Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of an informality: the word “an” should be added before “electric hammer” in the preamble of claim 1, and the word “the” should be added before “electric hammer” in the preamble of claims 2-8. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-8 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a dust collector for electric hammer, comprising a fixed pipe fixedly installed in an opening position, a movable pipe fixedly installed with the electric hammer. Since the preamble states the claim is directed to a dust collector for electric hammer, but the body of the claim states the pipes are installed to the electric hammer and installed in an opening position, it is unclear if this claim is directed to a dust collector that is capable of/configured to be installed with an electric hammer and installed in an opening position, or if the claim requires the dust collector to be installed with an electric hammer and installed in an opening position. For purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be used. If Applicant wants the claim to be interpreted as the latter, the examiner recommends amending the claim to recite a system comprising the electric hammer and the dust collector.
Claim 1 further recites the movable pipe is configured to perform a back and forth stretching activity. The phrase “back and forth stretching activity” is confusing. For purposes of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the movable pipe configured to move back and forth with respect to the fixed pipe.
Claim 1 further recites the collection container is fixed at a rear end of the movable pipe to connect with the movable pipe. It is unclear how the container can be fixed to connect with. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret this as: the collection container is fixedly connected to a rear end of the movable pipe.
Claim 2 recites the first straight pipe extends obliquely. It is unclear what plane/axis/element the first straight pipe extends obliquely to.
Claim 2 further recites the second straight pipe extends forward and backward. It is unclear what element the second straight pipe extends both forward and backward from.
Claims 3-8 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2017/0157727 (“Felton”) in view of USPGPub No. 2011/0296807 (“Despineux”).
Claim 1 recites a dust collector for electric hammer. Felton is directed to a dust collector for a power drill (¶ [0002], [0006] & [0011]). One of skill in the art appreciates that the dust collector is capable of being used with an electric hammer drill as these are both power drills that can have similar structures/designs.
Felton teaches a fixed pipe (45) fixedly installed in an opening position (figs. 2-3, ¶ [0024]-[0026]), a movable pipe (41) fixedly installed with the electric hammer (figs. 2-3, ¶ [0024]-[0025]), and a collection container for collecting dust (60) (fig. 1, ¶ [0022]); wherein a front end of the fixed pipe has a cover body (47) for covering the opening position externally and a drill hole (48) for inserting a drill of the electric hammer (fig. 2, ¶ [0025]), and the drill hole is connected to an interior of the cover body (fig. 2); wherein a front end of the movable pipe is connected to a rear end of the fixed pipe (fig. 2), and the movable pipe is configured to perform a back and forth stretching activity in parallel with a direction of the drill hole with respect to the fixed pipe (figs. 2-3, ¶ [0024]-[0026], wherein spring 42 allows the movable pipe 41 to move back and forth).
Felton fails to explicitly teach the collection container is fixed at a rear end of the movable pipe to connect with the movable pipe. However, this would have been obvious in view of Despineux.
Despineux is also directed to a dust extraction device for a handheld power tool/drill (fig. 1, ¶ [0018]-[0019]). Despineux teaches tubes 16 & 23 that extend from a position that surrounds the bit to an opening for connecting to a container/fan unit (fig. 1, ¶ [0019]-[0020] & [0027]). The container having the fan unit therein can be rigidly connected to the rear end of tube 23 (fig. 1, ¶ [0020] & [0027]).
In this case, each of Felton and Despineux teach a dust extraction device for a handheld power tool/drill, wherein the dust extraction device comprises tubes that extend from a position that surrounds the bit to an opening for connecting to a container/fan unit. While Felton teaches a hose connected to rear of the tube that connects to a shop vacuum spaced from the power tool, Despineux teaches that a container/fan unit can be rigidly attached to the rear of the tube. One of skill in the art appreciates that this is a more compact design and can allow ease of use since multiple devices don’t have to be separately moved. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Felton so that a dust/collection container having a fan unit therein is rigidly attached to the rear end of movable tube 41. The spout/attachment pipe of the container can attach at an oblique angle with respect to the movable pipe so as not to interfere with the power tool (this is also suggested by Felton which illustrates hose 24 extending obliquely from the movable pipe and by Despineux which teaches the spout of container extending obliquely to attach to pipe 23).
Regarding claim 2, Felton further teaches the cover body (48) is connected to a front end of the first straight pipe (fig. 2). Felton teaches the fixed pipe having a first straight pipe portion 46, a second straight pipe portion within movable pipe 41, and a bent pipe portion between and connecting the first and second straight pipe portions (fig. 2). However, Felton fails to explicitly teach these portions being separate portions that are attached so that the fixed pipe comprises a first straight pipe, a bent pipe and a second straight pipe; and wherein, a front end of the bent pipe is connected to a rear end of the first straight pipe, the second straight pipe extends forward and backward, and a front end of the second straight pipe is connected to a rear end of the bent pipe. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV) states that it is an obvious engineering choice of whether to make components in a one-piece construction or made via multiple pieces. Thus, it would be an obvious engineering choice to form the first and second straight pipe portions, and the bent pipe portion of Felton as separate pieces that are attached to form the final fixed pipe. One of skill in the art appreciates that straight pipes can be easier to manufacture. Thus, breaking the fixed pipe into the three different pipes can allow some or all of the sections to be formed easier.
Claim 2 also recites the first straight pipe extends obliquely. As illustrated in fig. 2 of Felton, the first straight pipe 46 extends obliquely with respect to at least spout/attachment pipe of the collection container (see the rejection to claim 1 detailing how the collection container is attached to the movable pipe).
In the alternative, MPEP 2144.04 states that changes in shape/configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. In this case, Felton teaches the first straight pipe extending perpendicular to the movable pipe and the cover 48 configured to be flush against the wall. Merely changing the angle of the first straight pipe so that it extends obliquely to the movable pipe is not significant as the cover can still connect to an oblique pipe so that it can have a front surface flush against the wall when the movable pipe is perpendicular to the wall (for example, the cover can have a bent portion to make the front surface flush with the wall). In addition, Applicant’s specification does not state that the oblique extension is significant, produces unexpected results, or solves a stated problem.
Claim 4 recites the drill hole is located on a back of the cover body. Felton teaches the drill hole 48 being open on both the front and back of the cover body 48 (fig. 2, ¶ [0025]).
Claim 7 recites the movable pipe is provided with a shock-absorbing seat abutting on the electric hammer. Felton teaches the dust collector system further comprising a support having bottom support portion 26 and vertical support portion 27 (fig. 2, ¶ [0023]). Wherein vertical support portion 27 is configured to abut the power tool and secure the movable pipe 41 thereto via collar 21 (fig. 2, ¶ [0024]). Portion 27 can be interpreted as the shock absorbing seat since it is disposed between and abuts both the power drill and the movable tube. Since almost all materials have some amount of mechanical damping (i.e. vibration/shock absorption) the portion 27 is capable of providing at least a little shock absorption.
Claim 8 recites the collection container is a bottle body. As illustrated in fig. 1 of Despineux, the collection container 20 has a rectangular main body with an upper spout/attaching tube. This reads on “a bottle body” as a bottle can be defined as a container with a spout or neck.
Felton et al. fail to explicitly teach the bottle body is threaded with the rear end of the movable pipe. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known to thread pipes/tubes together to form a rigid connection, including using rotating threaded nuts/collars attached to containers (i.e. swivel nuts). In this case, Felton et al. teaches connecting the end of the movable pipe to the pipe-shaped connection of the collection container. Since threading pipes and tubes is a known way to rigidly attach components together, it would be obvious for the connection between the movable pipe and the spout of the collection container to be threaded, for example with a swivel nut.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felton as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2012/0308320 (“Tseng”).
Regarding claim 3, Felton fails to explicitly teach the cover body is made of transparent material. However, this would have been obvious in view of Tseng.
Tseng is also directed to a dust collecting device for a power drill, comprising a cover 10 placed over the drilling location (fig. 4, ¶ [0035]-[0036]). The cover is transparent so as to make the bit 61 and the site to be drilled observable (¶ [0036]).
In this case, each of Felton and Tseng are directed to dust collecting device for a power drill, comprising a cover placed over the drilling location. In order to see the drill bit and the site that is being drilled, it would be obvious to make the cover body of Felton transparent as taught by Tseng.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felton et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2002/0141836 (“Ege”).
Regarding claim 5, while Felton teaches the spring contacting an end of the fixed pipe, Felton fails to explicitly teach the rear end of the fixed pipe is sleeved with a spring driving the movable pipe to move backwards. However, this would have been obvious in view of Ege.
Ege is also directed to a dust removal device for a power tool, comprising an outer tube and an inner tube that can move via a spring between the two (fig. 1, ¶ [0024]). The inner tube has a first portion with an outer diameter matching the inner diameter of the outer tube, and a second portion with a smaller outer diameter that the spring is sleeved over (fig. 1).
In this case, each of Felton and Ege are directed to a dust removal device for a power tool, comprising an outer tube and an inner tube that can move via a spring between the two. One of skill in the art appreciates that there are various designs to allow inner and outer tubes to move with respect to each other via a spring. Ege teaches one known design as detailed above. One of skill in the art appreciates that sleeving the inner tube with the spring can better prevent the spring from going within the inner tube and thus not able to perform its intended function. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Felton so that the fixed tube within the outer movable tube has a portion that the spring is sleeved around as taught by Ege.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felton et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,515,504 (“Moore”).
Regarding claim 6, while Felton teaches a collar 21 securing the movable pipe to the power drill (fig. 2, ¶ [0024]), Felton fails to explicitly teach the movable pipe is provided with straps bound to the electric hammer for connection. However, this would have been obvious in view of Moore.
Moore is also directed to a dust collector for a power drill (fig. 6, col. 1 lines 5-10). The collector is attached to the body of the power drill via two straps 16 that can have a variety of fastening means to firmly attach the collector to the power drill (fig. 6, col. 4 lines5-41). Two straps are preferable to ensure positive engagement to drill (col 4 lines 38-41).
In this case, each of Felton and Moore are directed to attaching a dust collector to a power drill. While Felton teaches using a collar to attach the movable pipe to the power drill, one of skill in the art appreciates that there are a variety of ways to attach the movable pipe to the power drill. Moore teaches one such way, i.e. a plurality of straps that wrap around the power drill. The flexibility of the straps and adjustability of the fastening means allow the straps to attach dust collectors to power drills of different designs and sizes. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Felton so that the movable pipe 41 is attached to the power drill via two straps that wrap around and firmly attach the movable pipe to the power tool.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felton et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2017/0173748 (“Ulrich”).
Claim 7 recites the movable pipe is provided with a shock-absorbing seat abutting on the electric hammer. Assuming arguendo that Felton fails to teach this limitation, this would be obvious in view of Ulrich.
Ulrich is also directed to a power tool having a dust collection unit thereon (fig. 1, Abstract). Ulrich teaches the dust collection/suction unit comprising a damping element configured to contact both the dust collection unit and the power tool (fig. 1, ¶ [0029]). The damping unit can be formed out of elastomer in order to reduce the transmission of vibrations and provide a vibration-damped arrangement of the dust collection unit (¶ [0005]-[0008] & [0029]).
In this case, each of Felton and Ulrich are directed to a dust collection unit for a power tool. Ulrich teaches that it is known to provide a vibration damped dust collection unit by providing an elastomer damping unit on the dust collection unit that is configured to contact the power tool when the dust collection unit is fixed to the power tool. Thus, in order to reduce vibrations traveling to the dust collection unit of Felton (which can reduce noise and increase the life of the fan of the dust collection unit) it would be obvious to place an elastomer damping unit on the movable pipe since the movable pipe contacts the top of a power tool (see fig. 2 of Felton).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
