`

`017709 A0110” Summary
`
`Application No.
`13/950,905
`
`Examiner
`MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH
`
`Applicant(s)
`Hachiya et al.
`
`Art Unit
`2483
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE ofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 2 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) 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).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 01/25/2018
`.
`D A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`2a)[:| This action is FINAL.
`2b)
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)|:| 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)I:| 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 Exparfe Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims"
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`11,14 and 17-19 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6) El Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`7)
`
`8)
`
`Claim(s) 11,14 and 17-19 is/are rejected.
`
`I] Claim(s)
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`9) El 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
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)l:| The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)[:| accepted or b)|:| objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:| The drawing(s) filed on
`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)l:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or ( ).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)l:l Some**
`
`c)I:I None of the:
`
`1.[:|
`
`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)
`
`1) [3 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)lMail Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) |:| Interview Summary (PTO—413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) D Other'
`
`PTOL-325 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20180220
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page2
`
`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 1.114
`
`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 ofthe previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
`
`submission filed on 01/25/2018 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`1.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 01/25/2018 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`2.
`
`Generally, Examiner recommends simplifying the present claims to elements that are necessary
`
`to implement the intended invention, and adding steps that particularly and non-trivially relate the
`
`image processing to the automation of component mounting.
`
`3.
`
`Regarding the rejection under section 101, Applicant argues: "In addition, claim 11 has been
`
`amended to require the step of "recognizing
`
`the first surface of a third electronic component held by
`
`one of the plurality of nozzles, based on the generated three-dimensional image ofthe electronic
`
`component". Thus, amended claim 11 is directed to a method performed by a machine or to a
`
`machine.”
`
`Examiner notes that the mere presence of a machine tie or transformation of an object is not
`
`sufficient to render a claim patent eligible. Bifski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3232, 561 US 593, 177 L. Ed.
`
`2d 792 (2010). The relevant question is whether the claimed elements, when considered individually
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page3
`
`and in combination, do significantly more than apply the judicial exception to well—understood, routine,
`
`and conventional activities commonly used in industry. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern, 134 S.
`
`Ct. 2347, 2359, 573 U.S., 189 L. Ed. 2d 296 (2014).
`
`The fact that applicant applies image processing and acquisition (a judicial exception) in the field
`
`of use of mounting components (in its well-established form according to Specification Page 1) is
`
`insufficient to define patentable subject matter. Examiner suggests particularly pointing out the
`
`material steps of automation that Applicant regards to be inventive.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant argues: "In other words, the claims do not merely recite the idea of "automating a
`
`mental process of selecting an operation mode based on visual appearance of the object
`
`, imaging
`
`and extracting information at a high level of abstraction, and selecting profiles for digital image
`
`processing ," but, rather, an application of that idea to specific objects and instances.”
`
`Examiner disagrees. As claimed, the results of image processing are produced in parallel with
`
`component mounting, they do not transform the underlying machinery or objects.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant argues: "Further, improvements to a technology or technical field are sufficient to
`
`qualify as significantly more regardless of whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The Office
`
`action did not consider such improvements.”
`
`Examiner notes that Applicant provides no basis by which the present claims can be considered
`
`patentable improvements over the abstract ideas.
`
`6.
`
`Regarding claim construction, Applicant argues: “The Office action notes that claim limitations
`
`following the recitations "wherein", "for", "such that", etc., have been disregarded as allegedly not
`
`limiting the claims to a particular structure.”
`
`Examiner notes that this is an inaccurate restatement ofthe cumulative reasons of rejection.
`
`7.
`
`Regarding the rejection of Claim 11, Applicant argues: "First, none of the cited references
`
`II It
`teaches "a three-dimensional component imaging device .
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page4
`
`Examiner notes that claim 11 redefines what a three—dimensional component imaging device is,
`
`and prior art is cited to teach various embodiments ofthese definitions. See below.
`
`8.
`
`Applicant argues: "neither Hachiya nor Jansson teaches or suggests "generating a three—
`
`dimensional image of the electronic component by processing the images of the first surface and the
`
`second surface ofthe electronic component". Instead, both Hachiya and Jansson describe one-
`
`dimensional and two-dimensional imaging.”
`
`Examiner notes that this argument is confusing, because (a) a three dimensional imaging device
`
`would not need to generate a three-dimensional image ofthe electronic component by further
`
`processing the images and (b) processing surface images of IC components indicates use of two-
`
`dimensional images to produce a three dimensional image. What exactly are the claims intended to
`
`perform?
`
`9.
`
`Examiner suggests clarifying the claim language with respect to the invention Applicant intends
`
`to claim by descriptions that would be clear to a person of skill in the art. Simply compounding multiple
`
`features from the specification does not particularly point out a comprehensive or even a functional
`
`invention.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`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 11, 14, 17-19 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/9SO,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`PageS
`
`3.
`
`A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad
`
`range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly
`
`set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the
`
`explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,
`
`2033 (Ed. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow
`
`language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to
`
`whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim,
`
`and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions
`
`of Ex parte Steigewal'd, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex
`
`parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Ed. App. 1949).
`
`4.
`
`Claim 11 recites: "the at least three area cameras comprising a first imaging element and a
`
`second imaging element,
`
`the first imaging element and the second imaging element each being
`
`independent devices having different visual fields,
`
`imaging the first surface and the second surface
`
`of the electronic component by the first imaging element and the second imaging element of the
`
`electronic component mounting apparatus,” which raises a questions as to the scope of the claimed
`
`cameras:
`
`Is the first/second imaging element an area camera, or does each area camera comprise a first
`
`and second imaging element (in which case how are these elements independent ifthey make up the
`
`same camera structure); how does having different visual fields form an area camera which by definition
`
`images an area which is one visual field; how does the claim orient a single area camera to take images
`
`of opposing surfaces; what is the relevance of having three area cameras in the claim directed to
`
`imaging elements? The claim language is entirely unclear as to what structure, combination of
`
`structure, or structural relationships limit the claims.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page6
`
`Also, since it is unclear as to what imaging is performed it is also unclear as to the limitation of
`
`”generating a three-dimensional image of the electronic component by processing the images of the
`
`first surface and the second surface of the electronic component,” in Claim 11.
`
`Examiner suggests selecting just one category of imaging elements/cameras/devices and
`
`particularly pointing out their structural and functional relationships to other elements in the claim.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 11 recites the limitation "mounting at least one of the recognized first electronic
`
`component, the recognized second electronic component, and the recognized third electronic
`
`component on the substrate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, at
`
`least because the claim does not recognize components.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 14, 17-19 are rejected as dependent on Claim 11.
`
`Also Claim 18 recites: "wherein the forth imaging mode is a form recognizing based on a three-
`
`dimensional image imaged by all ofthe at least three area cameras,” which is indefinite because it is
`
`unclear how all area cameras (such as wide angle cameras or cameras with completely different fields of
`
`view) can produce a three—dimensional image (without limitation or possession of specialized
`
`processing).
`
`1.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`2.
`
`Claims directed to a statutory category, may nonetheless be ineligible for a patent if they are
`
`directed to judicial exceptions, such as “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
`
`Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116, 186 L.Ed.2d
`
`124 (2013). "The machine-or—transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool,
`
`for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101,” however, the mere
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page7
`
`presence of a machine tie or transformation ofan object is not sufficient to render a claim patent
`
`eligible. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3232, 561 US 593, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2010). The relevant
`
`question is whether the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination, do
`
`significantly more than apply the judicial exception to well—understood, routine, and conventional
`
`activities commonly used in industry. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359, 573
`
`U.S., 189 L. Ed. 2d 296 (2014). However, patent eligibility under § 101 may not "depend simply on the
`
`draftsman's art.” Id. at 2360 (quoting Flook, 437 U.S., at 593, 98 S.Ct. 2522).
`
`In this regard, a recitation
`
`of generic or purely functional components configured to apply the judicial exception are not regarded
`
`to be substantially more than the judicial exception itself, because the phrasing does not offer "a
`
`meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
`
`technological environment." Id. (quoting Bil'ski at 610).
`
`3.
`
`Claims 11, 14, 17-19, directed to statutory categories of methods, apparata, are rejected as
`
`being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter. Based upon analysis ofthe present claims, the
`
`claims appear to be directed toward a abstract ideas, a combination of (a) automating a manual activity
`
`in picking up and mounting electronic components and (b) obtaining and analyzing images and
`
`outputting analysis results (in form of imaging modes) in the context of a component mounting
`
`apparatus (at a level of abstraction which is well-understood in the industry).
`
`In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91,
`
`95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a
`
`manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish the claims over prior
`
`art); Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM 5A, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for
`
`collection by content or source, analyzing it, and displaying results of collection and analysis are not
`
`eligible either separately or in combination).
`
`The elements ofthe present claims, when considered individually and in combination, are not
`
`directed toward significantly more than an abstract idea itself; i.e. computing is applied at a high level of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page8
`
`generality and without meaningful relation to automation or physical transformation (imaging the first
`
`surface and the second surface, generating a three-dimensional image; setting, by the controller, the
`
`imaging form, recognizing, when the imaging form is set to the first imaging mode; recognizing, when
`
`the imaging form is set to the second imaging mode;); claims are presented by statements of intended
`
`results (recognizing, when the imaging form is set to the first imaging mode
`
`based on an image that is
`
`imaged, recognizing, when the imaging form is set to the second imaging mode
`
`based on the
`
`generated three-dimensional image); without limitation to specialized computer features or hardware;
`
`applying well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry (picking up
`
`and holding the electronic component, mounting at least one of the recognized first electronic
`
`component corresponding to well-established function of component mounting apparatuses as in
`
`Specification, Page 1); amounting to no more than mere instruction to implement an abstract idea in the
`
`context of what is well-established in the field (taking and processing images in the context of picking up
`
`and mounting a component).
`
`Such subject matter is not considered patent eligible according to In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95,
`
`120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a
`
`manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish the claims over prior
`
`art); Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM 5A, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for
`
`collection by content or source, analyzing it, and displaying results of collection and analysis are not
`
`eligible either separately or in combination); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1972)
`
`(recitation of common computing elements for use in conversion of numerical information does not
`
`render the claims eligible); in view ofAlice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank |ntern., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 573 U.S.,
`
`189 L. Ed. 2d 296 (2014) (Application of thejudicial exception to well—understood, routine, and
`
`conventional activities commonly used in industry does not render the claims eligible).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page9
`
`Further, there are no limitations directed toward judicially recognized improvements to another
`
`technology or technical field; improvements to the structure of the computer itself; or meaningful
`
`limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological
`
`environment, i.e. there are no limitations to a transformation of an object or specialized computer
`
`features or hardware; component processing apparatus is not transformed by the image processing
`
`(which is performed and applied substantially independently of component mounting) but rather
`
`provides a field of use for the image processing.
`
`The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
`
`Examiner suggests particularly pointing out any meaningful automation which connects the image
`
`processing to the component mounting.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`7.
`
`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”
`
`ofthe 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) "wherein ..., for ..., such that ...,” such claim language does not limit the claims. While
`
`substantive rejection of such language is provided below for purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page10
`
`suggests rephrasing such claim language to recite limitations corresponding to the subject matter ofthe
`
`claim.
`
`8.
`
`Claim scope is not limited by claim language directed to content of a signal (such as an image or
`
`a mode number) but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a
`
`claim to a particular structure, and thus does not require a separate reason for rejection. See, In re
`
`Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339,
`
`70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or
`
`composition, or the claimed and prior art methods are identical or substantially identical processes, a
`
`prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
`
`1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); M.P.E.P. 2112.01. 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 ofthe claim.
`
`Machine limitations should make clear that the use ofthe machine in the claimed process
`
`imposes a meaningful limitation on the claim’s scope. See MPEP 2106.01; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.
`
`CLS Bank International, eI ai, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 573 (2014); in re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404—05, 162 USPQ
`
`541, 550—51 (CCPA 1969) (A mental process rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, for claiming a process of
`
`analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas by selecting the data to be analyzed
`
`and by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation.)
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page11
`
`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:
`
`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 C0,, 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.
`
`This paragraph describes the treatment of admitted prior art. A statement by an applicant in
`
`the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as "prior art” is an
`
`admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of
`
`whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35
`
`U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int 'I Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988). The examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as prior art is
`
`applicant's own work, or the work of another. In the absence of another credible explanation, examiners
`
`should treat such subject matter as the work of another. MPEP 2129.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page12
`
`4.
`
`Claims 11I 14I 17—19 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”) and further in View of US
`
`6538244 to Skunes ("Skunes") and further in view of US 7133731 to Yamazaki (”Yamazaki”) and further
`
`in View of Applicant admitted prior art ("AAPA") in the Specification pages 1—3. Also note Applicant
`
`admitted prior art in Specification Pages 1-3 that broadly describe elements as cited in Hachiya and
`
`Skunes.
`
`9.
`
`Regarding Claim 11: "An electronic component mounting method for mounting an electronic
`
`component on a substrate performed by an electronic component mounting apparatus,
`
`the electronic component mounting apparatus comprising: providing an electronic component
`
`mounting apparatus comprising: a pluralifl of nozzles; a three-dimensional component imaging
`
`device, which comprises at least three area cameras, each of the at least three area cameras
`
`comprising a first imaging element and a second imaging element, the first imaging element and the
`
`second imaging element each being independent devices having different visual fields, visual fields of
`
`the first imaging elements of the at least three area cameras are common to each other regardless of
`
`the area camera, and the visual fields of the second imaging elements of the at least three area
`
`cameras are common to each other regardless of the area camera; and a controller that controls an
`
`imaging form of the component imaging device;”
`
`(Note that claim language such as in a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight
`
`where it merely recites the purpose ofa process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body
`
`ofthe 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).
`
`In this case while Applicant may intend the use of the claimed method with the apparatus
`
`described above, the method steps (for selecting an imaging mode based on object elements visible by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page13
`
`each camera) stand on their own and are not limited by the specific structural elements of the intended
`
`apparatus described, i.e. use of structural elements ofthe apparatus is independently and sufficiently
`
`described by the method steps, and the visual processing steps of the method do not depend on the
`
`presence of specific holding components or camera compositions of the intended apparatus for
`
`functional completeness.
`
`Additionally note application to an apparatus with corresponding structural elements in
`
`Hachiya: "a mounting head 7 for picking up by suction the electronic components 55 2 from the tray 3"
`
`Hachiya, Column 3, lines 51—52 and Figs. 2. "The recognizing means 8 is constructed as shown in FIG. 2,
`
`in which a line camera 11 and a shutter camera [area camera] 12 are disposed,” each having a different
`
`but overlapping field of view. Hachiya, Column 4, lines 5-7. "The control circuit for the recognizing
`
`means 8” that sets imaging and processing parameters. Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61-62. "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. Also note embodiments in Jansson, Paragraphs
`
`7 and 67—68 and statement of motivation below.)
`
`a.
`
`picking up and holding, by at least one of a plurality of nozzles of the electronic
`
`component mounting apparatus, the electronic component having a second surface held by
`
`the at least one of the plurality of nozzles and a first surface opposite to the second surface
`
`which is one side of the component, ("a mounting head 7 for picking up by suction the
`
`electronic components 55 2 from the tray 3” Hachiya, Column 3, lines 51-52 and Figs. 2. Also
`
`note embodiments in AAPA and statement of motivation below.)
`
`b.
`
`imaging the first surface and the second surface of the electronic component by the
`
`first imaging element and the second imaging element of the electronic component mounting
`
`apparatus, ("The recognizing means 8 is constructed as shown in FIG. 2, in which a line camera
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`Page14
`
`11 and a shutter camera [area camera] 12 are disposed,” each having a different but
`
`overlapping field ofview. Hachiya, Column 4, lines 5-7.)
`
`c.
`
`setting, by the controller, ("The control circuit for the recognizing means 8” that sets
`
`imaging and processing parameters. Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61—62.)
`
`d.
`
`the 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 one of the plurality of nozzles
`
`falls within the visual field of one of the first imaging element and the second imaging
`
`element, and setting the imaging form of the component imaging device to a second imaging
`
`mode if the first surface of the electronic component crosses the visual field of the first
`
`imaging element and 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 ofthe
`
`electronic component" Hachiya, Column 2, lines 20—21.)
`
`e.
`
`recognizing, when the imaging form is set to the first imaging mode, a whole part of
`
`
`the first surface of a first electronic component held by one of the plurality of nozzles, based
`
`on an image that is imaged by the first imaging element of at least one of the at least three
`
`area cameras, and recognizing a whole part of the first surface of a second electronic
`
`component that is held together with the first electronic component by another one of the
`
`plurality of nozzles, based on an image that is imaged by the second imaging element of at
`
`least one of the at least three area cameras, and (“A recognizing means 8 is provided for
`
`recognizing the position and the shape ofthe electronic components.” Hachiya, Column 4, lines
`
`61-63.)
`
`f.
`
`"mounting at least one of the recognized first electronic component, the recognized
`
`second electronic component, and the recognized third electronic component on the
`
`substrate.” ("a mounting head for holding and moving an electronic component to a mounting
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:13/950,905
`Art Unit:2483
`
`PagelS
`
`location and for mounting it on a substrate, and a recognizing means ...” Hachiya, Column 2,
`
`lines 10—31. Also see AAPA and statement of motivation below.)
`
`g.
`
`Hachiya does not teach "recognizing, when the imaging form is set to the
`
`second imaging mode, the first surface of a third electronic component that is held by one of
`
`the plurality of nozzles, based on a generated image produced by combining a first image
`
`including a part of the first surface imaged by the first imaging element of at least one of the
`
`at least three area cameras with a second image including a remained part of the first surface
`
`imaged by the second imaging element of at least one of the at least three area cameras.“
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant specification
`
`and ordinary skill in the art, in the first imaging mode multiple smaller