UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`w
`
`'I AND1%9
`
`
`
`
` \
`
`
`
`
`
`14/520,953
`
`10/22/2014
`
`HirOki SAGARA
`
`53394
`
`3244
`
`0437/2017 —PEARNE & GORDON LLP m
`7590
`52054
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`PARK, JOHN C
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 14-3108
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2125
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/27/2017
`
`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.
` 14/520,953 SAGARA ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2125JOHN PARK $233
`
`-- 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 CFR 1.136(a).
`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).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 01/05/2017.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:| This action is non-final.
`2a)IZ| 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)|: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 EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI Claim(s) 1,3 and 5—8 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)|:l Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`7)IZ| Claim(s) 1,3,and 5—8is/are rejected.
`8)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`9)|:l Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* 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
`
`
`
`
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`h/index.‘s orsend an inquiry to PPI-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`htt
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I 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:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)I:I All
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I 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 (PT0_413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date .
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170418
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/520,953
`
`Art Unit: 2125
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are pending.
`
`Claims1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`4.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2017 have been considered but are moot in view of the new
`
`grounds of rejection. It can be noted that although claims have been amended to include various common
`
`limitations, the scope of the independent claims varies among each other. Rejections based on the newly
`
`cited reference(s) follow.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
`
`Office action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/520,953
`
`Art Unit: 2125
`
`Page 3
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1,3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over lwasaki et al.,
`
`US 20050209902 A1 (hereinafter ‘lwasaki’) in view of Omiya, US 20090292581 A1 (hereinafter ‘Omiya’)
`
`and in further view of Jilk et al., US 7155400 B1 (hereinafter ‘Jilk’).
`
`Regarding claim 1 and 3, lwasaki teaches a component mounting system which comprises a
`
`component mounting line comprising series-connected component mounting machines and in which
`
`workers execute jobs for equipment operation of the component mounting line, said component mounting
`
`system comprising (“At a work site such as a semiconductor manufacturing plant, various types of
`
`tasks are performed in different areas that include an equipment room where semiconductor
`
`manufacturing devices and the like are installed in a clean room”, Paragraph 0005 of lwasaki):
`
`a skill level storage unit which stores worker data in which a worker ID for identifying each of the
`
`workers is associated with a skill level of the corresponding worker for execution of each of the jobs (“a
`
`worker skill information storage part for storing in memory worker skill information correlating
`
`each of the workers with tasks that each of the workers is capable of performing”, Paragraph 0024
`
`of lwasaki);
`
`But lwasaki fails to clearly specify a history data storage unit which stores execution results of the
`
`jobs executed by the workers as job history data for each of the workers and a worker data update unit
`
`which updates the skill level of each of the workers in the worker data based on a result of determination
`
`extracted from the job history data.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/520,953
`
`Art Unit: 2125
`
`Page 4
`
`lwasaki further fails to clearly specify that the job history data comprise information indicating a
`
`change in failure occurrence state of equipment operation before and after execution of each of the jobs,
`
`and that the worker data update unit updates the skill level of each of the workers in the worker data
`
`based on the result of determination derived from the change in failure occurrence state.
`
`However Omiya teaches a history data storage unit which stores execution results of the jobs
`
`executed by the workers as job history data for each of the workers (“obtaining a table of past data
`
`including the worker identifications, the skill identifications and data of a past work record that
`
`are collected and stored by the computer on the memory device or on another storage device, the
`
`data of past work record being correlated with the worker identifications and the skill
`
`identifications”, Paragraph 0010 of Omiya); and a worker data update unit which updates the skill level
`
`of each of the workers in the worker data based on a result of determination extracted from the job history
`
`data (“it is possible to update the data associated with the skill assessment by updating the data
`
`associated with the work efficiency based on the worker identifications, the skill identifications
`
`and the data associated with the past work record that are included in the table of the past data”,
`
`Paragraph 0010 of Omiya).
`
`lwasaki and Omiya are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They
`
`both relate to worker performance management.
`
`Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to modify the above worker skill information storage part, taught by lwasaki, and
`
`incorporating the past data, as taught by Omiya.
`
`One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to
`
`improve efficiency of a worker, as suggested by lwasaki (Paragraph 0012).
`
`Jilk further teaches that the job history data comprise information indicating a change in failure
`
`occurrence state of equipment operation before and after execution of each of the jobs (“In one
`
`embodiment, the evaluation unit 335 of system 100 automatically evaluates worker performance
`
`using information gathered from each completed task by querying the database 217”, Column 23
`
`Line 42-56 of Jilk),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/520,953
`
`Art Unit: 2125
`
`Page 5
`
`and that the worker data update unit updates the skill level of each of the workers in the worker
`
`data based on the result of determination derived from the change in failure occurrence state (“Optimal
`
`Quality Objective. One embodiment of the system 100 provides for the customer 103 or the
`
`system operator or both defining a quality target, and for such a quality target being one of the
`
`dispatch objectives. A minimum quality level of task skill may be defined as being required to
`
`perform a particular task to meet the quality target. In one embodiment, the task dispatcher 309
`
`seeks to distribute the tasks to workers of different task skill quality levels according to a
`
`particular distribution in order to improve the probability of meeting the quality level. For example,
`
`suppose that it has been determined a worker certified to “level 1” has 95% accuracy and that one
`
`certified to “level 2” has 99% accuracy”, Column 18 Line 9-35 of Jilk).
`
`Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination of lwasaki, Omiya, and Jilk teaches all the limitations
`
`of the base claims as outlined above.
`
`Jilk further teaches that an execution result of said execution results is obtained upon conclusion
`
`of a predetermined period beginning after the job executed by the worker is completed, wherein the
`
`predetermined period is chosen based on at least one of a type of job executed or a type of associated
`
`equipment, to provide empirical confirmation about whether the execution of the job gave rise to some
`
`abnormality on the associated equipment or not (The phrase “abnormality of the associated
`
`equipment or not” is broad. Examiner interpreted the phrase as performance value or error rate.
`
`Examiner notes that finding error rate or productivity of worker of specific tasks requires
`
`evaluating worker’s error for a period of worker’s task. See also “the task submission unit 321
`
`also provides task-specific error checking to ensure high data quality”, Column 8 Line 31-39 of
`
`Jilk; See also “the evaluation unit 335 is coupled to the capacity manager 317 and provides error
`
`rate, productivity, and other evaluation data that may relate to capacity”, Column 9 Line 17-26 of
`
`Jilk).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/520,953
`
`Art Unit: 2125
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combination of lwasaki, Omiya, and Jilk teaches all the limitations
`
`of the base claims as outlined above.
`
`Jilk further teaches that the change in failure occurrence state of equipment includes increase
`
`and/or decrease of error rate of error occurring in the equipment (“Each task skill may have an
`
`associated task skill level, indicated by “quality level””, 7 41-56 of Jilk; See also “The evaluation
`
`process carried out by the evaluation unit 335 provides for promoting those workers that produce
`
`consistently high performance to higher quality levels of task skill, and for disqualifying a worker
`
`who performs below an acceptable level of performance. In one embodiment, the evaluation unit
`
`335 is coupled to the capacity manager 317 and provides error rate, productivity, and other
`
`evaluation data that may relate to capacity”, Column 9 Line 7-26 of Jilk).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/520,953
`
`Art Unit: 2125
`
`Page 7
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office
`
`action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of
`
`the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from
`
`the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date
`
`of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action
`
`is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX
`
`MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-7217. The examiner can normally be
`
`reached on M-F 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
`
`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,
`
`Miranda Huang can be reached on 571-270-7092. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/520,953
`
`Art Unit: 2125
`
`Page 8
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from
`
`either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
`
`Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC)
`
`at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative
`
`or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-
`
`1000.
`
`/JOHN PARK/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2125
`
`/M|RANDA HUANG/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
`
`