`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/950,905
`
`07/25/2013
`
`Eiichi Hachiya
`
`51464
`
`1320
`
`08’1”“ —PEARNE&GORDON LLP m
`7590
`52054
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`ITSKOVICHa MIKHAIL
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 14-3 108
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2483
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/ 1 1/2016
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdocket @ pearne.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/950,905 HACHIYA ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH $2215 2483
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 07/11/2016.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-3 5-8 and 10-16 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 1 -3 5-8 and 10- 16is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`h/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20160807
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1. 1 14
`
`2.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
`
`07/11/2016 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 07/11/2016 have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`4.
`
`Generally, Examiner recommends elaborating on structures and algorithms that
`
`Applicant regards to be pertinent to the claimed invention. Rephrasing previously
`
`rejected limitations, describing the intended use, or reciting extra solutions do not
`
`particularly point out the invention and are likely to result in rejection.
`
`5.
`
`Regarding Claim 1 and applicable to Claims 6 and 11, Applicant argues:
`
`“According to the additional features, if the first surface of the large electronic
`
`component extends beyond the visual field of one area camera, the combined image is
`
`used for recognition.
`
`Jansson fails to teach a plurality of cameras for capturing the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`same surface, and does not consider the situation in which one of surfaces of the
`
`substrate 216 extends beyond one of the visual field of one of the cameras 222, 224”
`
`Examiner notes that the amendments describe the intended application but fail to
`
`particularly point out inventive structures that may differentiate the claimed apparata
`
`from the prior art. Hachiya teaches the use of multiple cameras with different fields of
`
`view for the exact situation and application of inspecting electronic components of
`
`different sizes. See Hachiya, Column 4, lines 5-7. Jannson teaches additional
`
`applications of such cameras, see Paragraphs 7 and 67.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant argues: “the purpose for the offset arrangement is the lighting effects
`
`from the top and bottom surfaces do not interfere with each other (paragraph 0067),
`
`which is completely different from that of the claimed invention.”
`
`Examiner notes that the intended use of claimed structures does not limit the
`
`claimed apparatus over the claimed apparatus embodied in the prior art.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant argues: “Regarding claim 6, none of Hachiya, Jansson and Skunes,
`
`alone or in combination, discloses, teaches or renders foreseeable the above additional
`
`features (i)-(iii).” Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.1 1 1 (b) because
`
`they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without
`
`specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them
`
`from the references.
`
`8.
`
`Applicant argues: “Skunes is merely cited for the feature " the component
`
`imaging unit has at least three area cameras that include two imaging elements" in
`
`claim 6.” Examiner reminds the Applicant that: The referenced citations made in the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`rejections are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art documents in which the
`
`examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is
`
`incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety
`
`since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate
`
`examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety,
`
`i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention.
`
`W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc, 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`1.
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-16 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 pre-AIA
`
`the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite “a component supply device in which
`
`a
`
`movement mechanism which
`
`controller executable by the processor to control
`
`a component recognition device which
`
`a first imaging element and a second
`
`imaging element
`
`generic terms modified by functional language but not modified by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons
`
`of skill in the art. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA),
`
`sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described
`
`in the specification and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to
`
`disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for each claimed function.
`
`In particular, Specification is unclear as to the definition of the imaging element
`
`terms as they are used in the claims. See multiple uses in Specification, Page 2.
`
`Further, stating that a device is “executable by the processor” or “executable by
`
`hardware or by software executed by the processor” describes an intended property of
`
`the element but does not limit the structure of the device element itself. Similarly
`
`describing a "device in which an electronic component having a first surface and a
`
`second surface opposite to the first surface is stored" describes the intended use of a
`
`device without limiting the claimed scope to a particular structure.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-16 are rejected as dependent on Claims 1 and 6 and 11.
`
`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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), sixth paragraph; or
`
`(b)
`
`Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly
`
`recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing
`
`any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification
`
`already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`1.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`2.
`
`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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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 of this title, 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.
`
`3.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`4.
`
`Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but
`
`does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim
`
`to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not
`
`exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim
`
`are:
`
`(A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby”
`
`clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. The clause is given weight when it provides "meaning and
`
`purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result”
`
`of the invention.
`
`In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481,
`
`1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Where Applicant recites optional claim language, such as optional claim
`
`language following the term(s) “ herein ..., for
`
`such claim language does not limit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`the claims. While substantive rejection of such language is provided below for purposes
`
`of compact prosecution, Examiner suggests rephrasing such claim language to recite
`
`limitations corresponding to the subject matter of the claim.
`
`5.
`
`
`Claims 1-3 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over US 6211958 to Hachiya (“Hachiya”) in view of US 20040156539 to Jansson
`
`(“Jansson”).
`
`6.
`
`Regarding Claim 1: “An electronic component mounting apparatus
`
`comprising:
`
`a.
`
`a component supply device in which an electronic component
`
`having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface is
`
`stored so as to supply the electronic component;
`
`(“and a tray on which the
`
`electronic components 2 are stored” Hachiya, Column 3, lines 51-52.)
`
`b.
`
`a holding unit device which picks up the electronic component
`
`stored in the component supply device and which holds the electronic
`
`component picked up from the component supply device;
`
`(“a mounting
`
`head 7 for picking up by suction the electronic components 55 2 from the tray 3”
`
`Hachiya, Column 3, lines 51-52.)
`
`c.
`
`a movement mechanism which moves the holding device;
`
`(“moving
`
`means 5 for moving the mounting head 7” Hachiya, Column 3, lines 57-60.)
`
`d.
`
`a component imaging device which comprises an area camera; (“The
`
`recognizing means 8 is constructed as shown in FIG. 2, in which a line camera
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`11 and a shutter camera [area camera] 12 are disposed.” Hachiya, Column 4,
`
`lines 5-7.)
`
`e.
`
`controller executable by the processor to control an imaging form of
`
`the electronic component by the component imaging device; and (“The
`
`control circuit for the recognizing means 8” Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61 -62.)
`
`f.
`
`a component recognition device, executable by hardware or by
`
`software executed by the processor, which recognizes the electronic
`
`component based on an image that is imaged by the component imaging
`
`device, (“A recognizing means 8 is provided for recognizing the position and the
`
`shape of the electronic components.” Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61-63.)
`
`g.
`
`wherein the area camera comprises a first imaging element and a
`
`second imaging element which are oriented in a substantially same
`
`direction and which have visual fields different from each other,
`
`(“The
`
`recognizing means 8 is constructed as shown in FIG. 2, in which a line camera
`
`11 and a shutter camera 12 are disposed.” Hachiya, Column 4, lines 5-7 and Fig.
`
`2.)
`
`h.
`
`the controller sets an imaging form of the component imaging device
`
`to a first imaging mode if a whole part of the first surface of the electronic
`
`component held by the holding device falls within the visual field of one of
`
`the first imaging element and the second imaging element, and sets an
`
`imaging form of the component imaging device to a second imaging mode,
`
`if only a part of the first surface of the electronic component held by the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`holding device falls within the visual field of the first imaging element and
`
`the remaining part of the first surface of the electronic component held by
`
`the holding device falls within the visual field of the second imaging
`
`element, (“a selecting means for selecting either the line camera or the shutter
`
`camera depending on the size or shape of the electronic component” Hachiya,
`
`Column 2, lines 20-21.)
`
`i.
`
`Hachiya does not teach: “when the imaging form is set to the fir_st
`
`imaging mode, the component recognition device recognizes a M
`
`electronic component held by the holding device, based on an image that
`
`is imaged by the first imaging element, and recognizes a second electronic
`
`component that is held together with the first electronic component by the
`
`holding unit, based on an image that is imaged by the second imaging
`
`element, and
`
`when the imaging form is set to the second imaging mode, the
`
`component recognition device recognizes the electronic component that is
`
`held by the holding device, based on a generated image which includes a
`
`whole part of the first surface of the electronic component, and the
`
`generated image is produced by combining the image imaged by the fir_st
`
`imaging element with the image imaged by the second imaging element.”
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant
`
`specification and ordinary skill in the art, in the first imaging mode multiple
`
`smaller components can be imaged by individual imagers, and in the second
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`imaging mode a single large component can be imaged simultaneously by
`
`multiple imagers, such as when imagers have offset positions.
`
`Jansson teaches the above claim capability in the context of optical
`
`inspection of electronic components: “apparatus for inspecting an array of
`
`electronic components, comprising a scanning device adapted to capture images
`
`of at least one surface of each of the respective components” where “the first
`
`camera 222 is preferably vertically-offset from the viewing position of the second
`
`camera 224,” and “multiple images of strips of light taken at various positions
`
`using particular lighting effects can be compiled and assembled to form a single
`
`representation comprising the whole surface area of the substrate 216 during
`
`processing.”
`
`Jansson, Paragraphs 7 and 67. Thus two offset imagers can be
`
`used simultaneously to image an array of electronic components, and the
`
`multiple image results can be used individually or combined to produce claimed
`
`effects. Further Jansson teaches: “multiple images of strips of light taken at
`
`various positions using particular lighting effects can be compiled and assembled
`
`to form a single representation comprising the whole surface area of the
`
`substrate 216 during processing.” Jansson, Paragraph 67.
`
`Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hachiya to
`
`recognize a first electronic component held by the holding unit, based on an
`
`image that is imaged by the first imaging element, and recognize a second
`
`electronic component that is held together with the first electronic component by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`the holding unit, based on an image that is imaged by the second imaging
`
`element, and recognize the electronic component that is held by the holding unit,
`
`based on an image in which the image that is imaged by the first imaging
`
`element is combined with the image that is imaged by the second imaging
`
`element, as taught in Jansson, in order to increase machine throughput and
`
`reduce machine handling by generating more image data from a single
`
`inspection pass. Jansson, Paragraphs 67-68.
`
`j.
`
`Hachiya does not teach: “a processor and a memory storing a
`
`program.” Examiner notes that this element is recited as an extra solution
`
`without a specific relation to other components of the apparatus, and thus may
`
`not have a full limiting effect on the claimed invention.
`
`In addition, Jansson teaches the above claim feature in the context of
`
`programmable camera functions.
`
`Jansson, Paragraph 67.
`
`Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hachiya to use “a
`
`processor and a memory storing a program” as taught in Jansson, in order to
`
`program camera functions. Jansson, Paragraph 67.
`
`7.
`
`Regarding Claim 2: “The electronic component mounting apparatus
`
`according to Claim 1,
`
`k.
`
`wherein the component imaging device comprises a component
`
`lighting unit that lights the electronic component that is held by the holding
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`unit during imaging, and (“An illumination chamber 13 is provided” Hachiya,
`
`Column 4, lines 13-14.)
`
`I.
`
`when the imaging form of the component imaging device is set to the
`
`first imaging mode, the controller delays imaging timing of the first
`
`electronic component by the first imaging element and imaging timing of
`
`the second electronic component by the second imaging element,
`
`respectively, (See “synchronizing signal generator 30 for selecting either the line
`
`camera 11 or the shutter camera 12 and for generating a synchronizing signal” in
`
`Hachiya, Column 5, lines 1-5. Additionally see: “There may be software delays
`
`incorporated to synchronize frame grabbing and lighting” Jansson, Paragraph 66
`
`and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
`
`m.
`
`and changes the lighting form by the component lighting device at
`
`each imaging timing.” (“The illumination can be performed for a short moment
`
`with a high intensity of light when picking up images by the shutter camera and
`
`for a longer time with a lower intensity of light when picking up images by the line
`
`camera.” Hachiya, Column 4, lines 46-50.)
`
`8.
`
`Regarding Claim 3: “The electronic component mounting apparatus
`
`according to Claim 1, wherein, when the imaging form is set to the first imaging
`
`mode, a whole part of the first surface of the first electronic component fl
`
`included in an image that is imaged by the first imaging element, and a whole part
`
`of the first surface of the second electronic component is included in an image
`
`that is imaged by the second imaging element.” (Examiner notes that this claim
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`language is unclear as to the definition of image surfaces, are they all surfaces of the
`
`object, or are they all surfaces that were imaged ...? It is also unclear how this
`
`capability limits the structure of the claimed apparatus. Jansson teaches: “a scanning
`
`device adapted to capture images of at least one surface of each of the respective
`
`components, whereby to inspect said surface.” Jansson, Paragraph 7 and statement of
`
`motivation in Claim 1.
`
`9.
`
`Regarding Claim 5: “The electronic component mounting apparatus
`
`according to Claim 1, wherein the visual field of the first imaging element is
`
`adiacent to the visual field of the second imaging element.” (“the viewing position
`
`of the first camera 222 is preferably vertically-offset [adjacent] from the viewing position
`
`of the second camera 224.”
`
`Jansson, Paragraph 67 and Figs. 15 and 17.
`
`10.
`
`Regarding Claim 12: “The electronic component mounting apparatus
`
`according to claim 1,
`
`n.
`
`wherein the first imaging element and the second imaging element
`
`are independent devices, and (“The recognizing means 8 is constructed as
`
`shown in FIG. 2, in which a line camera 11 and a shutter camera 12 are
`
`disposed.” Hachiya, Column 4, lines 5-7 and Fig. 2.)
`
`o.
`
`the controller controls the first imaging element and the second
`
`imaging element independently so as to image the electronic component
`
`held by the holding device.” (“a selecting means for selecting either the line
`
`camera or the shutter camera depending on the size or shape of the electronic
`
`component.” Hachiya, Column 2, lines 20-21.)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`11.
`
`
`Claims 6-8 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Hachiya and Jansson in view of US 6538244 to Skunes (“Skunes”).
`
`12.
`
`Claim 6 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 and for the following reasons:
`
`p.
`
`“wherein
`
`a visual field of a first imaging element and a visual field
`
`of a second imaging element in the two imaging elements included in each
`
`of the area cameras are different from each other, and the respective visual
`
`fields of the first imaging element and the second imaging element are
`
`common to each other regardless of the area cameras,” (Examiner notes
`
`that claim language is unclear when the visual fields are different and when they
`
`are common. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`instant specification and ordinary skill in the art, the visual fields of first and
`
`second elements may be offset such as to cause an overlap. Jansson teaches:
`
`“the viewing position of the first camera 222 is preferably vertically-offset from the
`
`viewing position of the second camera 224,” Jansson, Paragraph 67 and
`
`statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
`
`q.
`
`Hachiya and Jansson do not teach “the component imaging unit has at
`
`least three area cameras that include two imaging elements.”
`
`Skunes teaches the above claim feature in the context of optical
`
`inspection of electronic components: “Whenever an on-head linescan sensor is
`
`used with another type of on-head sensor, both such sensors could be disposed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`on different placement heads in a multi-head pick and place machine” Skunes,
`
`Column 6, lines 25
`
`Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hachiya and
`
`Jansson to use at least three area cameras that include two imaging elements,
`
`as taught in Skunes, in order to equip multiple placement heads with inspection
`
`cameras and to ensure that each placement head is utilized to its fullest capacity.
`
`Skunes, Column 6, lines 15
`
`13.
`
`Claims 7-8, 10 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2-5 respectively in view
`
`of Claim 6 rejection.
`
`14.
`
`Claim 11 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6, because the apparatus
`
`elements of Claim 6 are claimed to perform the method steps of Claim 11. Also note
`
`that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites
`
`the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the
`
`claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process
`
`steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190
`
`USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481
`
`(CCPA 1951).
`
`15.
`
`Claim 13 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 12 in view of Claim 6 rejection.
`
`16.
`
`Claim 14 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 12 in view of Claim 11 rejection.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`17.
`
`Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya
`
`and Jansson in view of US 7133731 to Yamazaki (“Yamazaki”).
`
`18.
`
`Regarding Claim 15: “The electronic component mounting apparatus
`
`according to claim 5,
`
`r.
`
`“the visual field of the first imaging element is adjacent to the visual
`
`field of the second imaging element along an arrangement direction of the
`
`nozzles.” (“the viewing position of the first camera 222 is preferably vertically-
`
`offset [adjacent] from the viewing position of the second camera 224.”
`
`Jansson,
`
`Paragraph 67 and Figs. 15 and 17 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
`
`s.
`
`Hachiya and Jansson do not teach “wherein the holding device
`
`comprises a plurality of nozzles sucking the electronic component stored
`
`in the component supply device.“
`
`Yamazaki teaches the above claim feature in the context of optical
`
`inspection of electronic components: “a plurality of components are sucked by
`
`the multiple placement head from component feeding sections.” Yamazaki,
`
`Column 1, lines 61-63 and Fig. 12.
`
`Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hachiya and
`
`Jansson to use a holding device comprising a plurality of nozzles sucking the
`
`electronic component stored in the component supply device, as taught in
`
`Skunes, in order to optimize component mounting sequences. Yamazaki,
`
`Column 1, lines 44-46.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`19.
`
`Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya,
`
`Jansson, and Yamazaki in view of Skunes.
`
`20.
`
`Claim 16 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 5 in view of Claim 10 rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify
`
`areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant
`
`to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze
`
`the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may
`
`be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art
`
`reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that
`
`would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock,
`
`Inc, 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
`
`However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
`
`constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does
`
`not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...."In re Fulton, 391
`
`F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQZd 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is
`
`(571 )270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 10am -
`
`6:00pm.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached on 571-272—7383. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -
`
`273-8300.
`
`Information regardin