DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, each of the limitations “suction portion opposed to a surface of a workpiece”, in line 2, and “suction portion has a negative pressure” are effectively claiming functions of the claimed device, which are not performed by the device. It is suggested that the applicant amend the limitations to, “suction portion is intended to be positioned opposed to a surface of a workpiece” and “suction portion is configured to receive a negative pressure through the hose, for [[by]] exerting a suction force to the dust collection passage
Regarding claim 13, similarly, the limitation that the “cap seals between the passing through tip tool” is also not solely performed by the cap, but also dependent on the structure of the tool. It is suggested that the applicant amend the limitation to, “cap that is configured to form a seal[[s]] with tip tool passing through the cap”.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation that the “cap obstructs the opposite side opening” is again dependent on the tip tool if/when it is engaged with the cap. It is suggested that the applicant amend the limitation to, “cap at least partially obstructs the opposite side opening”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5, 10, 12 are 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. Each of these claims include limitations that do not provide a clear and/or definitive structure to the claims, as follows:
Claim 3 – “disposed at least in an area in a side of the dust collection passage” is vague and open to alternative interpretations. As best understood by the examiner, based on reference to the drawings, the 1st and 2nd passages are “positioned on a side and/or connected to an end of the dust collection passage”, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Claim 5 – the respective openings being formed at an angle of 180° or more in the circumferential direction is unclear. Again, as best understood by the examiner, based on reference to the drawings, the 1st and 2nd passages have a shape with at least one side having a curvature of 180° or more (effectively, the passages are at least semi-circular), and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Claim 10 – the phrase “on an opposite side” in lines 2-3 is unclear because it does not define what the is opposite to.
Claim 12 – the entire limitation “an end portion of the inner pipe in the side of the workpiece is located on the opposite side of the workpiece with respect to an end portion in the side of the workpiece of the outer pipe” is unclear because the wording does no effectively define any specific structure, and the limitation repeatedly references orientation relative to the workpiece, which is not a claimed structure, and is not fixed relative to the claimed attachment, such that the limitations are not definitive.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Markley (2,145,939).
Regarding claim 1, Markley discloses a dust collecting attachment comprising: a dust suction portion configured to be positioned opposed to a surface of a workpiece, a tip tool being allowed to pass through the dust suction portion; and a main body having a dust collection passage (14) communicated with the dust suction portion and connectable to an external hose (shown in phantom in Fig. 3); wherein the dust is configured to receive a negative pressure through the hose, for exerting a suction force to the dust collection passage, the dust suction portion includes: an inner pipe (40) through which the tip tool passes; a first dust suction flow passage (between 24 and 40) that opens a first suction opening (bottom of 24) to a side of the workpiece in an outside in a radial direction of the inner pipe and is communicated with the dust collection passage; and a second dust suction flow passage (internal to 40) that opens a second suction opening (either 41 or 46 may be considered the second suction opening) to an opposite side of the workpiece in the outside in the radial direction of the inner pipe and is communicated with the dust collection passage.
Regarding claim 2, Markley further discloses that the first dust suction flow passage and the second dust suction flow passage join in the dust collection passage.
Regarding claim 3, Markley further discloses that the first dust suction flow passage and the second dust suction flow passage are disposed at least in an area in a side of the dust collection passage in the dust suction portion (both passages are positioned on a side and/or connected to an end of the dust collection passage; see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Regarding claim 4, Markley further discloses that the first suction opening is formed larger than the second suction opening in a circumferential direction of the inner pipe.
Regarding claim 5, Markley further discloses that the first suction opening and the second suction opening are both formed at an angle of 180° or more in the circumferential direction (both passages are circular, and equivalent in shape to the disclosed invention, when the second passage is considered to be 41).
Regarding claim 6, Markley further discloses that the second suction opening is formed between the inner pipe and an outer pipe disposed outside of the inner pipe, and a rib (40) is installed bridging between the inner pipe and the outer pipe.
Regarding claim 7, Markley further discloses that a ring-shaped ventilation space (in the areas that reference numbers 24, 30 and 43 are located) is formed between the inner pipe and the outer pipe, and the first dust suction flow passage serves as a flow passage that passes through the ventilation space from the first suction opening to reach the dust collection passage (effectively, the ventilation space is considered to be part of the first dust suction flow passage).
Regarding claim 8, Markley further discloses that a ring-shaped ventilation space is formed between the inner pipe and the outer pipe, and the second dust suction flow passage serves as a flow passage that passes through the ventilation space from the second suction opening to reach the dust collection passage (effectively, the ventilation space is considered to be part of the second dust suction flow passage).
Regarding claim 9, Markley further discloses that the outer pipe is arranged to be coaxial with the inner pipe.
Regarding claim 10, Markley further discloses a connecting portion (43) that connects the inner pipe and the outer pipe on an opposite side (from the first suction opening) of the dust collection passage, across a common axis line of the inner pipe and the outer pipe and the connecting portion is disposed between the inner pipe and the outer pipe.
Regarding claim 11, Markley further discloses that the first suction opening opens into a ring shape between the inner pipe and the outer pipe.
Regarding claim 12, Markley further discloses that an end portion of the inner pipe in the side of the workpiece is located on the opposite side of the workpiece with respect to an end portion in the side of the workpiece of the outer pipe (although the preceding limitations are considered to be unclear, the structure of Markley is considered to read on the limitations due to common structure to the disclosed invention), and the inner pipe has an axial length shorter than an axial length of the outer pipe (as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Markley further discloses a cap (11) that is configured to form a seal between the passing through tip tool and the dust suction portion, and is removably disposed (via bolts 13) on the opposite side of the workpiece in the dust suction portion.
Regarding claim 14, Markley further discloses that the second suction opening includes an opposite side opening portion (upper end of 40) that opens to the opposite side of the workpiece and an inner side opening portion (46) that is communicated with the opposite side opening portion and opens to an inner circumferential surface direction of the inner pipe, and the cap at least partially obstructs the opposite side opening portion in a mounted state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miyanaga (8,113,747) also reads on the majority of the claims in a similar manner to Markley and each of Kelley (2,144,586), Baumeister et al. (2,041,689), Staas et al. (6,887,146), Loevenich (4,184,226), Glogger et al. (2010/0200117), Wong et al. (10,328,541) and Reeder et al. (12,527,450) all disclose dust collecting attachments having similar structure and functions as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 22 July 2026
Prosecution Insights