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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizutani et al (US 2017/0065940).
The structure does not make the fluid specific to machining for a machining device.
Mizutani discloses, regarding claim 1, A machining fluid for a machining device, comprising: a first phase fluid, which is a liquid solvent (water, which is a liquid solvent. See Abstract); and a second phase fluid, which is a gas that is pressurized (hydrogen held under pressure [0041]) to be dissolved in the first phase fluid (hydrogen is dissolved in water, See Abstract) such that the second phase fluid is supersaturated dissolved in the first phase fluid (hydrogen is supersaturated in water, See Abstract and Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, the gas is hydrogen, which is flammable. Regarding claim 3, microbubbles are introduced. (See Paragraph [0011]) Regarding claim 5, the first phase fluid is water. (See abstract) Regarding claim 6, the gas is pressurized at 0.41 MPa. (See Paragraph [0073])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi (US 20130031945) in view of Mizutani et al (US 2017/0065940).
Ohmi discloses, regarding claim 7, A machining device (metalworking device 100), comprising: an injection head (134), comprising a nozzle (nozzle 131), and a flow channel formed inside the injection head and communicated with the nozzle, wherein the flow channel is utilized to guide a machining fluid to the nozzle and the nozzle injected the machining fluid to a work piece (the nozzle would have a flow channel for injecting the machining fluid, See Paragraph [0033]), wherein machining fluid further comprises: a first phase fluid, which is a liquid solvent; and a second phase fluid, which is a gas that is dissolved in the first phase fluid through a high pressure such that the second phase fluid is supersaturated dissolved in the first phase fluid. (machining fluid comprising hydrogen supersaturated water may be used.)
Mizutani, used as a supporting reference, discloses, regarding claim 1, A machining fluid for a machining device, comprising: a first phase fluid, which is a liquid solvent (water, which is a liquid solvent. See Abstract); and a second phase fluid, which is a gas that is pressurized (hydrogen held under pressure [0041]) to be dissolved in the first phase fluid (hydrogen is dissolved in water, See Abstract) such that the second phase fluid is supersaturated dissolved in the first phase fluid (hydrogen is supersaturated in water, See Abstract and Paragraph [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to second phase fluid, which is a gas that is pressurized to be dissolved in the first phase fluid such that the second phase fluid is supersaturated dissolved in the first phase fluid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the gas is hydrogen, which is flammable. Regarding claim 9, microbubbles are introduced. (See Paragraph [0011]) Regarding claim 11, the first phase fluid is water. (See abstract) Regarding claim 14, the gas is pressurized at 0.41 MPa. (See Paragraph [0073])
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi (US 20130031945) in view of Mizutani et al (US 2017/0065940) and Hu et al (US 2017/0320163).
Regarding claim 15, Ohmi discloses, regarding claim 7, A machining device (metalworking device 100), comprising: an injection head (134), comprising a nozzle (nozzle 131), and a flow channel formed inside the injection head and communicated with the nozzle, wherein the flow channel is utilized to guide a machining fluid to the nozzle and the nozzle injected the machining fluid to a work piece (the nozzle would have a flow channel for injecting the machining fluid, See Paragraph [0033]), wherein machining fluid further comprises: a first phase fluid, which is a liquid solvent; and a second phase fluid, which is a gas that is dissolved in the first phase fluid through a high pressure such that the second phase fluid is supersaturated dissolved in the first phase fluid. (machining fluid comprising hydrogen supersaturated water may be used.)
Mizutani, used as a supporting reference, discloses, regarding claim 1, A machining fluid for a machining device, comprising: a first phase fluid, which is a liquid solvent (water, which is a liquid solvent. See Abstract); and a second phase fluid, which is a gas that is pressurized (hydrogen held under pressure [0041]) to be dissolved in the first phase fluid (hydrogen is dissolved in water, See Abstract) such that the second phase fluid is supersaturated dissolved in the first phase fluid (hydrogen is supersaturated in water, See Abstract and Paragraph [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to second phase fluid, which is a gas that is pressurized to be dissolved in the first phase fluid such that the second phase fluid is supersaturated dissolved in the first phase fluid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Hu discloses, an optical device comprising a laser beam 112, an injection head,
having a discharge nozzle 118, where a machining fluid 116 is guided through the nozzle and to the
workpiece 132 (See Paragraph [0017]-[0019]) It would have been obvious to adapt Takahashi in view of Hu to provide the optical device rather than the electrode for machining difficult to work with materials.
Regarding claim 16, microbubbles are introduced. (See Paragraph [0011]) Ohmi and Muzitani fails to disclose, the claimed ratio. It would have been obvious to provide a volume fraction of the first phase fluid is ranged between 90-99%, while a volume fraction of the second phase fluid is ranged between 1-10% since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi (US 20130031945) in view of Mizutani et al (US 2017/0065940), Hu et al (US 2017/0320163) and Goto et al (US 6,639,172).
The teachings of Ohmi have been discussed above. Takahashi disclose the second phase fluid being oxygen, but fails to disclose hydrogen gas.
Goto discloses the use of water and a gas in a machining device. (See Column 3, Lines 50-55, Column 4, Lines 15-25). “The gas is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of oxygen,
nitrogen, hydrogen, an inert gas and an insulating gas.” It would have been obvious to use hydrogen gas
as the second phase fluid as Goto discloses hydrogen is an obvious variant of a gas used in a machining
device.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi (US 2013/0031945) in view of Mizutani et al (US 2017/0065940), Hu et al (US 2017/0320163) and Takahashi (US 2019/0388989).
The teachings of Ohmi have been discussed above. Ohmi fails to specifically disclose, the injection head further comprises a first flow channel communicated with the flow channel for providing a first auxiliary fluid flowing into the flow channel and being mixed with the machining fluid, wherein the first auxiliary fluid comprises a plurality grinding particles and the injection head further comprises a second flow channel communicated with the flow channel for guiding a second auxiliary fluid flowing into the flow channel.
Takahashi shows a first and second flow channels communicating with a main flow channel. It would have been obvious to provide the first flow channel for providing a compressed gas to further pressurize the fluid and the second channel for providing the machining fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 20-21 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/9/2026