Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/844,068

MACHINE TOOL SYSTEM, AND HYDRAULIC LIQUID AND PROCESSING LIQUID FOR MACHINE TOOLS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Examiner
VASISTH, VISHAL V
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
nihon fluid system Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
966 granted / 1337 resolved
+7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1388
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
50.1%
+10.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1337 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Objections Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should begin with “The”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukutani et al., JP Publication No. JP2000-239686A (hereinafter referred to as Fukutani) in view of Ueno, JP Publication No. JP2019-002894A (hereinafter referred to as Ueno). Regarding claim 1, Fukutani discloses that in a machining center, a machine/device lubricating oil comprising fluoride ions, bicarbonate ions, and a water-soluble alcohol or derivative thereof is poured into a lubricating oil tank, and a pump is driven so that the lubricating oil penetrates thoroughly to the driven/sliding portion of various parts such as beds and, by using an aqueous cutting agent with a component composition similar to the lubricating liquid, the lubricating liquid and the cutting liquid do not separate even if the two are mixed; and through operation experiments that totaled 800 hours, in which the surface of a SS400 material sheet was cut using a face mill and rough machining and finish machining were performed as well as repeated actions of opening holes in the sheet using a center drill and pilot hole drill, etc., absolutely no malfunctions were found, and during the period of the operation experiments, the lubricating liquid was replenished but there were no malfunctions in either the lubricating liquid tank or the cutting agent tank, nor were any malfunctions found in the machining center. Thus, the “machine/device lubricating oil comprising fluoride ions, bicarbonate ions, and a water-soluble alcohol or derivative thereof” and the “aqueous cutting agent with a component composition similar to the lubricating liquid” in the disclosure of Fukutani correspond relatively to the “operating liquid” and “machining liquid” in which “a water-soluble material that does not comprise mineral-derived oil-soluble material is used” as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the feature in the invention disclosed in Fukutani wherein in the “machining center,” by using an aqueous cutting agent with a component composition similar to the lubricating liquid, the lubricating liquid and the cutting liquid do not separate even if the two are mixed” corresponds to the “machine tool system, which operates a machine tool that works in an environment in which the operating liquid mixes with the machining liquid, which is used for machining workpieces with the machine tool” as recited in claim 1. Fukutani discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose that the machine tool system is provided with: a recovery means for mixed recovery of the operating liquid and machining liquid after completion of lubricating action, the means being disposed downstream of the lubrication flow channel of the machine tool; a discharge container, which is connected to the recovery means and in which the operating liquid and machining liquid are retained; and in the discharge container, a circulating means, which sucks operating liquid and machining liquid inside the discharge container as such without oil-water separation from an inflow port that is disposed at a position separated from the bottom, and returns the same to a machining oil and/or operating oil supply channel. Ueno discloses in a machine tool system comprising a machining center, Y, formed from a numerically controlled milling machine for machining a workpiece, 1, the machining center, Y, is provided with a main shaft head, 2, main shaft, 3, blade tool, 4, tool holder, 5, multiple spray nozzles, 23 and 24, located to the outside of the blade tool, disposed facing the blade tool, and fixed to the main shaft head, a machining table, 25, disposed facing the blade tool and having a vise for the fixed workpiece, 1, a liquid retention tank, 26, (reads on “discharge container” as recited in claim 1), a liquid supply pipe, 27, (reads on “circulating means” as recited in claim 1), and a pump, 28, (reads on “circulating means” as recited in claim 1), which is connected to the control means for the machining center and is driven to suck/discharge on the basis of drive commands of the control means; the liquid retention tank, 26, retains a water-soluble cutting liquid WO; the pump, which is disposed on the liquid retention tank and is immersed in the water-soluble cutting liquid WO of the liquid retention tank, is connected through the liquid supply pipe, 27, and the respective nozzle pipes, 23A and 24A, (reads on “oil supply channel” as recited in claim 1), to the respective spray nozzles that spray the water-soluble cutting liquid on the blade tool and the workpiece; and the water-soluble cutting liquid sprayed from each of the spray nozzles flows from the machining table, 25, through a liquid recovery port, 32, in a front cover, 30, into a portion (reads on “recovery means” as recited in claim 1) disposed so as to extend between the front wall plate, 26, and a partition wall plate, 29, of the liquid retention tank, and is recovered. Ueno further discloses in Figures 1 and 6, that the pump, 28, which is connected to the control means of the machining center, Y, and driven to suck/discharge on the basis of drive commands of the control means, sucks the water-soluble cutting liquid, WO, in the liquid retention tank without oil-water separation from a suction port that is disposed at a position separated from the bottom plate, 26E, of the liquid retention tank, 26. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would use the configuration of Ueno in the process/apparatus of Fukutani as it is combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukutani in view of Ueno as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al., JP Publication No. JP2011-115911A (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki). Regarding claims 4 and 6-7, Fukutani/Ueno do not disclose the presence of pH buffers in the processing fluids disclosed therein. Suzuki discloses a cooling function and rustproofing function are required of water-soluble machining liquids such as cutting oils and operating oils that are used in machining, and to maintain said functions, a pH adjusting agent is used. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p. 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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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. /VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 05, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600916
OPEN GEAR LUBRICANT COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595433
ORGANIC PHOSPHORUS COMPOUND, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590267
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING BIODIESEL AND PRODUCTS OBTAINED THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584076
ENHANCED LUBRICANT COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583024
METHOD FOR DISPOSAL OF PHOTOCURED WASTE BY PHOTOOXIDATION-CATALYTIC PYROLYSIS COUPLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1337 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month