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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 7, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should make it clear that the recitation “in a direction different from a direction mounted by the first conveyor” relates back to the second conveyor mounter. Examiner suggests explicitly reciting “the second conveyor mounter is configured to mount the conveyor in a direction different from a direction mounted by the first conveyor” after the comma in Line 7. 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 1, 3, 4 and 8 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 the limitation “the second inflow and outflow portions” in Lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously set forth second inflow and outflow portions (in plural form). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the cutting fluid flowing from the first receiver to the first inflow and outflow portion flows from a direction intersecting the first parallel passage” in Lines 24-25. The term “from” creates a vagueness as to whether the cutting fluid from the first receiver to the first inflow and outflow portion flows in said direction or, as the language suggests, from the direction prior to flowing from the receiver to the portion. The same language is employed in Lines 26-27 for the second receiver and second inflow and outflow. The recitation in Lines 26-27 is rejected on the same grounds as the recitation in Lines 24-25. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the cutting fluid is supplied from the end of the second parallel passage to the machine tool” in Line 17. It is unclear whether the end of the second parallel is the previously recited end or another end opposite to the end communicating with the communication passage. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “a second conveyor mounter configured to mount the conveyor . . . in a direction different from a direction mounted by the first conveyor mounter” in Lines 5-7. It is unclear what is meant by “a direction mounted by the first conveyor mounter.” The scope of mounting a direction is vague. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “a cutting oil supply path” in Line 1. It is unclear how the cutting oil path would differ from the cutting fluid limitation previously set forth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “are approximately the same.” The boundary of where the paths are considered approximately the same and not approximately the same is not clearly delineated. Appropriate correction required.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morimura (US Pub. No. 2016/0184950 A1).
(Claim 1) Morimura discloses a cutting fluid tank (1A-1C) configured to recover a cutting fluid from a machine tool (¶ 0002). The cutting fluid tank includes: a first parallel passage (2a/2b/2c) and a second parallel passage (2d) parallelly arranged to each other (Figs. 1-6); a communication passage (2f/2e) configured to communicate the first parallel passage at an end of the first parallel passage and the second parallel passage at an end of the second parallel passage (Figs. 1-6); a first inflow and outflow portion and a second inflow outflow portion (portions adjacent 31 where fluid enters first passage)1 are arranged adjacent to each other and arranged next to the first parallel passage, and configured to flow the cutting fluid to the first parallel passage; and a first receiver (31) configured to receive the cutting fluid, the first receiver (31) is configured to flow the cutting fluid to the first inflow and outflow portion, and a second receiver (31) configured to receive the cutting fluid and the second receiver (31) is configured to flow the cutting fluid to the second inflow and outflow portion (Figs. 1-6). The cutting fluid through the first parallel passage, the communication passage and the second parallel passage (Figs. 1-6), and the cutting fluid is supplied from the end of the second parallel passage to the machine tool (via 4). The first inflow and outflow portion and the second inflow and outflow portion are formed so as to flow the cutting fluid from different directions to each other, and flow the cutting fluid to the first parallel passage (Figs. 1-6). The first receiver is disposed so as to face the first parallel passage (2c/2a) across (from) the second parallel passage (2d), and the second receiver is disposed at an opposite position to the communication passage (2e, 2f). The cutting fluid flowing from the first receiver to the first inflow and outflow portion flows from a direction intersecting the first parallel passage, and the cutting fluid flowing from the second receiver to the second inflow and outflow portion flows from a direction along the first parallel passage (Figs. 1-6). That is, the flow goes along the first passage via at least the conveyor (3), but it is worth noting that the inflow and outflow portions are merely portions of the flow path such they may be arbitrarily identified as downstream to flow directions that meet the claimed limitations. A temperature difference between a temperature of the cutting fluid supplied to the machine tool from the first receiver through the first inflow and outflow portion, the first parallel passage, the communication passage, and the second parallel passage and that of the cutting fluid supplied to the machine tool from the second receiver through the second inflow and outflow portion, the first parallel passage, the communication passage, and the second parallel passage is capable of being reduced. That is, the fluid is combined or merged by the end of the flow path (Figs. 1-6).
(Claim 8) A cutting oil supply path from the first receiver to the machine tool through the first inflow and outflow portion, the first parallel passage, the communication passage and the second parallel passage, and that from the second receiver to the machine tool through the second inflow and outflow portion, the first parallel passage, the communication passage and the second parallel passage are approximately the same (Figs. 1-6).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimura (US Pub. No. 2016/0184950 A1) in view of Schweizer et al. (US Patent No. 7,165,919 B2).
(Claim 3) The cutting fluid tank further includes: a first conveyor mounter (3) configured to mount a conveyor which separates cutting chips contained in the cutting fluid from the cutting fluid, conveys the cutting chips, and supplies the cutting fluid to the first receiver (31). The cutting fluid is capable of being supplied to the first receiver from the conveyor mounted on the first conveyor mount (Figs. 1-6). Yet, Morimura does not explicitly disclose a second conveyor mounter configured to mount the conveyor in a direction different from a direction mounted by the first conveyor mounter, and the cutting fluid being supplied to the other of receivers from the conveyor, when the conveyor is mounted on the second conveyor mounter.
Schweizer et al. discloses a first conveyor mounter and a second conveyor mounter (Fig. 2) for mounting a conveyor (38). The second conveyor mounter capable of mounting the conveyor in a direction different from a direction mounted by the first conveyor mounter (Fig. 2). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the tank/machine tool disclosed in Morimura with a second conveyor mount as suggested by Schweizer et al. in order to increase chip evacuation and/or tank flexibility.
(Claim 4) The cutting fluid tank has a first layer on which the first conveyor mounter and the second conveyor mounter are provided, and a second layer disposed below the first layer and on which the first parallel passage, the second parallel passage, and the communication passage are provided (Figs. 1-6). The claim does not define as to what constitutes a layer. As such, the layers may simply be different planes that intersect each claimed feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Morimura reference fails to disclose a temperature difference being reduced. Conversely, Applicant alleges, because the lengths of the flow paths differ, a temperature difference in the cutting oil rises. Examiner disagrees. Similar to Applicant’s disclosed invention, the Morimura reference discloses flow paths that merge together. At least at the point of merging, the temperature difference would be capable of decreasing. It is unclear why Applicant believes the temperature difference would increase by the lengths of the flow paths differing.
Applicant may wish to consider focusing on differences in structure between the disclosed invention of the present application and that of the Morimura reference. For example, the disclosed invention includes distinct levels and certain flow path features are in one level only. In addition, the first/second inflow and outflow portion may instead be referred to as first/second inflow and outflow opening, wherein the first opening is distinct from the second opening. Examiner is open to discussing subject matter differences in an interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Furuhashi et al. (JP 2000-135640 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 A portion need not be any distinct physical feature, merely a portion as recited.