorporated tool receptacle as taught by Miwa, so to utilize a hook member biased by a coil spring, in order to prevent the hood from falling off the tool (Miwa, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 28, as combined above, Miwa teaches wherein the spring (Miwa, Fig. 4, item 257) acts on the receiving element (Miwa, Fig. 4, item 251) so as to urge the receiving element into a receiving region of the receptacle that is configured to receive the application tool (Miwa, Para. 0075-0076, spring 257 biases receiving element 251 toward the engaged position, which is towards the receiving region of the receptacle (interior of hood 221)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to modify Ikuta with the Bellardini joint, Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, by incorporating the pivotable joint of Bellardini into the suction extraction aid of Ikuta, the force exerted at the connection of the hose to the housing will be reduced. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argment that Ikuta in view of Bellardini does not teach a contact surface configured to contact a work surface, Examiner disagrees. As described in the above 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 15, the contact surface of Ikuta is capable of contacting a work surface. Examiner recommends incorporating further limitations to define the contact surface. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ikuta in view of Bellardini does not teach the suction hose receptacle with only one rotational degree of freedom, Examiner disagrees. Figure 5 of Bellardini shows rotation of the hose 35 along the left right direction, in one rotational degree of freedom. Applicant has pointed to Column 5, lines 8-11 of Bellardini to assert that Bellardini teaches multiple degrees of freedom. However, Bellardini merely discloses that the attachment can have “a large degree of movement” during cleaning, but this does not mean that the attachment moves in more than one rotational degree of freedom. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights