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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the contact surface and the signal route crossing the contact surface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-9 be found allowable, claims 10-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, claims 10-18 recite “a monitoring system,” where the only the defined structure is the exact structure of the wire net monitoring device recited in claims 1-9, making the scope of claims 10-18 identical to the scope of claims 1-9.
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 4, 9, 13, and 18 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, each of these claims recites “the at least one monitor is disposed on two sides of the workpiece and disposed opposite to each other.” This is confusingly worded and unclear. It is unclear how “one monitor” can be disposed on two sides of the workpiece and be opposite to itself. For the purposes of this examination, “the at least one monitor” in these claims will be read as requiring two monitors on opposite sides of the workpiece.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, these claims recite “an arc surface of the adjustment rod.” However, there is antecedent basis for “an arc surface structure” in claims 8 and 17, which makes it unclear if these are referring to the same or different surfaces. For the purposes of this examination, the “arc surface structure” and “arc surface of the adjustment rod” will be read as referring to the same element.
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.
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.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hugo (DE 10232768, see provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hugo discloses a wire net monitoring device, comprising: at least one monitor (1) configured to monitor at least one wire net (8), wherein a signal route (field of view) of the at least one monitor is configured to monitor the at least one wire net near a side of a workpiece (5) along a rotation direction of the at least one wire net (as shown in fig 1), and the signal route of the at least one monitor crosses a contact surface between the at least one wire net and the workpiece ([0012]; monitor views wires and workpiece for analysis to differentiate between the two).
Regarding claim 10, Hugo discloses a monitoring system comprising a wire net monitoring device, comprising: at least one monitor (1) configured to monitor at least one wire net (8), wherein a signal route (field of view) of the at least one monitor is configured to monitor the at least one wire net near a side of a workpiece (5) along a rotation direction of the at least one wire net (as shown in fig 1), and the signal route of the at least one monitor crosses a contact surface between the at least one wire net and the workpiece ([0012]; monitor views wires and workpiece for analysis to differentiate between the two).
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) 2-3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugo as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Zingg (WO 2014/167392).
Regarding claims 2-3, Hugo teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hugo does not explicitly teach an included angle between the signal route of the at least one monitor and the contact surface being between 20 and 90 degrees, or not greater than 45 degrees, although Hugo’s monitor appears to be shown at such an angle in fig 1. However, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.) and applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed angle. Zingg teaches a wire net monitoring device wherein a position of a monitor (13) relative to the contact surface between the wire net (3) and workpiece (2) can is selected such that the signal route is close enough to the wire net to effectively perform monitoring, while being far enough away to avoid disturbing the cutting action ([0073-0074]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the monitor of Hugo such that the included angle between the signal route of the at least one monitor and the contact surface is between 20 and 45 degrees, as the location of the monitor is a known routine optimization which effects the ability of the monitor to observe the wire net and avoid disturbing the cutting action as taught by Zingg ([0073-0074]).
Regarding claims 11-12, Hugo teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Hugo does not explicitly teach an included angle between the signal route of the at least one monitor and the contact surface being between 20 and 90 degrees, or not greater than 45 degrees, although Hugo’s monitor appears to be shown at such an angle in fig 1. However, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.) and applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed angle. Zingg teaches a wire net monitoring device wherein a position of a monitor (13) relative to the contact surface between the wire net (3) and workpiece (2) can is selected such that the signal route is close enough to the wire net to effectively perform monitoring, while being far enough away to avoid disturbing the cutting action ([0073-0074]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the monitor of Hugo such that the included angle between the signal route of the at least one monitor and the contact surface is between 20 and 45 degrees, as the location of the monitor is a known routine optimization which effects the ability of the monitor to observe the wire net and avoid disturbing the cutting action as taught by Zingg ([0073-0074]).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugo and Zingg as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Weber (US 2007/0223010).
Regarding claim 4, Hugo, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Hugo further teaches the at least one monitor configured to monitor a state of the at least one wire net on a corresponding side (fig 1; [0011-0012]). Hugo does not teach the at least one monitor comprising two monitors (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation), each disposed on opposite sides of the workpiece to monitor a state of the at least one wire net on a corresponding side. However, it has been held that duplication of parts is an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B). Furthermore, Weber teaches a monitoring device including two monitors (26), each disposed on opposite sides of the workpiece (fig 1; when workpiece is being worked below element 22, they are on opposite sides) to monitor a state on a corresponding side ([0030]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second monitor on the opposite side of the workpiece from the first monitor and to monitor a state of the wire net on a corresponding side of Hugo, as providing monitors both before and after working the workpiece allows the system to compare wear both before and after working the workpiece as taught by Weber ([0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Hugo, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Hugo further teaches the at least one monitor configured to monitor a state of the at least one wire net on a corresponding side (fig 1; [0011-0012]). Hugo does not teach the at least one monitor comprising two monitors (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation), each disposed on opposite sides of the workpiece to monitor a state of the at least one wire net on a corresponding side. However, it has been held that duplication of parts is an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B). Furthermore, Weber teaches a monitoring device including two monitors (26), each disposed on opposite sides of the workpiece (fig 1; when workpiece is being worked below element 22, they are on opposite sides) to monitor a state on a corresponding side ([0030]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second monitor on the opposite side of the workpiece from the first monitor and to monitor a state of the wire net on a corresponding side of Hugo, as providing monitors both before and after working the workpiece allows the system to compare wear both before and after working the workpiece as taught by Weber ([0030]).
Claim(s) 5-8 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugo as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 101151537, cited by applicant with translation).
Regarding claim 5, Hugo teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Hugo does not teach a housing and adjustment rod, wherein the at least one monitor is built in the housing and connected to the housing, the adjustment rod externally placed on and hinged with the housing. Lee teaches a monitoring device including a housing (40) and an adjustment rod (20; fig 4), wherein: at least one monitor (“camera”) is built in the housing and connected to the housing ([0027]); the adjustment rod is externally placed on the housing (fig 4) and hinged with the housing (at element 400 as described [0038-0041]). Lee is pertinent to solving the problem of providing an angularly adjustable mount for a monitoring device. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the monitor of Hugo within a housing and an adjustment rod, the adjustment rod is externally placed on the housing and hinged with the housing, as such an arrangement is known in the field of monitoring devices for providing an angularly adjustable mount which achieves the predictable result of allowing an angle of the monitor to be easily adjusted to the proper position as taught by Lee ([0009]).
Regarding claims 6-8, Hugo, as modified by Lee, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lee further teaches the housing (included in the device of Hugo as described in the rejection of claim 5 above) toward which an emission port of the at least one monitor faces is set as a transparent surface (121; [0027]), the transparent surface is disposed vertically relative to the contact surface between the at least one wire net and the workpiece (when applied to the device of Hugo, the transparent surface would be vertical relative to the horizontal contact surface); wherein the adjustment rod (included in the device of Hugo as described in the rejection of claim 5 above) is suspended from a top of the housing and is located on a side of the housing away from the transparent surface (as shown in fig 4); and wherein a lower end of the adjustment rod is connected to a boss (410) disposed on a top of the housing (shown in fig 2), and an end of the adjustment rod (end 420) connected to the boss is configured as an arc surface structure (arc shown in fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, Hugo teaches all the elements of claim 10 as described above. Hugo does not teach a housing and adjustment rod, wherein the at least one monitor is built in the housing and connected to the housing, the adjustment rod externally placed on and hinged with the housing. Lee teaches a monitoring device including a housing (40) and an adjustment rod (20; fig 4), wherein: at least one monitor (“camera”) is built in the housing and connected to the housing ([0027]); the adjustment rod is externally placed on the housing (fig 4) and hinged with the housing (at element 400 as described [0038-0041]). Lee is pertinent to solving the problem of providing an angularly adjustable mount for a monitoring system. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the monitor of Hugo within a housing and an adjustment rod, the adjustment rod is externally placed on the housing and hinged with the housing, as such an arrangement is known in the field of monitoring devices for providing an angularly adjustable mount which achieves the predictable result of allowing an angle of the monitor to be easily adjusted to the proper position as taught by Lee ([0009]).
Regarding claims 15-17, Hugo, as modified by Lee, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Lee further teaches the housing (included in the system of Hugo as described in the rejection of claim 5 above) toward which an emission port of the at least one monitor faces is set as a transparent surface (121; [0027]), the transparent surface is disposed vertically relative to the contact surface between the at least one wire net and the workpiece (when applied to the system of Hugo, the transparent surface would be vertical relative to the horizontal contact surface); wherein the adjustment rod (included in the device of Hugo as described in the rejection of claim 5 above) is suspended from a top of the housing and is located on a side of the housing away from the transparent surface (as shown in fig 4); and wherein a lower end of the adjustment rod is connected to a boss (410) disposed on a top of the housing (shown in fig 2), and an end of the adjustment rod (end 420) connected to the boss is configured as an arc surface structure (arc shown in fig 1).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugo and Lee as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Omata (US 2021/0272432).
Regarding claim 9, Hugo, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Hugo and Lee do not teach arc holes provided on the boss, where an arc of one of the arc holes matches the arc surface structure of the adjustment rod. Omata teaches a housing for a monitoring device including arc holes (35) arranged up and down opposite to each other provided on a boss (25; shown in fig 2), wherein an arc of one of the arc holes matches an arc surface (upper hole 35 matches location upper arc surface). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide arc holes arranged up and down opposite to each other on the boss of the housing provided to the monitoring device of Hugo, resulting in an arc of one of the holes matching an arc of the arc surface structure of the adjustment rod (when applied to the housing of Lee, the top arc hole matches the position of the arc in the top of the end of the adjustment rod described in the rejection of claim 8 above), as arc holes achieve the predictable result of providing a tilt adjustment to a monitoring device as taught by Omata ([0040]).
Regarding claim 18, Hugo, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Hugo and Lee do not teach arc holes provided on the boss, where an arc of one of the arc holes matches the arc surface structure of the adjustment rod. Omata teaches a housing for a monitoring device including arc holes (35) arranged up and down opposite to each other provided on a boss (25; shown in fig 2), wherein an arc of one of the arc holes matches an arc surface (upper hole 35 matches location upper arc surface). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide arc holes arranged up and down opposite to each other on the boss of the housing provided to the monitoring system of Hugo, resulting in an arc of one of the holes matching an arc of the arc surface structure of the adjustment rod (when applied to the housing of Lee, the top arc hole matches the position of the arc in the top of the end of the adjustment rod described in the rejection of claim 8 above), as arc holes achieve the predictable result of providing a tilt adjustment to a monitoring device as taught by Omata ([0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar monitoring devices and systems are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723