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 .
Drawings
Figures 2A-2B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Replacement drawings submitted on December 7, 2023, show the corrections unclear.
Claim Status
Claims 1-26 have been canceled.
Claims 27-52 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 27 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27: “xrequiring” in line 2 should be replaced with --requiring--.
Claim 27: “configured to feed in according to a monitored flow rate” in lines 31-32, should be replaced with --configured to feed in, according to a monitored flow rate,--.
Claim 38: “devicesconfigured” in line 10 should be replaced with --devices configured--.
Claim 38: “configured to feed in according to a monitored flow rate of the decanter” in lines 23-24 should be replaced with -- configured to feed in, according to a monitored flow rate of the decanter,--.
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 27-52 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 27 recites the limitation "the primary filtering cartridges" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the feed-in inlet" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said feed-in inlet" in lines 37-38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "said feed-in inlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the feed-in flow rate D" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase "for example" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 28, the phrase "such as" in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 29 recites the limitation "said feed-in inlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recite the limitations “so-called proximal one” and “at the other so-called distal one” in lines 3-5. It is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the proximal end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the hollow tray elements" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the vat (of the filtering device” in line 4. It is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the other filtering devices with tray(s)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the primary filtering cartridges" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the feed-in inlet" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the primary filtering" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "said feed-in inlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recite the limitations “so-called proximal one” and “at the other so-called distal one” in lines 3-4. It is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation “possibly the buffer tank” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite and it is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
Claim 47 recites the limitation “possibly the buffer tank” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite and it is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
Claim 50 recites the limitation “wherein the decantation vat of the decanter comprises, according to the longitudinal direction of the vat, several vat segments welded to one another, and according to a pitch, according to the longitudinal direction of the decantation vat, corresponding to the dimension of a filtering device, according to the longitudinal direction, and possibly to the dimension of the buffer tank according to the longitudinal direction, the segments forming the decantation vat of the secondary separation, on the one hand, and the filtering devices, and possibly the buffer tank superimposed to the segments, on the other hand, being respectively positioned, overlapping one another according to the longitudinal direction”. The claim is narrative and is not clear what applicant intends to claim. The word “possibly” in lines 5 and 7 makes the claim indefinite. Also, the words “on the one hand” in line 7 and “on the other hand” in line 8 make the claim indefinite since it is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
Claim 51: The word “possibly” in line 2 makes the claim indefinite.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the stand" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the primary filtering system" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 52: The words “on the one hand” in lines 3-4 and “on the other hand” in lines 4-5 make the claim indefinite since it is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-52 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 27 would be allowed because the prior art of record does not show or suggest a method for recycling and filtering rolling oil implemented for a rolling mill requiring a rolling oil nominal flow rate comprised between 4000 1/min and 30000 1/min in an oil recycling and filtering plant having a circuit comprising, successively, according to the flow direction of the oil: a secondary separation system, ensuring a separation of the oil and of the particles contained in the muds by decantation, thereby obtaining a particle-concentrated mud which is evacuated, and a particle-free oil is sent back to the dirty oil tank, wherein the secondary separation system by decantation comprises: a buffer tank configured to collect the muds generated by the operation of unclogging the primary filtering cartridges, a decanter configured to ensure the sedimentation of the particles contained in the muds in a bottom of the decanter, having an inlet for feeding in the muds and an outlet for the decanted oils, a motor-driven regulation device comprising at least one pump configured to feed in according to a monitored flow rate the feed-in inlet of the decanter with the muds of the buffer tank, and wherein the muds in the decanter is separated into particles which sediment in the bottom of the decanter and into a particle-free oil which is evacuated through the outlet while ensuring, by said at least one pump, a monitored flow rate of the muds feeding in the decanter so as to guarantee a continuous and turbulence-free decantation in the decanter between said feed-in inlet and said outlet of the decanter, over a duration longer than the duration separating two consecutive operations of unclogging two filtering devices of the primary filtering, in combination with the remaining limitations in the claim. Sequeira (US 2017/0239596) teaches a system having a circuit for filtering rolling oil having a dirty oil reservoir, a pumping system, a filtration system, a clean oil reservoir, and a valve system, as shown in Fig. 1; however, lacks the limitations stated above, with regarding a secondary separation system having a decanter, a buffer tank and a motor-drive, regulation device, and it would have not been obvious to modify because there is no reason or suggestion to do so and the system would not operate as intended.
Claims 28-37 would be allowed due to their dependency on claim 27.
Claim 38 would be allowed because the prior art of record does not show or suggest a plant for recycling and filtering rolling oil having a circuit comprising, successively, according to the flow direction of the oil: a secondary separation system, ensuring a separation by decantation of the oil and of the particles contained in the muds thereby obtaining a particle-concentrated mud which is evacuated, and a particle-free oil which is sent to the dirty oil tank, wherein the secondary separation system by decantation comprises: a buffer tank dimensioned so as to collect the muds generated by the operation of unclogging the primary filtering cartridges, a decanter configured to ensure the sedimentation of the particles contained in the muds in the bottom of the decanter, having an inlet for feeding in the muds and an outlet for the decanted oils, a motor-driven regulation device comprising at least one pump configured to feed in according to a monitored flow rate of the decanter the feed-in inlet of the decanter with the muds of the buffer tank, and wherein the secondary separation system is configured to separate the muds in the decanter into particles which sediment in the bottom of the decanter and into a particle-free oil while ensuring, by said at least one pump, a monitored flow rate of the muds feeding in the decanter so as to guarantee a continuous and turbulence-free decantation in the decanter over a duration longer than the duration separating two consecutive operations of unclogging two filtering devices of the primary filtering, in combination with the remaining limitations in the claim. Sequeira (US 2017/0239596) teaches a system having a circuit for filtering rolling oil having a dirty oil reservoir, a pumping system, a filtration system, a clean oil reservoir, and a valve system, as shown in Fig. 1; however, lacks the limitations stated above, with regarding a secondary separation system having a decanter, a buffer tank and a motor-drive, regulation device, and it would have not been obvious to modify because there is no reason or suggestion to do so and the system would not operate as intended.
Claims 39-52 would be allowed due to their dependency on claim 38.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773