DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-17 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 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. Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to further require a metalworking fluid, and Applicant then argues that the cited prior art of the previous Office action do not disclose the claims as amended. Upon further consideration, the examiner agrees; the grounds of rejection are therefore withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are made after further search and consideration that address the amended limitations. Since the arguments do not address these new rejections, said amendments are now considered moot and will not be further addressed at this time.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsey et al. (herein referred to as “Kelsey”, US Pat Pub. 2021/0323850) in view of Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530 and Kelsey et al. (herein referred to as “Kelsey 2”, US Pat Pub. 2008/0257828).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Kelsey discloses a process for treating a fluid used to wash machined parts (Abstract; process of using system that treats wastewater products) comprising:
flowing a fluid from a wash tank or a rinse tank to a first chamber of a filtration tank, the fluid comprising water, a non-aqueous phase, and metallic particles (Figure 1A; Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0018]; flow of fluid into contact tank 114; see that contact tank has liquid phase and solid phase comprising metal particles due to settling and sludge separation in decant tank 118; waste water system 100 is filtration tank with different compartments);
removing at least a portion of the non-aqueous phase from an upper layer of the fluid in the first chamber (Figure 1A; Paragraph [0015]; Paragraph [0025]; tank line 114b and sludge recovery);
flowing the fluid to a second chamber of the filtration tank and separating metallic particles from the fluid (Figure 1B; Paragraph [0019]; polishing mass media filter provides polishing and reduction of TSS, including metal particles);
separating the fluid into a first fluid stream and a second fluid stream (Figure 1B; Paragraph [0019]; see separation at lines 139A and 136B);
flowing the first fluid stream through a particle filter (Figure 1B; Paragraph [0019]; separation 138A line goes through particle filter in granular activated carbon device 136);
flowing the first fluid stream through a membrane filter (Figure 1C; Paragraph [0022]; reverse osmosis system 146);
combining the first fluid stream and the second fluid stream to produce a combined stream (Figure 1C; Paragraph [0022]; see combination of streams at 146B).
While Kelsey discloses flowing the combined stream into a tank (Figure 1C; Paragraph [0022]; reverse osmosis lines 146B and GAC Skid lines 136B to irrigation tank 150), the reference is silent on flowing the combined stream to the wash tank or rinse tank from which the fluid was removed. The reference is also silent on the fluid comprising a metalworking fluid.
Heiss discloses a water purifier and method of making and using the same in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of routing treated fluid back to rinse/wash tanks (Abstract; Figure 1). Heiss further discloses a combined stream that may be returned to a clean/wash tank from which the stream was removed in order to conserve wash water for further use (Figure 1; Paragraph [0039]; Paragraph [0040]; Paragraph [0041]; reservoir 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combined stream of Kelsey by flowing the combined stream to the wash tank or rinse tank from which the fluid was removed as taught by Heiss because Heiss discloses such a routing conserves wash water for further use (Heiss, Figure 1; Paragraph [0039]; Paragraph [0040]; Paragraph [0041]).
However, the reference is also silent on the fluid comprising a metalworking fluid.
Kelsey 2 discloses systems and methods for reduction of metal contaminants in fluids in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating metal contaminants in a wastewater stream with filtration (Abstract; Paragraph [0034]). Kelsey further argues that the fluid that can be used for the reduction of metal contaminants can be a nonaqueous solution such as a metalworking fluid, and such metalworking fluids can be mixed with aqueous solutions such as water (Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid of Kelsey to further comprise the metalworking fluid as taught by Kelsey 2 because Kelsey 2 discloses metalworking fluids can be ideal fluids for metal reduction treatment and may be mixed with water (Abstract; Paragraph [0027]; Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the aqueous portion of the fluid flowed from the wash tank or rinse tank is returned to the wash tank or rinse tank without adding makeup fluid (Heiss, Paragraph [0041]; control system determines operation modes, may return all water back to rinse/wash tank, especially when not required by downstream uses).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references are silent on the ratio of flow between the first and second streams; however, both references advise adjusting the ratios, amounts and flow rates to fit the operator’s cause and to ensure proper conditioning of the water being treated, especially when the water is not being used (Kelsey, Paragraph [0106]; Heiss, Paragraph [0041]). See also MPEP 2144.05. II. A., wherein the ratios disclosed in the instant claim appear to be the product of routine experimentation with expected results (an amount of water treatment based on the ratio of streams). Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the ratio of the flow between the first and second streams to be greater than 10:1 in view of the prior art.
Regarding instant Claims 4, 15 and 16, Claim 1, upon which the claims are each dependent, has been rejected above. While the combined references are silent on the volume of the wash tank/rinse tank being turned over in less than 15 minutes, the references disclose that the operator can size the system in the manner said operator sees proper, including tank size for both space and desired capacity (Kelsey, Paragraph [0106]; Heiss, Paragraph [0043]). See also MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. with respect to Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. and the changing of relative dimensions without change in performance. The changes in rinse/wash tank volumes are therefore considered obvious in view of the prior art (see also Claims 15 and 16, wherein a turnover time of less than 15 minutes would read on less than 30/60 minutes as well).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the concentration of non-aqueous material in the combined stream is less than 10% of a concentration of non-aqueous material in the wash or rinse tank fluid (Kelsey, Figure 1A; Paragraph [0015]; contact tank and carbon filter system 114 would separate oils as well as solids, further treatment would purify water).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the concentration of solid particles in the combined stream is less than 10% of the concentration of solid particulates in the wash or rinse tank fluid (Kelsey, Paragraph [0022]; reverse osmosis membrane fit to eliminate most particles from fluid).
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein removing comprises storing the removed metalworking fluid in a waste receptacle (Kelsey, Figure 1A; Paragraph [0025]; sludge in decanting tank 118).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 1, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose removing particles from the fluid by flowing the fluid through a mesh screen prior to separating the fluid into the first and the second fluid streams (Kelsey, Figure 1A; Paragraph [0015]; screen filter 106).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 1, upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein at least a portion of the metalworking fluid is emulsified in the water of the fluid (Kelsey, Figure 1A; Paragraph [0015]; coagulant/flocculation device 116 aids in emulsion of material to be removed from water in contact tank 114).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 1, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the tank is a wash tank and the process of the claim is also applied in parallel to a rinse tank (Heiss, Figure 1; Paragraphs [0039]-[0041]; Heiss teaches that the reservoir is used both in rinse and wash [cleaning] operations).
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 11, upon which Claim 12 is assumed to be dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the wash tank process and the rinse tank process are isolated (Heiss, Figure 1; Paragraphs [0039]-[0041]; rinse/flushing and cleaning operations are performed separately).
Regarding instant Claim 13, Claim 11, upon which Claim 13 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the wash tank and rinse tank processes are isolated but share a common waste receptacle (Kelsey, Figure 1A; Paragraph [0016]; backwash water may go to anaerobic lagoon source 102).
Regarding instant Claim 17, Claim 1, upon which Claim 17 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the tank is a wash tank (Heiss, Figure 1; Paragraphs [0039]-[0041]; reservoir is a wash/rinse tank).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsey et al. (herein referred to as “Kelsey”, US Pat Pub. 2021/0323850) in view of Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530, and Kelsey et al. (herein referred to as “Kelsey 2”, US Pat Pub. 2008/0257828) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolff (WO 2014/146165).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 1, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references are silent on heating a portion of the filtration tank to a temperature greater than 60⁰C.
Wolff discloses a water treatment system in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating water (Abstract). Wolff further discloses using a temperature controller that maintains a temperature of water at 60 degrees Celsius, which improves filtration of the water during recycling/recirculation (Page 7, Lines 17-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify a portion of the filtration chamber of Kelsey to further comprise heating said portion to a temperature greater than 60 degrees Celsius as taught by Wolff because Wolff discloses such a temperature will help improve the filtration performance during the filtration process (Wolff, Page 7, Lines 17-26).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsey et al. (herein referred to as “Kelsey”, US Pat Pub. 2021/0323850) in view of Heiss, US Pat Pub. 2005/0139530, and Kelsey et al. (herein referred to as “Kelsey 2”, US Pat Pub. 2008/0257828) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Federici et al. (herein referred to as “Federici”, US 5633423).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 1, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. While the combined references are silent on the process including separation of metallic particles by gravity separation, Kelsey discloses gravity separation itself (Figure 1A; Paragraph [0015]; Paragraph [0017]; contact tank 114; sludge decant 118).
Federici discloses a consumable anode, electro dissolution process applied to the decontamination of slightly radioactive liquid effluents and apparatus for performing the process in the same field of endeavor as the instant claims, as it solves the mutual problem of separating solids from liquid (Col. 2, Lines 25-31). Fedirici further discloses that separation of metallic particles may be performed by decanting or settling as well as filtration (Col. 2, Lines 25-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the separation of metallic particles of Kelsey to further comprise such separation by the gravity separation as taught by Federici because Federici discloses such separation removes metallic particles as well as filtration for a more thorough treatment (Federici, Col. 2, Lines 25-31; Kelsey, Paragraph [0015] see also that Kelsey teaches coagulation, which aids in metallic separation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 04/22/2026
Prosecution Insights