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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 17 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-18 are pending, of which claims 3-5 and 13-15 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group III in the reply filed on 17 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:.
Paragraph 49 at a position slightly more than half-way through the paragraph recites, “monitors 31”. This recitation should read – monitors 30 –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 6 recites, “the obtained jumping values”. This recitation should read – the jumping values – to avoid adding the new descriptor ‘obtained’ into the name of the already introduced jumping values.
The addition of new descriptors to the names of previously introduced features is present throughout the claims. The Applicant should review the claims and correct each such instance. To provide two non-exhaustive example, claim 9 at line 9 recites, “the obtained jumping values”, and claim 11 at line 8 recites, “the obtained jumping values”. Each of these recitations should read – the jumping values –.
Claim 2 at line 6 recites, “one of the region”. This recitation should read – one of the regions – since there are a plurality of regions previously introduced (see claim 2 at line 2).
Claim 11 at line 2 recites, “compute programs”. This recitation should read – computer programs –.
Claim 12 at line 6 recites, “one of the region”. This recitation should read – one of the regions – since there are a plurality of regions previously introduced (see line 1 of the claim).
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 cutting wire positioning 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 position heights”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “cutting wire positioning obtaining” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the module);
“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);
“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
“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).
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 10 of copending Application No. 18/548,878 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the reference application anticipates present claim 1.
Regarding present claim 1, claim 10 of the reference application discloses a processing method for a wire mesh abnormality (see the feature of “identifying which area is abnormal” in the final paragraph), comprising the steps of:
obtaining position heights of cutting wires in a wire mesh (“denoising, by the controller, the converted digital signals by using moving average, Gaussian algorithm and median filtering, to obtain height position of each cutting wire in each area of the wire net”);
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 (“based on the obtained height position of each cutting wire in each area and the height position of a contact surface of a workpiece and the wire net in an area, obtaining a vertical distance between each cutting wire in the area and the contact surface of the workpiece and the wire net in the area, which is a curvature value and a jump value corresponding to each cutting wire in the area”);
obtaining a jumping curve of the wire mesh based on the obtained jumping values of the cutting wires (“based on the curvature values and the jump values of all the cutting wires in each area during a cutting process, forming an independent curvature curve and jump curve corresponding to each area; based on the curvature value of each cutting wire in each area obtained when an amount of cutting steps reaches a preset threshold, forming an overall curvature curve of all areas”); and
determining whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh (“based on the independent curvature curve and jump curve corresponding to each area as well as the overall curvature curve of all areas, identifying which area is abnormal, and performing a parameter adjustment”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6-10, 12, and 16-18 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 2 recites the limitation "the step of determining whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire in each of the regions" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 1 introduces a step of “determining whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh”, but claim 1 does not require that this step is required to be performed “in each of the regions” as required by claim 2. The lack of antecedent basis renders claim 2 indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 2 adds a new requirement to the step of determining as already introduced in claim 1 by requiring that the step takes place “in each of the regions”, or whether claim 2 merely intends to refer to the same step of determining as already introduced in claim 1. Does claim 2 include a typographical error, where the claim is intended to read -- the step of determining whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire is performed in each of the regions – or similar? If claim 2 refers to the exact same step as introduced in claim 1, it is unclear what effect the phrase “in each of the regions” has in claim 2.
Claim 2 recites, “a jumping value” at line 6. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new jumping value is being introduced. Claim 1 already introduces “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”. It is unclear whether the ‘jumping value’ of claim 2 must also be based on the vertical difference in the manner recited in claim 1. If the ‘jumping value’ of claim 2 is a member of the jumper values already introduced in claim 1, then the ‘jumping value’ of claim 2 must be based on the vertical difference in the manner recited in claim 1. However, if the ‘jumping value’ of claim 2 is some new value, then the value need not necessarily be based on the vertical difference in the manner recited in claim 1. Since it is unclear what is required of the jumping value of claim 2, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites, “a jumping value”, “a jumping wire”, and “a present standard threshold value”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new jumping value, a new jumping wire, and/or a new preset standard threshold value are being introduced by claim 6, in view of claim 1 already introducing “cutting wires in a wire mesh” and “a jumping value for each of the cutting wires” and claim 2 already introducing “a preset standard threshold value”. For example, must the ‘jumping value’ of claim 6 be determined based on the vertical distance in the manner of the jumping values required in claim 1? Must the ‘jumping wire’ of claim 6 be a member of the wire mesh as required by claim 1? The answers to these questions depend on whether claim 6 is further describing features already introduced in claim 1, or whether claim 6 is introducing a new jumping value and/or a new jumping wire.
Claim 7 at line 4 recites, “one of the cutting lines”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, rendering claim 7 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether “the cutting lines” are permitted to be the same as the cutting wires already introduced in claim 1. The use of two different names suggests that the cutting lines are not the same as the cutting wires. However, it is not clear what structure is referred to by “the cutting lines” if the cutting lines are not the cutting wires.
Claim 7 recites, “a jumping value”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new jumping value is being introduced. It is unclear whether the jumping value of claim 7 must be determined in the same manner as the jumping values of claim 1.
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 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.
Claim 8 at line 4 recites, “the cut-off cutting wire”, “the new connected wire”, and “the corresponding wire slot”. There is an insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations, rendering claim 8 indefinite. For example, claim 8 requires cutting “the one of the cutting lines” and “two or three cutting wires”, such that at least three cutting lines or wires are required to be cut. Which of these three is described later in the claim? Is the “new connected cutting wire” the same as the cutting wire that is “re-connected together”, or must there be some new connected cutting wire in addition to the wire that is re-connected together? Is “the corresponding wire slot” required to be the same as the “original wire slot” of claim 7, or is claim 8 permitted to be interpreted as introducing a new slot? The examiner advises using “the” or “said” to refer to each previously introduced structure, as well as using “a” and an original name to refer to each newly introduced structure (by original name, the examiner means a name that was not previously used).
Regarding claim 9, each of claim limitations “a cutting wire positioning obtaining module”, “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. It is further unclear whether a single controller can correspond to the structure of multiple modules. Therefore, 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.)
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 10 recites the limitation "the regions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rending the claim indefinite. It is unclear what particular “regions” are being referred to by this recitation. Since a region can be an arbitrary area, a curve can include any number of regions. It is unclear whether claim 10 is referring to some particular regions, or any regions.
Claim 10 at line 4 recites, “a jumping value”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new jumping value is being introduced. It is unclear whether the jumping value of claim 10 must be determined in the same manner as the jumping values of claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the step of determining whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire in each of the regions" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 11 introduces a step of “determining whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh”, but claim 11 does not require that this step is required to be performed “in each of the regions” as required by claim 12. The lack of antecedent basis renders claim 12 indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 12 adds a new requirement to the step of determining as already introduced in claim 11 by requiring that the step takes place “in each of the regions”, or whether claim 12 merely intends to refer to the same step of determining as already introduced in claim 11. Does claim 12 include a typographical error, where the claim is intended to read -- the step of determining whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire is performed in each of the regions – or similar? If claim 12 refers to the exact same step as introduced in claim 11, it is unclear what effect the phrase “in each of the regions” has in claim 12.
Claim 12 at line 6 recites, “a jumping value”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new jumping value is being introduced. It is unclear whether the jumping value of claim 12 must be determined in the same manner as the jumping values of claim 11.
Claim 16 recites, “a jumping value”, “a jumping wire”, and “a present standard threshold value”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new jumping value, a new jumping wire, and/or a new preset standard threshold value are being introduced by claim 16, in view of claim 11 already introducing “cutting wires in a wire mesh” and “a jumping value for each of the cutting wires” and claim 12 already introducing “a preset standard threshold value”. For example, must the ‘jumping value’ of claim 16 be determined based on the vertical distance in the manner of the jumping values required in claim 11? Must the ‘jumping wire’ of claim 16 be a member of the wire mesh as required by claim 11? The answers to these questions depend on whether claim 16 is further describing features already introduced in claim 11, or whether claim 16 is introducing a new jumping value and/or a new jumping wire.
Claim 17 at line 3 recites, “one of the cutting lines”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, rendering claim 17 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether “the cutting lines” are permitted to be the same as the cutting wires already introduced in claim 11. The use of two different names suggests that the cutting lines are not the same as the cutting wires. However, it is not clear what structure is referred to by “the cutting lines” if the cutting lines are not the cutting wires.
Claim 17 recites, “a jumping value”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new jumping value is being introduced. It is unclear whether the jumping value of claim 17 must be determined in the same manner as the jumping values of claim 11.
Claim 18 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 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.
Claim 18 at lines 3-5 recites, “the cut-off cutting wire”, “the new connected wire”, and “the corresponding wire slot”. There is an insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations, rendering claim 18 indefinite. For example, claim 18 requires cutting “the one of the cutting lines” and “two or three cutting wires”, such that at least three cutting lines or wires are required to be cut. Which of these three is described later in the claim? Is the “new connected cutting wire” the same as the cutting wire that is “re-connected together”, or must there be some new connected cutting wire in addition to the wire that is re-connected together? Is “the corresponding wire slot” required to be the same as the “original wire slot” of claim 17, or is claim 18 permitted to be interpreted as introducing a new slot? The examiner advises using “the” or “said” to refer to each previously introduced structure, as well as using “a” and an original name to refer to each newly introduced structure (by original name, the examiner means a name that was not previously used).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2014/167392 A1 to Zingg.
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 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 obtained jumping values of the cutting wires (see the jumping curve in Fig. 4B; see also paragraph 82); and
determining whether the wire mesh 3 is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 (see paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 2, Zingg discloses that there are multiple regions of the jumping curve of the wire mesh (see Fig. 4B; each region can be a region containing one of the wires); correspondingly, the step of determining whether the wire mesh 3 is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh in each of the regions comprises: determining that at least one of the cutting wires is abnormal in one of the regions when a break point appears in the one of the regions of the jumping curve (see Fig. 4B showing a break point after the second wire from the left; see also paragraph 77; i.e., 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 9, Zingg a processing system for a wire mesh abnormality, comprising:
a cutting wire position obtaining module configured to obtain position heights of cutting wires in a wire mesh (as best understood, the cutting position obtaining module is disclosed by sensor 8; see paragraph 81);
a jumping value obtaining module 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 (as best understood, the jumping value obtaining module is disclosed by the controller unit 12; see paragraph 83);
a jumping curve obtaining module configured to obtain a jumping curve of the wire mesh based on the obtained jumping values of the cutting wires (as best understood, the jumping curve obtaining module is disclosed by the controller unit 12; see paragraph 84); and
a determining module configured to determine whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh (as best understood, the determining module is the structure that determines that breakage or wire pairing has occurred per paragraph 54).
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 regions when a break point appears in the one of the regions of the jumping curve, and/or a jumping value in the jumping curve is greater than a preset standard threshold value (see Fig. 4B and paragraph 54).
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) 6-7 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 6, Zingg discloses that the method includes determining that a wire jumping abnormality of one of the cutting wires occurs in one of the regions (see paragraphs 38, 54, and 77).
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).
Zingg does not explicitly disclose that the jumping value of a cutting wire in the one of the regions of the jumping curve is compared to a preset standard threshold value to determine that the abnormality occurs as required by claim 6. 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 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, and the cutting wire with the wire jumping 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 6] 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 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 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 lines 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 wire is re-connected together, and the new connected cutting wire is place into the 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) 11-12 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”).
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 compute 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 a computer program; 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 obtained jumping values of the cutting wires (see the jumping curve in Fig. 4B; see also paragraphs 82-84); 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).
Regarding claim 12, Zingg discloses that there are multiple regions in the jumping curve of the wire mesh 3 (see Fig. 4B; note that any curve has a variety of regions, such as a region for each wire or for a subset of all wires); correspondingly, the step of determining whether the wire mesh is abnormal based on the jumping curve of the wire mesh in each of the regions comprises: determining that at least one of the cutting wires is abnormal in one of the regions when a break point appears in the one of the region of the jumping curve (see Fig. 4B – a break point is to the right of the left-most two wires), and/or a jumping value in the jumping curve is greater than a preset standard threshold value.
Zingg does not explicitly state that the processor is configured to load the computer programs as required by claim 11.
CEA, though, teaches a process 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 a computer program 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.
Claim(s) 16-17 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 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of EP 2708342 A1 to El Haddaoui.
Regarding claim 16, Zingg, as modified, discloses determining that a wire jumping abnormality of one of the cutting wires occurs in one of the regions (see paragraphs 38, 54, and 77).
Regarding claim 17, Zingg, as modified, 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, as modified, does not explicitly disclose that the jumping value of a cutting wire in the one of the regions of the jumping curve is compared to a preset standard threshold value to determine that the abnormality occurs as required by claim 16. Zingg, as modified, also fails to disclose that the preset standard threshold value comprises a first standard threshold value and a second standard threshold value; 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, and the cutting wire with the wire jumping is placed into an original wire slot as required by claim 17.
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 16] 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, as modified, 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, as modified, 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 lines 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 wire is re-connected together, and the new connected cutting wire is place into the 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.
Conclusion
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