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
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 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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugo (DE 10232768, previously cited) in view of Zhen (CN 106313353, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hugo teaches a wire net monitoring device, comprising: at least one monitor (1) configured to monitor at least one wire net (8), wherein the at least one monitor is configured to detect position information of the wire net ([0012]) in a wire groove for supporting the wire net (wire 8 supported in groove being cut into workpiece), and collect a detection signal of the wire net in the wire groove (as described [0012], image is collected), and a direction of the monitor crosses a contact surface between the at least one wire net and a workpiece (shown in fig 1; [0012]; monitor views wires and workpiece for analysis) such that the at least one monitor monitors the wire net near a side of the workpiece along a rotation direction of the wire net (as shown in fig 1; rotation direction of the wire net is in the horizontal direction; monitor is located horizontally on a side of workpiece 5), and a viewing direction towards the rotation direction of the wire net (as shown in fig 1; along the horizontal direction of the wire net).
Hugo does not teach the monitor is configured to emit laser pulses extending beyond a side wall of the monitor. Zhen teaches a wire net monitoring device including at least one monitor (19) configured to emit laser pulses ([0050]; 23; fig 1), the emitted laser pulses extending beyond a side wall of the monitor (as shown in fig 1, extending beyond wall on bottom side of monitor 19). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a monitor configured to emit laser pulses beyond a sidewall of the monitor in place of the camera of Hugo, as laser pulse sensors are known in the art of monitoring wire nets for achieving the predictable result of monitoring position information of the wire to determine its angle relative to the workpiece as taught by Zhen ([0050], [0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Hugo teaches a monitoring system comprising a wire net monitoring device (including monitor 1), and at least one wire net (8) configured to process a workpiece by multi-wire cutting ([0010]; “saw wires”), the wire net monitoring device comprising: at least one monitor (1) configured to monitor the at least one wire net (8), wherein the at least one monitor is configured to detect position information of the wire net ([0012]) in a wire groove for supporting the wire net (wire 8 supported in groove being cut into workpiece), and collect a detection signal of the wire net in the wire groove (as described [0012], image is collected), and a direction of the monitor crosses a contact surface between the at least one wire net and the workpiece (shown in fig 1; [0012]; monitor views wires and workpiece for analysis) such that the at least one monitor monitors the wire net near a side of the workpiece along a rotation direction of the wire net (as shown in fig 1; rotation direction of the wire net is in the horizontal direction; monitor is located horizontally on a side of workpiece 5), and a viewing direction towards the rotation direction of the wire net (as shown in fig 1; along the horizontal direction of the wire net).
Hugo does not teach the monitor is configured to emit laser pulses extending beyond a side wall of the monitor. Zhen teaches a wire net monitoring device including at least one monitor (19) configured to emit laser pulses ([0050]; 23; fig 1), the emitted laser pulses extending beyond a side wall of the monitor (as shown in fig 1, extending beyond wall on bottom side of monitor 19). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a monitor configured to emit laser pulses beyond a sidewall of the monitor in place of the camera of Hugo, as laser pulse sensors are known in the art of monitoring wire nets for achieving the predictable result of monitoring position information of the wire to determine its angle relative to the workpiece as taught by Zhen ([0050], [0046]).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugo and Zhen as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Zingg (WO 2014/167392, previously cited).
Regarding claims 2-3, Hugo, as modified, 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, as modified, 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, Zhen, and Zingg as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Weber (US 2007/0223010, previously cited).
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 and Zhen as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 101151537, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Hugo, as modified, 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, Zhen, and Lee as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Omata (US 2021/0272432, previously cited).
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 Apr 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hugo, Zingg, Weber, Lee, and Omata do not teach the new limitations directed to emitting laser pulses crossing a contact surface between the at least one wire net and workpiece and beyond a side wall of the monitor. However, as detailed in the rejection above, the monitor of Hugo teaches optically sensing the wire at a contact surface between the wore net and workpiece, and the newly cited Zheng teaches the use of laser pulses for extending beyond a sidewall of a monitor to measure a wire net, rendering the new limitations obvious.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous objections to the claims and drawings, as well as the previous rejections under 112b.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar wire monitoring devices are cited, including those emitting laser pulses (US 7755013), and with monitors on both sides of the wire net (EP 2954965).
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 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
Prosecution Insights