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 § 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the secondary filter" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hori et al. (US 2014/0116930 A1).
Re Claim 1, Hori discloses a cutting fluid circulation device comprising: a tank reservoir 50 that stores cutting fluid discharged from a machine tool 10; a drum filter 40 disposed in the tank reservoir 50 (See figure 3; Note: Hori discloses the filter may be any type of suitable filtering device; Par. 0023), the drum filter 40 as a primary filter that filters cutting fluid (Pars. 0022 and 0023); and a pump 60 that pumps up cutting fluid in the tank reservoir 50, an annular flow channel (not labeled, the flow channel on the right side of the figure as may be noted in figure 3) in which the cutting fluid filtered by the drum filter 40 circulates is formed in the tank reservoir 50 (Pars. 0021-0028, Figs. 1-4). Note: the following limitation “…a part of the cutting fluid pumped up by the pump is fed to the drum filter, used for cleaning the drum filter, and then returned to the annular flow channel, and a part of the remaining cutting fluid is fed to a secondary filter disposed outside the tank reservoir, filtered by the secondary filter, and then returned to the annular flow channel” is not given patentable weight as the statutory category of invention of the claim relates to a product and the aforementioned limitation recites method steps for utilizing the claimed product.
Re Claim 2, Hori discloses an assist nozzle 82 is disposed in the tank reservoir 50, and the assist nozzle 82 ejects the cutting fluid to be returned to the annular flow channel in a direction to assist a circulation flow in the annular flow channel (Pars. 0033 and 0034, Fig. 3).
Re Claim 3, Hori discloses a straightening vane 56 is disposed in the tank reservoir 50, the straightening vane 56 straightening the circulation flow in the annular flow channel (Par. 0028, Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2014/0116930 A1), in view of Noake et al. (2020/0078894 A1).
Re Claim 4, Hori does not explicitly disclose a conveyor installed in the tank reservoir, the conveyor collecting sludge from the cutting fluid discharged from the machine tool, wherein the drum filter is installed at a lower portion of the conveyor, and the annular flow channel is foil led around the conveyor.
Noake discloses a cutting fluid circulation device comprising: a tank reservoir 154 that stores cutting fluid discharged from a machine tool 30; a drum filter 152 disposed in the tank reservoir 154 (Noake discloses different types of filters may be used, Par. 0022); and a pump 160 that pumps up cutting fluid (Pars. 0027 and 0028); a conveyor 140 installed in the tank reservoir 154, the conveyor 140 collecting sludge from the cutting fluid discharged from the machine tool 30, the drum filter 152 is installed at a lower portion of the conveyor 140 (Pars. 0019-0022, 0027, 0028 and 0038-0040; Figs. 1-3), for the benefit of removing debris from the cutting fluid (Par. 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hori, by providing a conveyor in the tank reservoir as disclosed by Noake, thus allowing the annular flow channel to be foil led around the conveyor, for the benefit of removing debris from the cutting fluid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAYAN SALONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-60 PM.
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, David Bryant can be reached at (571)272-4526. 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.
/BAYAN SALONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726