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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,628,280 to Ceroll et al (Ceroll).
Concerning claim 1, Ceroll discloses a router for use with a router table to cut workpieces, the router comprising:
an electric motor (at 102, see also column 7, lines 1-3);
a housing (112) containing the electric motor and having first and second opposite ends;
a shaft (106) operatively connected to the electric motor for being rotated by the electric motor; and
a chuck mounted on the shaft, the chuck being located adjacent the first end of the housing and configured for releasably attaching router bits to the shaft (column 6, line 55-67);
wherein the housing has a cooling air port (2194) defining a cooling air port opening into the housing at a location for supplying cooling air to the electric motor (column 25, lines 22-24), the cooling air port (2194) being disposed toward the second end of the housing from the chuck (see figure 21) and being configured to sealingly receive a hose (2192) for drawing cooling air from a location remote from the housing.
Concerning claim 6, Ceroll discloses the housing (112) includes an exterior body and the cooling air port (2194) includes a wall arranged to engage the hose (see figure 21).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,558,090 to Lagaly et al (Lagaly).
Concerning claim 1, Lagaly discloses a router for use with a router table to cut workpieces, the router comprising:
an electric motor (120);
a housing (110) containing the electric motor (120) and having first and second opposite ends;
a shaft (122) operatively connected to the electric motor (120) for being rotated by the electric motor; and
a chuck (130) mounted on the shaft, the chuck being located adjacent the first end of the housing and configured for releasably attaching router bits to the shaft (column 6, line 55-67);
wherein the housing has a cooling air port (E1 in the figure reproduced below) defining a cooling air port opening (144) into the housing (110) at a location for supplying cooling air to the electric motor (120), the cooling air port being disposed toward the second end of the housing (110) from the chuck (130) and being configured to sealingly receive a hose for drawing cooling air from a location remote from the housing (as it is capable of doing so since it is able to have some sort of hose attached).
Concerning claim 2, Lagaly discloses in figure 3 reproduced below the cooling air port is a first cooling air port (E1) and the hose is a first hose (the hose has not been positively claimed), the router further comprising a second cooling air port (E2) defining a second cooling air port opening (144) into the housing (110) at a location spaced from the first cooling air port (E1) for supplying cooling air to the electric motor (120), the second cooling air port (E2) being disposed toward the second end of the housing (110) from the chuck (130) and being configured to sealingly receive a second hose for drawing cooling air from a location remote from the housing (as it is capable of doing so since it is able to have some sort of hoses attached).
Concerning claim 6, Lagaly discloses in figure 3 reproduced below the housing (100) includes an exterior body and the cooling air port (E1, E2) includes a wall extending outward from the exterior body.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagaly in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,487,629 to Watanabe (Watanabe).
Concerning claim 3, Lagaly does not disclose the first and second cooling air ports are circular in shape.
Watanabe discloses a router for use with a router table to cut workpieces, the router comprising
an electric motor (2),
a housing (1, 7) containing the electric motor (2) and having first and second opposite ends,
a shaft (2a) operatively connected to the electric motor (2) for being rotated by the electric motor,
a chuck (3) mounted on the shaft (2a), the chuck being located adjacent the first end of the housing and configured for releasably attaching router bits to the shaft,
wherein the housing has a cooling air port (13) defining a cooling air port opening (13a) into the housing (1, 7) at a location for supplying cooling air (30) the cooling air port (13) being disposed toward the second end of the housing (1, 7) from the chuck (3) and being configured to sealingly receive a hose (100) for drawing cooling air from a location remote from the housing;
wherein the first port (13) is circular in shape (see figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Lagaly such that the first and second ports (E1 and E2) are circular in shape (as opposed to its oval shape) as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Accordingly, such a shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As seen in Watanabe, such a shape is well known in the art and also allows for inserting a circular hose into the ports and thus does not require any special mating features between the cooling air ports and the hoses.
PNG
media_image1.png
614
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceroll.
Concerning claim 2, Ceroll does not disclose a second cooling air port.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Ceroll such that it has a second cooling air port as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to a second cooling air port. Accordingly, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). An unexpected result is not produced since it merely increases the amount of cooling air to flow to the motor. It is noted that since the first cooling air port defines a port opening into the housing for supplying cooling air to the electric motor and is disposed toward the second end of the housing from the chuck and being configured to sealingly receive a hose for drawing cooling air from a location remote from the housing the duplicate second cooling air port would also read on these limitations (and inherently be at a location spaced from the first cooling air port).
Concerning claim 3, Ceroll does not disclose the first and second cooling air ports are circular in shape.
However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Ceroll such that the first and second cooling air ports are circular in shape as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Further, Applicant has not positively recited any criticality to the cooling air ports being circular. Accordingly, such a shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Applicant has provided no evidence that the circular shape is significant.
Concerning claim 4, Ceroll discloses in combination with the first hose (2194) sealingly attached to the first cooling air port (2194) whereby cooling air can be drawn from an end of the first hose (2194) remote from the cooling air port (2194) into the housing (112) for cooling the electric motor (at 102). While Ceroll does not disclose a second hose, in combination with the duplication of parts above it would discloses and in combination with the second hose sealingly attached to the second cooling air port whereby cooling air can be drawn from an end of the second hose remote from the housing for cooling the electric motor.
Concerning claim 5, Ceroll discloses, in combination with the duplication of parts above, the first and second hoses having fittings on the ends remote from the housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/Matthew Katcoff/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
09/16/2026
Prosecution Insights