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 § 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1 - 5 , 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yungblut (US 2005/0281131) in view of Ramesh ( US 2017 / 0058177 ) . Regarding claim 1, Yungblut discloses a method of conditioning drilling fluid, comprising: suctioning (see [0023] “draws”) the drilling fluid from a tank (100); forcing the drilling fluid back into the tank at multiple different depths (at plural instances of “16”) within the tank and from multiple different directions (see Fig. 2) to shear the drilling fluid and further explains “ drilling fluids are very expensive sophisticated substances whose properties such as viscosity, density, shear resistance and stability must be carefully and accurately maintained and controlled ” (see [0007]) and “ The invention provides a means of agitating and mixing the drilling fluids with an unattended jet stream of fluid whose direction, velocity and speed of rotation can be adjusted to the optimum values taking into account the viscosity and density of the drilling fluid as well as the interior volume of the storage tank ” ([0008]). It is not expressly stated that steps are continued until a target rheology is reached. Rasmesh explains “ viscosity can be measured using the in-line viscometer immediately downstream of the mixing device and the measurement can be used to control the mixing process to achieve a target viscosity. With a combination of density, which may or may not be measured by the inline viscometer, and rheology, specifically the viscosity, a process may be accurately controlled by the mixing ” ([0022]) and “ by selecting a target viscosity … the metering of additives to the mixing system … can be adjusted in real-time through a high-speed feedback control loop ” ([0023]) . Therefore , it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have continued the suctioning and forcing until a target rheology is achieved as taught by Ramesh, because Yungblut recognizes the importance of controlling rheology in [0007]). Regarding claim 2, Rasmesh further teaches the drilling fluid being an emulsion of oil and water (see [0020]). Regarding claim 3, the phrase in Rasmesh “ invert emulsions ” conveys that water droplets are on the order of microns. Regarding claim 4, the drilling fluid is forced back into the tank via outlet conduits having a tree structure comprised of a trunk and branches, each of the branches having one or more nozzles for outputting the drilling fluid within the tank (see Figs. 1 and 2 of Yungblut ). Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected a nozzle based upon the properties of a fluid intended to be mixed. Regarding claim 7, Rasmesh further teaches pumping the drilling fluid into a wellbore (see [0030] and Fig. 3). Discontinuing when the target is reach ed is suggested by the feedback control loop and target of [0023] of Rasmesh . Regarding claim 8, d iscontinuing when the target is reach and resuming later is suggested by the feedback control loop and target of [0023] of Rasmesh . Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claim Yungblut (US 2005/0281131) in view of Ramesh (US 2017/0058177) above, and further in view of Campbell ( US 4 , 544 , 489 ) . While Ramesh further teacher monitoring using a viscometer (see [0040]), it is not expressly stated that the viscometer involves a rotating cylinder. Campbell teaches rotating a cylinder of a viscometer at multiple different rates of rotation and recording readings at the multiple different rates of rotation (see col. 5, lines 22-36). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1148 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7am-3:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire X Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1051 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID L. SORKIN Examiner Art Unit 1774 /DAVID L SORKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774