DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: At paragraph [0028], the Specification as filed includes strikeout markup. It is unclear to the examiner how this text would appear on a potentially issued patent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a suctioning cover for a core drill bit of a core drilling device, the core drill bit having a front side facing towards a substrate to be machined, and a rear side facing away from the substrate to be machined” at lines 1-3. It is unclear what is actually being claimed. The preamble indicates that the suctioning cover is claimed, but the configurations of the core drilling device are being recited. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the suctioning cover where the core drilling device is understood to reflect only intended use.
Claim 1 recites “the suctioning cover being attachable to the rear side of the core bolt drill bit so that material for suctioning is suctionable out of an interior of the core drill bit” at lines 4-5 and “the suctioning cover comprising: a valve for setting a pressure in the interior of the core drill bit” at lines 6-7. It appears that the suctioning cover is being described in terms of a structure which is not positively required, such that it is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the suctioning cover as including.
Claims 2-10 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a fluidic connection existing between the cavity of the suctioning cover and the interior of the core drill bit” in lines 2-3. The core drill bit is not understood to be positively required as part of the suctioning cover, such that it is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine whether a fluidic connection can exist between the suction cover and the core drill bit. Phrased differently: The subject suctioning cover is understood to be alleged patentable whether or not the core drilling device is present. Where the suctioning cover of claim 1 is positioned in storage in a warehouse, how would one having ordinary skill in the art determine that a fluidic connection exists?
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 1-4 and 9-10
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0249561 to Clark (hereinafter “Clark”).
Regarding claim 1, Clark discloses a suctioning cover (10; see paragraph [0072]) for a core drill bit (46) of a core drilling device (see Fig. 4), the core drill bit (46) having a front side (left end of bit with respect to Fig. 4) facing toward a substrate (intended use) to be machined, and a rear side (right end; towards passage 56 in Fig. 4) facing away from the substrate to be machined (intended use), the core drill bit connectable via a tool fitting (52, 54; see paragraph [0129]) to the core drilling device (drill unit and cutting member 46; see paragraph [0129]), the suctioning cover being attachable to the rear side (towards passage 56; see Fig. 4, drill bit connected to suctioning cover via passages) of the core drill bit (46) so that material for suctioning is suctionable out of an interior (interior bore 48) of the core drill bit (46), the suctioning cover comprising: a valve (annular body may be selectively opened and closed; see paragraph [0098]) for setting a pressure (allows and prevents fluid communication, see paragraph [0098] and paragraph [0072], vacuum pump application when dry drilling) in the interior of the core drill bit (46).
Regarding claim 2, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Clark discloses further comprising a cavity (passages 26, 30) as an interior, a fluidic connection (see paragraph [0129]) existing between the cavity (passages 26, 30) of the suctioning cover and the interior of the core drill bit (interior bore 48)
Regarding claim 3, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Clark discloses further comprising a seal (60; see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0132]) for sealing off the suctioning cover (10) with respect to the core drill bit (46)
Regarding claim 4, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Clark discloses further comprising a suctioning connector (14; see paragraph [0134]) for connection to a suction device (vacuum device or vacuum pump; see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 9, Clark discloses a method for operating the suctioning cover (10) as recited in claim 1 (see rejection above), the method comprising: setting, via the valve (see paragraph [0098]; selectively fluid communicated), a pressure in the interior of the core drill bit or in a cavity of the suctioning cover (vacuum; see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 9, and further Clark discloses that the valve (see paragraph [0045]; means for opening and closing the opening for extracting dust may be selectively opened and closed, allowing dust extraction or preventing leakage of fluid during cutting operations) is used to equalize pressure between an ambient pressure and a secondary pressure in the interior of the core drill bit (bore at 48). One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that moving between open and closed configuration of the valve will allow the leakage disclosed in paragraph [0045], which is understood to allow for equalization with an ambient pressure.
Alternatively, Claims 1-3
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0266610 to Reid et al. (hereinafter “Reid”).
Regarding claim 1, Reid discloses a suctioning cover (306 in Fig. 3) for a core drill bit (18 in Fig. 1, 201 in Fig. 2, 313 in Fig. 3) of a core drilling device (1 in Fig. 1, 200 in Fig. 2, 310 in Fig. 3), the core drill bit (201) having a front side (terminal face of drill bit at teeth 201, lowermost in Fig. 2) facing toward a substrate (workpiece 301 shown in Fig. 3) to be machined, and a rear side (uppermost end with respect to Fig. 2, leftmost with respect to Fig. 3) facing away from the substrate to be machined (workpiece 301), the core drill bit connectable via a tool fitting (see paragraph [0029] and connected portions, unnumbered in Fig. 3, adjacent rotational motion arrow) to the core drilling device (310), the suctioning cover being attachable to the rear side (left side of drilling device; see Fig. 3) of the core drill bit (313 in Fig. 3) so that material for suctioning is suctionable out of an interior (see paragraph [0029]) of the core drill bit (313), the suctioning cover comprising: a valve (7 in Fig. 1) for setting a pressure in the interior of the core drill bit (see paragraph [0027]; valve allows for pumping, which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize includes pressure).
Regarding claim 2, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Reid discloses further comprising a cavity (interior of passage 308 in Fig. 3, connecting tool at workpiece to receptacle 309) as an interior, a fluidic connection (see paragraph [0027]; pumping allows for clearing of water and solids) between the cavity of the suctioning cover and the interior of the core drill bit (18).
Regarding claim 3, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Reid discloses comprising a seal (see Paragraph [0028]) for sealing off the suctioning cover (at sealable hole 210) with respect to the core drill bit (201).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2003/0140448 to Nguyen et al. (hereinafter “Nguyen”).
Regarding claim 5, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Clark does not disclose that the valve is a throttle valve.
However, it is known in the art of cutting assemblies to provide suction devices with throttle valves.
For example, Nguyen teaches a cutting tool (hand tool; see paragraph [0002]) and a suction system for removing debris from a work site (see paragraph [0002]). The suction system may include a vacuum tool (100) which may include a valve (214) which may be a throttle vale (218; see paragraph [0045]). The throttle valve selectively allows fluid transfer within the suction system (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Clark to include another and conventional valve, such as a throttle valve, as taught by Nguyen. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would be reasonably expected to selectively allow for a controlled fluid communication during suction processes, without modification of the principles of operation of Clark.
Thus, the combination of Clark and Nguyen teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Clark does not disclose that the valve is a threshold-based valve.
However, it is known in the art of cutting assemblies to provide suction devices with threshold based valves.
For example, Nguyen teaches a cutting tool (hand tool; see paragraph [0002]) and a suction system for removing debris from a work site (see paragraph [0002]). The suction system may include a vacuum tool (100) which may include a valve (208) which may be threshold-based (see paragraph [0044). Fluid pressure may cause the valve (208) to open or close (see paragraph [0044]) based on fluid pressure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Clark to include another and conventional valve, such as a threshold based vale, as taught by Nguyen. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would be reasonably expected to selectively allow for a controlled fluid communication during suction processes, without modification of the principles of operation of Clark.
Thus, the combination of Clark and Nguyen teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0098224 to Kitagawa (hereinafter “Kitagawa”).
Regarding claim 5, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Clark does not disclose that the valve is a throttle valve.
However, it is known in the art of suction assemblies to provide suction devices with a pressure controller.
For example, Kitagawa teaches a suction device (see paragraph [0039]) including an internal space (10s) which is fluidly connected toa pressure controller (see paragraph [0039]). The pressure controller may include a pressure control valve and a vacuum pump (paragraph [0039]). The assembly is capable of reducing the pressure in the fluidly connected space.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Clark to include another and conventional valve, such as a pressure controller, as taught by Kitagawa. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would be reasonably expected to selectively allow for a controlled fluid communication during suction processes, without modification of the principles of operation of Clark.
Thus, the combination of Clark and Kitagawa teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0074478 to Keller (hereinafter “Keller”).
Regarding claim 5, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Clark does not disclose that the valve is a proportional pressure control valve.
However, it is known in the art of suction assemblies to provide suction devices with a proportional pressure control valve.
For example, Keller teaches a vacuum or fluid pressure source (see paragraph [0023]) which is in fluid contact with a channel (86). The vacuum source may be provided with a proportion control valve (92; see paragraph [0027]) which selectively allows for control of the pressure within the system (see paragraph [0027]). During operations within the overall device, Keller teaches that the proportional control valve may be used to selectively maintain vacuum pressure (see paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Clark to include another and conventional valve, such as a proportional pressure control valve, as taught by Keller. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would be reasonably expected to selectively allow for a controlled fluid communication during suction processes, without modification of the principles of operation of Clark.
Thus, the combination of Clark and Keller teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent 8,080,077 to Ellis teaches a debris removal system for a core drilling device (52), which engages an outer side of the core drilling device, but is silent regarding the presence of a valve.
United States Patent Application Publication 2008/0283302 to Larsson teaches a debris removal system including a vacuum portion (58) for a core drilling bit (4).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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
Prosecution Insights