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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 20 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-18 are pending, of which claims 3-5 and 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 20 May 2026, except for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Moreover, Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer has overcome the provisional double patenting rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 20 May 2026 as noted in the Terminal Disclaimer section below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 20 August 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of application number 18/548,878 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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. Paragraph 43 of the present specification explicitly states that no controller is illustrated in the drawings. Therefore, the “controller” as recited in claim 9 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
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 11 recites, “a jumping value”. This recitation should read – the [[a]] jumping value – in view of line 4 already introducing “a jumping value of each of the cutting wires”.
Claim 2 at line 6 recites, “one of the multiple regions” and at line 7 recites, “the one of the multiple regions”. However, claim 1 already introduces “one of the multiple regions”. Claim 2 should avoid re-introducing a feature with an identical name to a feature already introduced in claim 1. Either claim 2 at line 6 should refer to – the one of the multiple regions – or claim 2 at line 6 and at line 7 should provide the one of the multiple regions with a unique name instead of repeating a name already used in claim 1.
Claim 8 adds new a descriptor into the name of previously introduced feature. In particular, the claim recites, “the cut-off cutting wires”, where no ‘cut-off cutting wires’ are introduced earlier in the claim. The recitation “the cut-off cutting wires” is introduced in the claim as ‘the one of the cutting wires’ and ‘adjacent two or three cutting wires’, and thus should later be referred to as – the one of the cutting wires and the adjacent two or three cutting wires –. Alternatively, the Applicant is welcome to define some group of ‘cut-off cutting wires’, after which the Applicant is able to properly refer to ‘the cut-off cutting wires’.
Claim 9 at line 15 recites, “a jumping value”. This recitation should read – the [[a]] jumping value – in view of lines 5-6 already introducing “a jumping value of each of the cutting wires”.
Claim 10 at lines 5-6 recites, “one of the multiple regions” and at lines 6-7 recites, “the one of the multiple regions”. However, claim 9 already introduces “one of the multiple regions”. Claim 10 should avoid re-introducing a feature with an identical name to a feature already introduced in claim 9. Either claim 10 at lines 5-6 should refer to – the one of the multiple regions – or claim 10 at lines 5-6 and at lines 6-7 should provide the one of the multiple regions with a unique name instead of repeating a name already used in claim 9.
Claim 11 at line 13 recites, “a jumping value”. This recitation should read – the [[a]] jumping value – in view of line 6 already introducing “a jumping value of each of the cutting wires”.
Claim 12 at lines 5-6 recites, “one of the multiple regions” and at lines 6-7 recites, “the one of the multiple regions”. However, claim 11 already introduces “one of the multiple regions”. Claim 12 should avoid re-introducing a feature with an identical name to a feature already introduced in claim 11. Either claim 12 at lines 5-6 should refer to – the one of the multiple regions – or claim 12 at lines 5-6 and at lines 6-7 should provide the one of the multiple regions with a unique name instead of repeating a name already used in claim 11.
Claim 18 adds new a descriptor into the name of previously introduced feature. In particular, the claim recites, “the cut-off cutting wires”, where no ‘cut-off cutting wires’ are introduced earlier in the claim. The recitation “the cut-off cutting wires” is introduced in the claim as ‘the one of the cutting wires’ and ‘adjacent two or three cutting wires’, and thus should later be referred to as – the one of the cutting wires and the adjacent two or three cutting wires –. Alternatively, the Applicant is welcome to define some group of ‘cut-off cutting wires’, after which the Applicant is able to properly refer to ‘the cut-off cutting wires’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a jumping value obtaining module” as recited in claim 9 (first, “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to obtain a jumping value for each of the cutting wires”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “jumping value obtaining” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the module, and moreover the structure of “a controller” in and of itself is insufficient to perform the recited function – consider that the controller is not even required to include any particular programming, with the claim only reciting generically “a controller” with no further features of the controller being specified; see the Response to Arguments section below for additional discussion of this issue);
“a jumping curve obtaining module” as recited in claim 9 (first, “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to obtain a jumping curve”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “jumping curve obtaining” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the module, and moreover the structure of “the controller” in and of itself is insufficient to perform the recited function – consider that the controller is not even required to include any particular programming, with the claim only reciting generically “the controller” with no further features of the controller being specified; see the Response to Arguments section below for additional discussion of this issue); and
“a determining module” as recited in claim 9 (first, “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to determine whether the wire mesh is abnormal”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “determining” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the module, and moreover the structure of “the controller” in and of itself is insufficient to perform the recited function – consider that the controller is not even required to include any particular programming, with the claim only reciting generically “the controller” with no further features of the controller being specified; see the Response to Arguments section below for additional discussion of this issue).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites, “a cutting wire position obtaining module, comprising a sensor, configured to obtain position heights of cutting wires in a wire mesh”. The subject matter of a single sensor that is able to obtain a plurality of position heights of a plurality of cutting wires was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. First, the sensor is newly added to claim 9. Second, the present specification at paragraph 40 discloses, “The monitors 30 can be radar sensors or laser sensors. This type of sensors can continuously and uninterruptedly transmit a signal to and collect a return signal from the position of each of the cutting wires without difficulty, so as to identify the position of each of the cutting wires in each of the regions.” The present specification therefore discloses a plurality of sensors, not a single sensor as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the feature of a singular sensor that obtains a plurality of position heights of a plurality of cutting wires encompassed by claim 9 was not described in the present specification as originally filed in a manner that satisfies 35 USC 112(a), such that claim 9 fails to comply with the written description requirement. The examiner suggests reciting that the module comprises “sensors” in the plural, since the present application as originally filed only contemplates the use of a plurality of sensors to obtain a plurality of position heights of a plurality of cutting wires.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18 is/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.
Claim 8 recites, “the re-connected cutting wire” and “a corresponding wire slot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the re-connected cutting wire” in the claim, and as a result it is unclear whether claim 8 necessarily requires a new wire slot. For example, it is unclear whether the recitation “the re-connected cutting wire” is intended to refer to an individual wire as suggested by the singular nature of the recitation, or whether the recitation is intended to refer to all cutting wires that are previously required to be re-connected together. Moreover, it is unclear whether “the re-connected cutting wire” of claim 8 is permitted to be “the one of the cutting wires” of claim 7 that is placed in “an original wire slot”. If “the re-connected cutting wire” of claim 8 is permitted to be “the one of the cutting wires” of claim 7, then it is unclear whether claim 8 is introducing an additional slot. That is, if the re-connected cutting wire is the one of the cutting wires of claim 7, then claim 8 should refer to “the original wire slot”. The fact that claim 8 does not refer to “the original wire slot” suggests that “the re-connected cutting wire” must be some wire other than “the one of the cutting wires”. The examiner suggests referring to wires with consistent names, rather than introducing a newly name ‘re-connected cutting wire’ to aid in clarifying the claim.
Claim 8 recites, “adjacent two or three cutting wires”. This recitation is indefinite because the relationship between the ‘cutting wires’ of claim 8 and the cutting wires previously introduced in claim 1 is unclear. Must the cutting wires of claim 8 be members of the cutting wires introduced in claim 1? If so, then claim 8 would be expected to refer to “the” or “said” cutting wires. Thus, the fact that Applicant has not referred to any of the ‘adjacent two or three cutting members’ as being members of the previously introduced cutting wires renders it unclear as to whether or not claim 8 permits the ‘adjacent two or three cutting members’ to be some new cutting wires. The examine encourages the Applicant to refer to “the” or “said” cutting wires when referring to any of the previously introduced wires, and also to use some unique name if introducing some new group of cutting wires.
Regarding claim 9, each of claim limitations “a jumping value obtaining module”, “a jumping curve obtaining module”, and “a determining module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, for each of these limitations, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The present written description at paragraphs 15 and then again at paragraphs 58-62 refers to each of these modules, but the present written description never clearly links any of the disclosed structures to the limitations interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). It is unclear what disclosed structure(s) correspond to each of the various modules. Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear whether a single, general purpose controller without any particular programming can provide the various modules recited in claim 9. If a single general purpose controller without any particular programming is able to provide all the modules of claim 9, then the only two features required by claim 9 are a sensor and a controller, where the controller is able to obtain data from the sensor. Still, since the present specification does not explicitly state what structure(s) corresponds to each module, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. (Note that, as best understood, the present specification merely fails to clearly link the corresponding structure for each limitation interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), such that as best can be determined no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is warranted for failing to disclose the corresponding structures.) As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, a general purpose controller without any particular programming thereon is insufficient structure for performing the functions of each of the recited modules. The examiner suggests amending the specification to explicitly state which structure corresponds to each module. Alternatively, the examiner suggests amending claim 9 to recite some structure(s) in place of each of the modules to avoid an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 18 recites, “the re-connected cutting wire” and “a corresponding wire slot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the re-connected cutting wire” in the claim, and as a result it is unclear whether claim 18 necessarily requires a new wire slot. For example, it is unclear whether the recitation “the re-connected cutting wire” is intended to refer to an individual wire as suggested by the singular nature of the recitation, or whether the recitation is intended to refer to all cutting wires that are previously required to be re-connected together. Moreover, it is unclear whether “the re-connected cutting wire” of claim 18 is permitted to be “the one of the cutting wires” of claim 17 that is placed in “an original wire slot”. If “the re-connected cutting wire” of claim 18 is permitted to be “the one of the cutting wires” of claim 17, then it is unclear whether claim 18 is introducing an additional slot. That is, if the re-connected cutting wire is the one of the cutting wires of claim 17, then claim 18 should refer to “the original wire slot”. The fact that claim 18 does not refer to “the original wire slot” suggests that “the re-connected cutting wire” must be some wire other than “the one of the cutting wires”. The examiner suggests referring to wires with consistent names, rather than introducing a newly name ‘re-connected cutting wire’ to aid in clarifying the claim.
Claim 18 recites, “adjacent two or three cutting wires”. This recitation is indefinite because the relationship between the ‘cutting wires’ of claim 18 and the cutting wires previously introduced in claim 11 is unclear. Must the cutting wires of claim 18 be members of the cutting wires introduced in claim 11? If so, then claim 18 would be expected to refer to “the” or “said” cutting wires. Thus, the fact that Applicant has not referred to any of the ‘adjacent two or three cutting members’ as being members of the previously introduced cutting wires renders it unclear as to whether or not claim 18 permits the ‘adjacent two or three cutting members’ to be some new cutting wires. The examine encourages the Applicant to refer to “the” or “said” cutting wires when referring to any of the previously introduced wires, and also to use some unique name if introducing some new group of cutting wires.
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) 1-2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/167392 A1 to Zingg in view of EP 2708342 A1 to El Haddaoui.
Regarding claim 1, Zingg discloses a processing method for a wire mesh abnormality (see abnormalities discussed in paragraph 77 and as shown in Fig. 4B), comprising the steps of:
obtaining position heights of cutting wires in a wire mesh 3 (see Fig. 4B showing varies position heights of wires including wires 3’ and 3’’; see also paragraphs 81-82);
obtaining a jumping value of each of the cutting wires based on a vertical difference between each of the position heights of the cutting wires and a position height of a contact surface of the wire mesh 3 and a workpiece 2 (see Fig. 4B and paragraphs 66-68 and 72; see also paragraph 45 describing the manner in which the ‘zero point’ may be determined);
obtaining a jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 based on the jumping values of the cutting wires (see the jumping curve in Fig. 4B; see also paragraphs 82 and 98), wherein there are multiple regions in the jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 (see Figs. 4B and 4C; the lateral position in which each single wire, such as one of wires 3’, 3’’, and 3’’’, is expected to be located can be considered as a ‘region’, such that Fig. 4B at its far left end discloses two wire portions in one region; note also that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘region’ encompasses any indefinite area – i.e., the term ‘region’ permits even an arbitrary division of the curve shown in Fig. 4B into any number of regions, such as another example were each ‘region’ corresponds to a region encompassing one range 14 imageable by one of the sensor 8 at a time); and
determining whether the wire mesh 3 is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 (see paragraphs 54 and 77), comprising determining that a wire jumping abnormality of one of the cutting wires occurs in one of the multiple regions (see Fig. 4B and paragraphs 54 and 77).
Regarding claim 2, Zingg discloses determining that at least one of the cutting wires is abnormal in one of the multiple regions when a break point appears in the jumping curve in the one of the multiple regions (see paragraph 54; see also Fig. 4B showing a break point after the second wire from the left, along with paragraph 77 – the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘break point’ includes any position in which a wire is not located, at least where a wire is expected to be located).
Regarding claim 7, Zingg discloses that when the abnormality is detected, a system warns to shut down (see paragraphs 44 and 54), and that an operator can take corrective action (see paragraph 44).
While Zingg illustrates that a jumping value of one of the cutting wires 3’’’ stands out (see Fig. 4B and paragraph 68), and while Zingg also contemplates controlling the cutting process based on a maximum deflection of one of the wires (see paragraph 93), Zingg does not explicitly disclose determining that an abnormality has occurred by comparing the jumping value of the wire 3’’’ to some predetermined value. As such, Zingg fails to explicitly disclose determining that the wire jumping abnormality occurs when a jumping value of the one of the cutting wires in the one of the multiple regions is greater than a preset standard threshold value as required by claim 1. Zingg also fails to disclose that the preset standard threshold value comprises a first standard threshold value and a second standard threshold value; and when the jumping value of one of the cutting wires is greater than the first standard threshold value and smaller than the second standard threshold value, the system warns to shut down, and the one of the cutting wires is placed into an original wire slot as required by claim 7.
El Haddaoui teaches that a jumping value of a cutting wire is compared to a present standard threshold value to determine that an abnormality occurs (see the table at page 6; see also paragraph 54). [Claim 1] El Haddaoui further teaches that that the preset standard threshold value comprises a first standard threshold value (e.g., the threshold value of less than 12 mm) and a second standard threshold value (e.g., a value corresponding to ‘failure’ in the table at page 6); and when a jumping value of one of the cutting lines is greater than the first standard threshold value and smaller than the second standard threshold value, the system warns to shut down (see paragraph 54). [Claim 7] El Haddaoui teaches that different preventative actions can be taken depending on the degree of displacement of a cutting wire, where the preventative action is tailored to the risk (see paragraph 54) – e.g., rather than immediately slow the cutting speed down by 20%, El Haddaoui first attempts a 10% cutting speed reduction, such that El Haddaoui attempts to slow cutting speed by a minimum amount necessary to correct wire position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zingg to determine that an abnormality of one of the cutting wires occurs when a jumping value of the one of the cutting wires in one of the multiple regions is greater than a present standard threshold value, where the present standard threshold value comprises first and second values, and where when the jumping value of the one of the cutting wires is greater than the first threshold value and less than the second threshold value, the system warns to shut down in view of the teachings of El Haddaoui. This modification is advantageous because it provides a tiered system for determining risk of reduced cutting quality, where different actions can be taken depending on the particular magnitude of displacement of a cutting wire. This in turn allows for maintaining cutting speed at a highest value that reduces the risk of wire damage (in other words, this modification avoids unnecessarily slowing cutting speed), thus retaining cutting efficiency. This modification is further consistent with the disclosure of Zingg, which seeks to identify problematic operation of the cutting mesh and which already discloses controlling operation based on a maximal deflection of one of the cutting wires (see paragraph 93).
Finally, regarding the requirement that the cutting wire with the wire jumping is placed in an original slot as required by claim 7, Zingg already identifies a jumped cutting wire (see Zingg at paragraph 77). In response to identifying a jumped cutting wire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take corrective action to correct an identified problem. Correcting an identified problem is obvious because one purpose of identifying a problem is to be able to remedy the problem, and returning the jumped wire to its original slot remedies the problem of a jumped wire. Therefore, since Zingg already identifies when a wire has jumped, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Zingg by remedying the jumped wire problem by returning the wire to its original slot.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/167392 A1 to Zingg in view of EP 2708342 A1 to El Haddaoui as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0328800 A1 to Uchiyama et al.
Regarding claim 8, Zingg, as modified, discloses that when the jumping value of the one of the cutting wires is greater than the second standard threshold value (i.e., when the ‘failure’ interpretation of the table at page 6 of El Haddaoui is satisfied), the system warns to shut down (see paragraph 54 of El Haddaoui; Zingg also warns a user at paragraph 44).
While Zingg is able to detect wire breakage (see Zingg at paragraph 38), Zingg, as modified, fails to disclose that the one of the cutting lines and adjacent two or three cutting wires are cut off, the cut-off cutting wires are re-connected together, and the re-connected cutting wire is placed into a corresponding wire slot as required by claim 8. Indeed, Zingg fails to expressly disclose what remedial action(s) is/are taken following detection of a broken wire.
Uchiyama teaches that a broken wire should be cut-off (see paragraphs 9 and 48, in particular the removal of unusable portion of the broken wire) and then re-connected to provide a new cutting wire (paragraph 51, where the re-connection is with the matched diameter portion of wire), where cutting resumes with the new cutting wire (see paragraph 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zingg, as modified, to include the steps of cutting off the broken wire and reconnecting the broken wire with a new wire segment to provide a new cutting wire, where cutting resumes with the new cutting wire (which includes locating the new cutting wire in the proper slot) in view of the teachings of Uchiyama. This modification is obvious in order to be able to remedy the broken wire condition detected by Zingg. That is, although Zingg detects a broken wire, Zingg does not explicitly disclosure any remedial action in response to the detection of the broken wire. Uchiyama teaches remedial steps that can be taken to fix a broken wire so that cutting can resume. Thus, this modification is advantageous to allow cutting to resume following a broken wire. Further still, cutting off and replacing adjacent wires is likewise obvious, at least when the adjacent wires are likewise broken wires. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to correct any and all broken wires of Zingg, including adjacent broken wires, in the manner disclosed by Uchiyama. Claim 8 does not limit the adjacent wires to intact or non-broken wires. When multiple adjacent wires break, fixing all the wires in the manner disclosed by Uchiyama is obvious in order to ensure that all broken wires are fixed so that all wires can resume cutting.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/167392 A1 to Zingg in view of EP 2708342 A1 to El Haddaoui.
Regarding claim 9, Zingg a processing system for a wire mesh abnormality, comprising:
a cutting wire position obtaining module, comprising a sensor 8, configured to obtain position heights of cutting wires in a wire mesh (see paragraph 81);
a jumping value obtaining module, comprising a controller 12 (see paragraph 83) configured to obtain a jumping value of each of the cutting wires based on a vertical difference between each of the position heights of the cutting wires and a position height of a contact surface of the wire mesh and a workpiece (see paragraph 83);
a jumping curve obtaining module, comprising the controller 12, configured to obtain a jumping curve of the wire mesh based on the jumping values of the cutting wires (see paragraph 84), wherein there are multiple regions in the jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 (see Figs. 4B and 4C; the lateral position in which each single wire, such as one of wires 3’, 3’’, and 3’’’, is expected to be located can be considered as a ‘region’, such that Fig. 4B at its far left end discloses two wire portions in one region; note also that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘region’ encompasses any indefinite area – i.e., the term ‘region’ permits even an arbitrary division of the curve shown in Fig. 4B into any number of regions, such as another example were each ‘region’ corresponds to a region encompassing one range 14 imageable by one of the sensor 8 at a time); and
a determining module, comprising the controller 12, configured to determine whether the wire mesh 3 is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 (see paragraphs 38, 44, and 54), wherein the determining module is further configured to determine that a wire jumping abnormality of one of the cutting wires occurs in one of the multiple regions (see Fig. 4B and paragraphs 54 and 77).
Regarding claim 10, Zingg discloses that the determining module is further configured to: determine that at least one of the cutting wires is abnormal in one of the multiple regions when a break point appears in the jumping curve in the one of the multiple regions (see Fig. 4B and paragraph 54).
While Zingg illustrates that a jumping value of one of the cutting wires 3’’’ stands out (see Fig. 4B and paragraph 68), and while Zingg also contemplates controlling the cutting process based on a maximum deflection of one of the wires (see paragraph 93), Zingg does not explicitly disclose determining that an abnormality has occurred by comparing the jumping value of the wire 3’’’ to some predetermined value. As such, Zingg fails to explicitly disclose determining that the wire jumping abnormality occurs when a jumping value of the one of the cutting wires in the one of the multiple regions is greater than a preset standard threshold value as required by claim 9.
El Haddaoui teaches that a jumping value of a cutting wire is compared to a present standard threshold value to determine that an abnormality occurs (see the table at page 6; see also paragraph 54). [Claim 9] Indeed, El Haddaoui further teaches that that the preset standard threshold value comprises a first standard threshold value (e.g., the threshold value of less than 12 mm) and a second standard threshold value (e.g., a value corresponding to ‘failure’ in the table at page 6); and when a jumping value of one of the cutting lines is greater than the first standard threshold value and smaller than the second standard threshold value, the system warns to shut down (see paragraph 54). El Haddaoui teaches that different preventative actions can be taken depending on the degree of displacement of a cutting wire, where the preventative action is tailored to the risk (see paragraph 54) – e.g., rather than immediately slow the cutting speed down by 20%, El Haddaoui first attempts a 10% cutting speed reduction, such that El Haddaoui attempts to slow cutting speed by a minimum amount necessary to correct wire position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zingg to determine that an abnormality of one of the cutting wires occurs when a jumping value of the one of the cutting wires in one of the multiple regions is greater than a present standard threshold value, where the present standard threshold value comprises first and second values, in view of the teachings of El Haddaoui. This modification is advantageous because it provides a tiered system for determining risk of reduced cutting quality, where different actions can be taken depending on the particular magnitude of displacement of a cutting wire. This in turn allows for maintaining cutting speed at a highest value that reduces the risk of wire damage (in other words, this modification avoids unnecessarily slowing cutting speed), thus retaining cutting efficiency. This modification is further consistent with the disclosure of Zingg, which seeks to identify problematic operation of the cutting mesh and which already discloses controlling operation based on a maximal deflection of one of the cutting wires (see paragraph 93).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/167392 A1 to Zingg in view of WO 2020/120777 A1 to Commissariat Energie Atomique (hereinafter “CEA”) and EP 2708342 A1 to El Haddaoui.
Initially, the examiner notes the breadth of claim 11. The claim requires a processor and a memory, but no particular computer instructions are required. Instead, the claim merely requires that the memory is “configured to store computer programs”. The language “configured to store computer programs” means that the memory need not actually store any computer programs. Further, since the processor as claimed is only required to be “configured to load the computer programs”, and since the computer programs are not claimed, the processor need only be configured to load whatever computer programs are stored on the memory. Since no computer programs are required, none of the features of lines 5-14 of the claim is required by the claim. Still, the examiner provides the rejection below as if the memory were configured to actually store a computer program having the features of lines 5-14.
Regarding claim 11, Zingg discloses an electronic device, comprising a processor 12 and a memory (see memory 17 of paragraph 84), wherein the memory 17 is configured to store computer programs (no particular configuration of a memory is required for the memory to be ‘configured to store’ computer program – a memory is configured to store whatever data is written onto the memory, and that data may include one or more computer programs; alternatively, see the modification in view of CEA below), and the processor 12 is configured to execute the steps of:
obtaining position heights of cutting wires (such as wires 3’ and 3’’) in a wire mesh 3 (see Fig. 4B showing varies position heights of wires including wires 3’ and 3’’; see also3 paragraphs 81-84);
obtaining a jumping value of each of the cutting wires based on a vertical difference between each of the position heights of the cutting wires and a position height of a contact surface of the wire mesh and a workpiece 2 (see Fig. 4B and paragraphs 66-68, 72, and 83-84; see also paragraph 45 describing the manner in which the ‘zero point’ may be determined);
obtaining a jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 based on the jumping values of the cutting wires (see the jumping curve in Fig. 4B; see also paragraphs 82-84), wherein there are multiple regions in the jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 (see Figs. 4B and 4C; the lateral position in which each single wire, such as one of wires 3’, 3’’, and 3’’’, is expected to be located can be considered as a ‘region’, such that Fig. 4B at its far left end discloses two wire portions in one region; note also that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘region’ encompasses any indefinite area – i.e., the term ‘region’ permits even an arbitrary division of the curve shown in Fig. 4B into any number of regions, such as another example were each ‘region’ corresponds to a region encompassing one range 14 imageable by one of the sensor 8 at a time); and
determining whether the wire mesh 3 is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 (see paragraphs 77 and 83-84), comprising determining that a wire jumping abnormality of one of the cutting wires occurs in one of the multiple regions (see Fig. 4B and paragraphs 54 and 77).
Regarding claim 12, Zingg discloses determining that at least one of the cutting wires is abnormal in one of the regions when a break point appears in the jumping curve in the one of the multiple regions (see Fig. 4B and paragraph 54 – a break point is to the right of the left-most two wires).
Regarding claim 17, Zingg discloses that when the abnormality is detected, a system warns to shut down (see paragraphs 44 and 54), and that an operator can take corrective action (see paragraph 44).
Zingg does not explicitly state that the processor is configured to load the computer programs stores on the memory as required by claim 11. Additionally, to the extent that claim 11 is interpreted as requiring computer programs, despite the language of the claim merely requiring that the memory is “configured to store” computer programs, Zingg also fails to disclose that the determination that the wire jumping abnormality occurs when a jumping value of the one of the cutting wires in the one of the multiple regions is greater than a present standard threshold value as required by claim 11. Zingg also fails to disclose that the preset standard threshold value comprises a first standard threshold value and a second standard threshold value; and when the jumping value of the one of the cutting wires is greater than the first standard threshold value and smaller than the second standard threshold value, the system warns to shut down, and the one of the cutting wires is placed into an original wire slot as required by claim 17.
CEA, though, teaches a processor that loads a computer program stored on a memory (see the final paragraph before the ‘Claims’ section at page 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not only configure the memory of Zingg to store computer programs, but to actually store on the memory computer programs that, when executed by the processor of Zingg, executes the steps already disclosed by Zingg in view of the teachings of CEA. This modification is advantageous because a processor carries out instructions, and the processor must obtain the instructions from someplace. Providing the instructions to be carried out on the memory is thus advantageous to provide the processor with a source of instructions in order to carry out a desired process.
Moreover, to the extent that claim 11 is interpreted as requiring that the memory stores the computer programs despite the use of the language “configured to store” in the claim, El Haddaoui teaches that a jumping value of a cutting wire is compared to a present standard threshold value to determine that an abnormality occurs (see the table at page 6; see also paragraph 54). [Claim 11] El Haddaoui further teaches that that the preset standard threshold value comprises a first standard threshold value (e.g., the threshold value of less than 12 mm) and a second standard threshold value (e.g., a value corresponding to ‘failure’ in the table at page 6); and when a jumping value of one of the cutting lines is greater than the first standard threshold value and smaller than the second standard threshold value, the system warns to shut down (see paragraph 54). [Claim 17] El Haddaoui teaches that different preventative actions can be taken depending on the degree of displacement of a cutting wire, where the preventative action is tailored to the risk (see paragraph 54) – e.g., rather than immediately slow the cutting speed down by 20%, El Haddaoui first attempts a 10% cutting speed reduction, such that El Haddaoui attempts to slow cutting speed by a minimum amount necessary to correct wire position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zingg by comparing the jumping value of the cutting wires in each of the regions to a present standard threshold value, where the present standard threshold value comprises first and second values, and where when a jumping value of one of the cutting wires is greater than the first threshold value and less than the second threshold value, the system warns to shut down in view of the teachings of El Haddaoui. This modification is advantageous because it provides a tiered system for determining risk of reduced cutting quality, where different actions can be taken depending on the particular magnitude of displacement of a cutting wire. This in turn allows for maintaining cutting speed at a highest value that reduces the risk of wire damage (in other words, this modification avoids unnecessarily slowing cutting speed), thus retaining cutting efficiency.
Finally, regarding the requirement that the cutting wire with the wire jumping is placed in an original slot as required by claim 17, Zingg already identifies a jumped cutting wire (see Zingg at paragraph 77). In response to identifying a jumped cutting wire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take corrective action to correct an identified problem. Correcting an identified problem is obvious because one purpose of identifying a problem is to be able to remedy the problem, and returning the jumped wire to its original slot remedies the problem of a jumped wire. Therefore, since Zingg already identifies when a wire has jumped, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Zingg by remedying the jumped wire problem by returning the wire to its original slot.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/167392 A1 to Zingg in view of EP 2708342 A1 to El Haddaoui as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0328800 A1 to Uchiyama et al.
Regarding claim 18, Zingg, as modified, discloses that when the jumping value of the one of the cutting wires is greater than the second standard threshold value (i.e., when the ‘failure’ interpretation of the table at page 6 of El Haddaoui is satisfied), the system warns to shut down (see paragraph 54 of El Haddaoui; Zingg also warns a user at paragraph 44).
While Zingg is able to detect wire breakage (see Zingg at paragraph 38), Zingg, as modified, fails to disclose that the one of the cutting wires and adjacent two or three cutting wires are cut off, the cut-off cutting wires are re-connected together, and the re-connected cutting wire is placed into a corresponding wire slot as required by claim 18. Indeed, Zingg fails to expressly disclose what remedial action(s) is/are taken following detection of a broken wire.
Uchiyama teaches that a broken wire should be cut-off (see paragraphs 9 and 48, in particular the removal of unusable portion of the broken wire) and then re-connected to provide a new cutting wire (paragraph 51, where the re-connection is with the matched diameter portion of wire), where cutting resumes with the new cutting wire (see paragraph 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zingg, as modified, to include the steps of cutting off the broken wire and reconnecting the broken wire with a new wire segment to provide a new cutting wire, where cutting resumes with the new cutting wire (which includes locating the new cutting wire in the proper slot) in view of the teachings of Uchiyama. This modification is obvious in order to be able to remedy the broken wire condition detected by Zingg. That is, although Zingg detects a broken wire, Zingg does not explicitly disclosure any remedial action in response to the detection of the broken wire. Uchiyama teaches remedial steps that can be taken to fix a broken wire so that cutting can resume. Thus, this modification is advantageous to allow cutting to resume following a broken wire. Further still, cutting off and replacing adjacent wires is likewise obvious, at least when the adjacent wires are likewise broken wires. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to correct any and all broken wires of Zingg, including adjacent broken wires, in the manner disclosed by Uchiyama. Claim 18 does not limit the adjacent wires to intact or non-broken wires. When multiple adjacent wires break, fixing all the wires in the manner disclosed by Uchiyama is obvious in order to ensure that all broken wires are fixed so that all wires can resume cutting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, the Applicant asserts that “a cutting wire position obtaining module”, “a jumping value obtaining module”, “a jumping curve obtaining module”, and “a determining module” as recited in claim 9 should no longer be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the claims being amended to recite sufficient structure for performing the recited functions. This argument is persuasive for the “cutting wire position obtaining module”. However, this argument is not persuasive for the remainder of the ‘modules’ because, as the Applicant acknowledges later in the Remarks, a controller in and of itself is insufficient for performing the recited functions of the final three modules of claim 9. The Applicant at pages 13-14 of the Remarks asserts that Zingg fails to disclose the various functions of the modules recited in claim 9, despite Zingg disclosing a controller. If a controller were all that is required to satisfy the requirements of the final three modules recited in claim 9, as the Applicant asserts when arguing against interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), then Zingg would anticipate claim 9 (Zingg also teaches a sensor, and the controller of Zingg receives signals from the sensor). The Applicant wants the final three modules of claim 9 to require more structure than merely a controller for the purposes of applying prior art, but the Applicant wants a controller to be sufficient structure for performing all functional recitations of the final three modules required by claim 9 for purposes of interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). The Applicant thus asserts contradictory interpretations of what is required by claim 9. Are the final three modules of claim 9 satisfied by “a controller” as asserted by the Applicant for claim interpretation purposes under 35 USC 112(f)? If so, the same standard must be applied to Zingg, in which case Zingg would anticipate claim 9. The examiner suggests instead removing all ‘modules’ from claim 9, and instead describing “a controller programmed to ...” (note, however, that the examiner has made no determination as to whether or not there is support under 35 USC 112(a) for this suggestion). The language “programmed” is a structural feature of a controller. Presently, though, claim 9 makes no requirements of the controller. Since the Applicant asserts that a controller in-and-of-itself is insufficient structure for performing the functions of the final three recited ‘modules’ in claim 9 when discussing the prior art, Applicant’s argument that a controller is sufficient structure for performing these functions for purposes of 35 USC 112(f) is not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed 20 May 2026, the Applicant has a filed a Terminal Disclaimer to successfully overcome the rejection. Applicant’s arguments against the double patenting rejection are therefore moot.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 as being anticipated by Zingg, the Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the rejections above, which rely on El Haddaoui for teachings related to comparing a jumping value of a cutting wire to a present standard threshold value.
Applicant’s argument with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zingg in view of El Haddaoui have been considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues, “Applicant submits that the examiner has not articulated adequate reason, apart from impermissible hindsight informed by the present application, for modifying the single continuously scanning sensor architecture of Zingg to instead perform the discrete, binary threshold comparison of El Haddaoui”. This argument is not persuasive because it is against a modification not actually asserted in the rejection. There is no modification of Zingg herein to modify scanning sensor architecture. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not pertinent to the rejection at hand.
Regarding the rejections of claims 8 and 18 under 35 USC 103 relying on Uchiyama, the Applicant argues, “Uchiyama describe[s] a manual repair procedure that is performed only after the wire saw 1 of Uchiyama has been stopped and the workpiece W has been extracted.... Uchiyama does not disclose or suggest that this repair procedure is triggered automatically in response to a jumping value exceeding a second, higher standard threshold value”. This argument is not persuasive because it is against Uchiyama alone, rather than Zingg, as modified. Zingg discloses automatically detecting a wire breakage. El Haddaoui teaches using different threshold values to determine the appropriate reaction to different levels of abnormality. Thus, Uchiyama need not disclose these features. Applicant’s arguments against Uchiyama are against features for which the reference is not relied upon, and thus the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (including at least one new rejection under 35 USC 112(b)) 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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights