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 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) 1-6 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellos, US Patent 3,661,784.
Regarding claim 1, Bellos discloses a method of lubricating a fluid production pump (see column 4, line 57-column 5, line 42), the method comprising the steps of: mixing a polarized lubricant with water to produce a diluted lubricant (see col 4, line 60); creating a flowpath within the fluid production pump (see col 5, line 4-5); and repeatedly introducing a periodic volume of diluted lubricant within the flowpath (see col 5, line 32) to allow the diluted lubricant to react with components of the fluid production pump and form a protective barrier on the components of the fluid production pump according to a predefined lubrication schedule (see col 5, line 35-38). Bellos does not specify that the mixing step includes producing a diluted lubricant having a ratio of water to polarized lubricant in a range of 1:1-13:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to employ a lubricant in the specified concentration range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated employ a lubricant in the specified concentration range in order to improve the system corrosion resistance and efficiency for a specific environment and workload schedule.
Regarding claim 2, Bellos discloses the method recited in claim 1, wherein the creating step (as described above) includes creating a closed loop flowpath (“closed system” from col 5, line 25) within the fluid production pump (as described above).
Regarding claim 3, Bellos discloses the method recited in claim 2, further comprising the steps of: undoing the closed loop flowpath from the fluid production pump after the circulating step (see col 5, line 35-37); and creating a serial flowpath (see col 5, line 22) through the fluid production pump before the operating step (as described above).
Regarding claim 4, Bellos discloses the method recited in claim 1, further comprising the step of disposing the initial volume of the diluted lubricant within the flowpath (see col 5, line 31-35).
Regarding claim 5, Bellos discloses the method recited in claim 4, wherein the mixing step (see col 4, line 60) is performed before the disposing step (as described above).
Regarding claim 6, Bellos discloses the method recited in claim 1, wherein the initial volume of the diluted lubricant is larger at the start of the introducing step (see column 5, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 12, Bellos discloses the method recited in claim 1, further comprising the step of filling a scratch (covering all surfaces) formed in the protective barrier (coating) with the periodic volume of polarized lubricant (see col 5, line 37).
Regarding claim 13, Bellos discloses a method of reducing friction in a fluid production pump, the method comprising: circulating a diluted lubricant through the fluid production pump (see col 5, line 32) to allow the diluted lubricant to be attracted to the fluid production pump via a positive ion charge of the diluted lubricant (see column 4, line 57-column 5, line 42). Bellos does not specify that the mixing step includes producing a diluted lubricant having a ratio of water to polarized lubricant in a range of 1:1-13:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to employ a lubricant in the specified concentration range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated employ a lubricant in the specified concentration range in order to improve the system corrosion resistance and efficiency for a specific environment and workload schedule.
Regarding claim 14, Bellos discloses the method recited in claim 13, further comprising the step of repeatedly introducing additional diluted lubricant through the fluid production pump according to a predefined lubrication schedule (see col 5, line 35-38).
Regarding claim 15, Bellos discloses the method recited in claim 13, wherein the circulating step (as described above) includes circulating the diluted lubricant through a closed loop flowpath (see col 5, line 25) formed within the fluid production pump.
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellos in view of Kayser et al., US PGPub 2012/0088698.
Bellow discloses the method recited in claims 1 and 13 but does not specify that the polarized lubricant in the mixing step includes a plant based fluid or an emulsifier. Kayser teaches lubricant compound for coating industrial equipment (see [0003]) wherein the compound includes a plant based fluid (see [0099]-[0100]) (claims 9 and 18) or an emulsifier (see [0027]) (claims 10 and 19). It would have been obvious to provide the compound described by Kayer to the system disclosed by Bellos in order to improve the system corrosion resistance and efficiency for a specific environment and workload schedule.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Bellos so that the mixing step includes producing a diluted lubricant having a ratio of water to polarized lubricant in a range of 1:1-13:1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to employ a lubricant in the specified concentration range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated employ a lubricant in the specified concentration range in order to improve the system corrosion resistance and efficiency for a specific environment and workload schedule. Furthermore, this higher concentration of lubricant within the mixture is well known in the prior art. For instance, in King et al., US PGPub 2004/0214734 discusses the specified range of polarized lubricant to water (see [0016]-[0019]) and it would be obvious to incorporate the specified range for the reasons identified above. Therefore it is examiner position that such a modification would be obvious and Applicants argument is not persuasive.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Bellos does not disclose the method step wherein the initial volume of the diluted lubricant is larger at the start of the introducing step. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In column 5, lines 31-35, Bellos a system where the initial concentration of lubricant, hence the initial volume of lubricant is higher than that of the introducing steps. Therefore Bellos does disclose the disputed limitation and Applicants argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
