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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 08AUG2026 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11MAY2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 08AUG2026 have been fully considered. Note that the present claims do not claim “passive or automatically self-cleaning” per se or exclude backwashing. The self-cleaning aspect appears to be a result of an inclined filter, not claimed in the independent claim. See updated rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line(s) 8-10 sets forth the limitation, “a screen filter . . . which filters the discharge liquid and separates at least one of the cutting chips from the discharge liquid . . . .” The term “at least one of” is interpreted as requiring at a minimum a single cutting chip to be separated, as opposed to a single item in a list of alternatives.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4,9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIHARA (US 20130319919) in view of THOMPSON (US 3834539).
Regarding claims 1,9-10, ISHIHARA teaches cutting fluid filtering device having filter washing function (title, Figs.) including a processing discharge liquid filtration device comprising:
a first tank (Fig. 1 #31);
a first tank pump (Fig. 1 #36);
a filter (filter of Fig. 1 #39); and
a cutting chip recovery container (container of Fig. 1 #39); and
a filter in the filter container (not shown; par. [0037]).
ISHIHARA is silent as to the details of the filter. However, THOMPSON teaches a trap for removing solid particles from a liquid circulating system (title, Figs.) including a screen filter (e.g. Figs. 4-5 #42) with a wire screen having stitches (or mesh as shown in the figures) installed at an angle (or inclination) at 45 degrees (C2/L38-42), which is capable of causing solids (e.g. chips) to automatically slip down the screen.
THOMPSON teaches that an angled screen is self-cleaning (C3/L15-17).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the filter of ISHIHARA to be an angled wire mesh in order to provide a self-cleaning filter as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of filters. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 2, ISHIHARA teaches a discharge liquid agitation means (e.g. return conduit including valve Fig. 1 #8) capable of returning a part of the discharge liquid pumped up by the first tank pump into the discharge liquid in the first tank capable of agitating the discharge liquid in the first tank (discharge of fluid will agitate the contents in the tank).
Regarding claim 4, ISHIHARA teaches a sensor (e.g. Fig. 1 #53) that detects an amount of the discharge liquid in a second tank (Fig. 1 #33), and
a control unit (Fig. 1 #60) capable of controlling operation and stop of a second tank pump (Fig. 1 #49) on the basis of a signal from the sensor (see also ISHIHARA claim 5).
While ISHIHARA is silent as to a level sensor in the first tank and the control unit controlling to stop the first pump, it is obvious to provide the control capabilities of the second tank to the first tank as well (i.e. stop operation of the pump when the liquid level is too low).
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIHARA (US 20130319919) in view of THOMPSON (US 3834539) and MILLER (US 20090114609).
Regarding claim 5, ISHIHARA teaches:
a second tank (Fig. 1 #33); and,
a second tank pump (Fig. 1 #49).
ISHIHARA does not teach a back filter. However, MILLER apparatuses for filtering water from oil and gas wells (title, Figs.) including:
a first tank (Fig. 3A #510);
a first tank pump (Fig. 1 #521);
a first filter (Fig. 1 #522,524,526);
a second tank (Fig. 3A #550);
a second tank pump (Fig. 1 #540); and,
a second/back filter (Fig. 1 #552,554,556).
MILLER teaches that having multiple filters improve the filtering efficiency (par. [0090]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of ISHIHARA to with a back filter in order to improve the filtering efficiency as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 6, ISHIHARA teaches a sensor (e.g. Fig. 1 #53) that detects an amount of the discharge liquid in a second tank (Fig. 1 #33), and
a control unit (Fig. 1 #60) capable of controlling operation and stop of a second tank pump (Fig. 1 #49) on the basis of a signal from the sensor (see also ISHIHARA ‘919 claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, ISHIHARA’s modified device teaches a discharge liquid return line (Fig. 1 #56) capable of returning the discharge liquid in the second tank to the first tank.
Regarding claim 8, MILLER teaches the back filter includes filters in a plurality of stages (Fig. 1 #552,554,556) that filter and sequentially pass the discharge liquid, and the filters in the stages are respectively configured to be independently replaceable (par. [0103]).
Telephonic Inquiries
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 LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, Thursday ~08:00~15:00.
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, Ben 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/Liam Royce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
