DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 10/24/2025.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 10/24/2025 has been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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 2, 6-7, 9, and 13-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “is inferior to”, which is unclear and indefinite. For examination purposes the limitation is being interpreted as “is less than”.
Claim 2 recites “a distance between the free end and the collection volume in the interior”, which is indefinite because it is unclear how a distance can be defined between a point/plane in space and a volume. Furthermore, “the interior” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 6 and 10 recite “the guide rail”, which is indefinite because the guide rail was never positively recited, and presented only as an optional alternative in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “an operational position”, which is indefinite because it sets no metes and bounds of such a position.
Claim 13 recites “a handheld power tool having a base plate”, which is indefinite because claim 1 already recited a base plate, making it unclear if this is an additional base plate.
Claim 15 recites “a guide rail”, which is indefinite because claim 1 already recited a base plate, making it unclear if this is an additional guide rail.
Claims dependent on the above claims are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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, 8, 10-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bindhammer US 2019/0091781.
Regarding claim 1:
Bindhammer teaches a collection receptacle for collecting workpiece particles (see FIG. 4), the collection receptacle configured to be coupled to a handheld power tool, the collection receptacle comprising a receptacle shell (12) having an inlet port (interface with 7) provided on a first side of the receptacle shell and an outlet provided on a second side of the receptacle shell (at 13), the receptacle shell delimiting a collection volume of the collection receptacle, the inlet port configured for receiving a mixture of air and workpiece particles, and the outlet configured for allowing air to leave the collection volume delimited by the receptacle shell ([0022]), and a support (2) arranged on the receptacle shell, the support configured for supporting the receptacle shell on a guide rail ([0034]).
Regarding claim 8:
Bindhammer teaches the collection receptacle of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the support comprises a sliding surface arranged on the receptacle shell and configured for sliding on a counter-surface of the guide rail ([0034]).
Regarding claim 10:
Bindhammer teaches the collection receptacle of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the support comprises a guide (5) for laterally guiding the receptacle shell on the guide rail ([0018]).
Regarding claim 11:
Bindhammer teaches the collection receptacle of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the receptacle shell comprises a lid part for selectively accessing the collection volume and wherein at least one component of the support is arranged on the lid part (in FIG. 7, drawer 23 may be considered a base and 12 a lid of the base where the collection volume may be accessed).
Regarding claim 12:
Bindhammer teaches a collection receptacle for collecting workpiece particles (see FIG. 4), the collection receptacle configured to be coupled to a handheld power tool, the collection receptacle comprising a receptacle shell (12) having an inlet port (interface with 7) provided on a first side of the receptacle shell and an outlet provided on a second side of the receptacle shell (at 13), the receptacle shell delimiting a collection volume of three liters or more (evident from FIG. 4), the inlet port configured for receiving a mixture of air and workpiece particles, and the outlet configured for allowing air to leave the collection volume delimited by the receptacle shell ([0022]).
Regarding claim 15:
Bindhammer teaches a particle collection assembly comprising a guide rail and a collection receptacle according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the support of the collection receptacle is supported on the guide rail ([0034]).
Regarding claim 16:
Bindhammer teaches a handheld power tool system comprising a particle collection assembly according to claim 15 and a handheld power tool, wherein the inlet port of the collection receptacle is connected to a corresponding outlet port of the handheld power tool (see 7).
Regarding claim 17:
Bindhammer teaches a method, comprising: supporting a collection receptacle (12) for workpiece particles with a guide rail (3; [0034]).
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Festool EP 2 902 155.
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
Festool teaches a collection receptacle (FIG. 1: 90) for collecting workpiece particles, the collection receptacle configured to be coupled to a handheld power tool (10), the collection receptacle comprising a receptacle shell (90) having an inlet port provided on a first side of the receptacle shell and an outlet provided on a second side of the receptacle shell (both shown in FIG. 1), the receptacle shell delimiting a collection volume of the collection receptacle, the inlet port configured for receiving a mixture of air and workpiece particles (“dust”), and the outlet configured for allowing air to leave the collection volume delimited by the receptacle shell (the collection bag is permeable to air, allowing air to exit), and a support (wheels shown in FIG. 1) arranged on the receptacle shell, the support configured for supporting the receptacle shell on a guide rail or a workpiece (wheels are capable of resting on rails, workpieces).
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 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 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 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 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 2, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindhammer, as applied above.
Regarding claim 2:
Bindhammer teaches the collection receptacle of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein
the inlet port has a free end (at 10) configured for coupling to a corresponding outlet port of the handheld power tool.
Bindhammer does not teach wherein a distance between the free end and the collection volume in the interior of the collection receptacle is [less than] 30 centimeters.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bindhammer by minimizing the distance between the free end and the collection volume in the interior of the collection receptacle to [less than] 30 centimeters, in order to make the device as compact as possible.
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
Bindhammer teaches the collection receptacle of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the support comprises at least journal (5) supported on the receptacle shell and configured for translating on the guide rail ([0018], [0034]), wherein the at least one journal is arranged at an end of the receptacle shell arranged opposite the first side (see 5 in FIG. 1).
Bindhammer does not teach the journals being rolling wheels.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the journals of Bindhammer with rolling wheels, which are known alternatives in the art, in order to reduce friction and wear on the receptacle.
Regarding claim 9:
Bindhammer teaches the collection receptacle of claim 8, as discussed above, wherein the sliding surface is arranged on a lower side of the receptacle shell if the receptacle shell is in an operational position (see FIG. 3).
Bindhammer does not teach the sliding surface covers at least a fifth of the lower side, the fifth being the most remote fifth of the lower side with respect to the first side.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bindhammer by having the sliding surface cover at least a fifth of the lower side, the fifth being the most remote fifth of the lower side with respect to the first side, in order to better distribute the weight of the receptacle and better support the heavier rear end having the blower unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating claims 3 and 13: the prior art, i.e., Bindhammer, Festool, and others made of record, fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed collection receptacle comprising a support bracket configured to be supported and/or connected to a base plate of the handheld power tool. Claims 4-5 and 14 would be allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: for example, see Sasaki et al. 2006/0185484, Simm et al. US 7,425,109, and others in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights