www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`14/798,839
`
`07/14/2015
`
`Masayuki MANTANI
`
`PIPMM-54772
`
`5338
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`05/02/2019
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`CAZAN LIVIUS RADU
`
`3729
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/02/2019
`
`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):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`14/798,839
`Examiner
`LIVIUS R CAZAN
`
`Applicant(s)
`MANTANI et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3729
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 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). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f 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 1/2/2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] 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)[:] 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 Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) 2i is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 2i is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. 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)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] 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):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:l Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] 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)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190429
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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, 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.
`
`Claims 2 and 3 are re‘ected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as bein un atentable over APA admitted rior
`
`artl and Maeda lJP2010-263068Al in view of Ishitani lWO[2013[080408; refer to U52014[0298649 as an
`
`English-language eguivalentl, Salansky lUSS490493l, Matrone lUS4850104l, and Bickford lU56398588l.
`
`4.
`
`The concept of disposing two component mounting apparatuses back-to-back is known:
`
`APA teaches that it is known to provide two component mounting apparatuses disposed
`
`back-to-back, each having its own controller, wherein it
`
`is possible to perform mounting
`
`operations for two substrates simultaneously (see para. [0002]—[0008] ofthe present application).
`
`In particular APA refers to Patent Document 1, which is the same as the Maeda reference cited
`
`herein. Each of the apparatuses of Maeda comprises (refer to Fig. 2 of Maeda) a substrate
`
`conveying line (20), a parts feeder (24), a component camera (30), and a component attaching
`
`mechanism (26).
`
`Note that the application does not explicitly mention, for the present invention, the back
`
`side of the first component mounting apparatus being disposed in contact with the back side of
`
`the second component mounting apparatus. Rather, the term ”back-to-back” is used. Therefore,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 3
`
`based on the present amendment, it is understood that Applicant interprets ”back-to-back" as
`
`meaning the back side of the first component mounting apparatus is disposed in contact with the
`
`back side of the second component mounting apparatus. Therefore, APA also discloses the back
`
`side of a first component mounting apparatus being disposed in contact with the back side of a
`
`second component mounting apparatus, because the prior art apparatuses are disclosed as being
`
`”back-to-back” (see para. [0004]). However, the examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant
`
`reviews this limitation, because even if the claims were patentable as claimed, one could
`
`implement the system in an identical manner as Applicant, except for the apparatuses being
`
`slightly spaced from each other. Such a system would not infringe on the claimed invention,
`
`because the apparatuses would not be disposed such that the back of one contacts the back of
`
`the other.
`
`The concept of two component mounting apparatuses being controlled by a single controller is
`
`known:
`
`|shitani discloses (refer to Fig. 1 and para. [0019]) two component mounting apparatuses (11 and
`
`13) controlled by a common controller (4). |shitani shows that it is known to use a single controller
`
`to control two component mounting apparatuses.
`
`6.
`
`The concept of connecting multiple apparatuses, such that a first apparatus controls the
`
`operation of the connected apparatuses is known:
`
`Salansky, for example, discloses a plurality of machines (41, 41’ and 41”) for delivering balls,
`
`wherein the machines are connected by means of signal transmission cables (39, 39’) attached to
`
`connectors (42, 34’, 42’, 34”). Each machine has a controller (30, 30’, 30”) connected to the
`
`connectors via a transmission line (32, 32’). The machines can be operated independently, or the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 4
`
`controller of the first machine, 41, can control the operation of the other two machines, 41’ and
`
`41”, the control signals being routed through the connectors, cables, and signal lines.
`
`Matrone teaches a system for configuring, automating and controlling operations performed on
`
`PCBs and other products. The example system disclosed by Matrone includes multiple conveyor
`
`units (13 and 12), wherein only a master conveyor unit (13) includes a controller. Slave conveyor
`
`units (2), do not include a controller, thereby avoiding the need for redundant microprocessors
`
`within each slave conveyor unit. The slave conveyor units are plugged into the master conveyor
`
`controller. See col. 9, In. 66 to col. 10, In. 14. The controller for each conveyor unit 13 is housed
`
`in the base of the unit and controls the conveyor unit 13 and slave conveyor units 12 on direction
`
`from the master control unit 17 (see col. 21, In. 62-65). Although not explicitly mentioned by
`
`Matrone, it is readily apparent that the conveyor unit 13 includes a connector by means of which
`
`the slave conveyor units 12 are ”plugged into” (see col. 10, In. 5). Moreover, since the control unit
`
`of the master conveyor unit is housed within the base of the unit, there must be a transmission
`
`line for transmitting a signal from the control unit to the connector into which the slave conveyor
`
`units are plugged, and there must also be a transmission line within each slave conveyor unit 12,
`
`such that the control signals sent by the master conveyor unit 13 control the operation of the
`
`slave conveyor units 12. Also, the control unit also transmits signals for controlling the master
`
`conveyor unit 13. Matrone, therefore, teaches the concept of providing multiple devices, which
`
`perform identical functions, but providing only one of them as a master device, with a controller
`
`disposed therein, such that the other, slave devices, lack a controller, and plug into the master
`
`device and receive control signals therefrom.
`
`The concept of disposing a connector in an opening of the chassislhousing of an apparatus is
`
`known:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 5
`
`Bickford shows that it is known to form an opening in a chassis of an apparatus (see connector
`
`aperture 130) so that a connector (120) can be disposed in the opening so as to be accessible from
`
`outside the chassis.
`
`8.
`
`Taking into consideration the teachings of all of these references, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective filing date of the application would have found it obvious to modify the apparatuses
`
`of APA so as to be controlled by a single controller, since the apparatuses are used together to perform
`
`mounting operations on two substrates in parallel, and |shitani shows that a single controller can control
`
`two mounting apparatuses.
`
`9.
`
`Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a system
`
`such that the controller is located in one of the apparatuses, with a connector provided in each apparatus,
`
`and corresponding signal lines disposed within each apparatus between its connector and pertinent
`
`circuitry. Salansky and Matrone both show that it is known to connect apparatuses together such that
`
`the controller located in a first apparatus can control the operation of the other apparatuses connected
`
`thereto, and Matrone shows that it is known to omit the controller from the other apparatuses, to reduce
`
`cost. Although Salansky and Matrone are not component mounting apparatuses, they are deemed related
`
`prior art because the claimed invention, although implement by Applicant in component mounting and
`
`printing apparatuses, is a general concept applicable to any environment in which multiple controller-
`
`operated apparatuses perform the same task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to locate the controller in only one of the two apparatuses, yet controlling the operation of
`
`both, in order to reduce cost of the apparatus not including a controller.
`
`10.
`
`Regarding the location of the connectors within respective openings on the back side of the first
`
`and second apparatus, this limitation is deemed obvious because the location of the connector can be
`
`changed without affecting the operation of the apparatuses. Since the apparatuses of APA are disposed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 6
`
`back-to-back, it makes sense to place the first transmission connector on the back of the first component
`
`mounting apparatus, and the second transmission connector on the back side of the second component
`
`mounting apparatus, so as to provide a short connection distance between the two connectors. Further,
`
`Bickford shows that it is known to form an opening in the chassis of an apparatus, so that a connector of
`
`the apparatus can be located within the opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill
`
`in the art to provide a corresponding opening,
`
`in the back of each apparatus, so that the
`
`corresponding connector is located within the opening and accessible to the outside of the apparatus. As
`
`to the location of the first opening in registry with the second opening, it is deemed it would have been
`
`obvious to dispose the openings as such, to minimize the distance between the connectors when the
`
`apparatuses are disposed back-to-back.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA and Maeda in
`
`view of |shitani, Salansky, Matrone, and Bickford, further in view of Cheng lUS7125184l.
`
`12.
`
`APA, Maeda,
`
`|shitani, Salansky, Matrone and Bickford, together render obvious the claimed
`
`invention. However,
`
`if Applicant
`
`interprets claims 2 as requiring a direct connector-to-connector
`
`connection between the two apparatuses, as opposed to using a cable therebetween, it should be noted
`
`that such a concept is not new.
`
`13.
`
`Cheng, for example, shows a printer 2 to which an expansion device 3 can be attached, wherein
`
`a signal can be transmitted between the printer and the expansion device by means of a connector 24 on
`
`the bottom of the printer and a connector 34 on the top surface of the expansion device, wherein the two
`
`connectors are directly connected (see Figs. 3 and 4).
`
`14.
`
`In view of the teachings of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the two component mounting apparatuses
`
`of APA/Maeda such that the first and second connectors can be directly connected when the apparatuses
`
`are disposed back-to-back.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 7
`
`15.
`
`Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA and Nagao
`
`lJP2009-070867A) in view of IshitaniI Salansky, Matrone, and Bickford.
`
`16.
`
`The concept of disposing two screen printing apparatuses back-to-back is known:
`
`APA teaches that it is known to provide two screen printing apparatuses disposed back-
`
`to-back, each having its own controller, wherein it
`
`is possible to perform screen printing
`
`operations for two substrates simultaneously (see para. [0002], [0005]—[0008] of the present
`
`application).
`
`In particular APA refers to Patent Document 2, which is the same as the Nagao
`
`reference cited herein. Each of the apparatuses of Nagao comprises (refer to Fig. 1 of Nagao) a
`
`feed-in conveyor (12), a feed-out conveyor (14), and a substrate holding and moving portion (15).
`
`Note that the application does not explicitly mention, for the present invention, the back
`
`side of the first screen printing apparatus being disposed in contact with the back side of the
`
`second screen printing apparatus. Rather, the term ”back-to-back" is used. Therefore, based on
`
`the present amendment, it is understood that Applicant interprets ”back-to-back” as meaning the
`
`back side of the first screen printing apparatus is disposed in contact with the back side of the
`
`second screen printing apparatus. Therefore, APA also discloses the back side of a first screen
`
`printing apparatus being disposed in contact with the back side of a second screen printing
`
`apparatus, because the prior art apparatuses are disclosed as being ”back-to-back” (see para.
`
`[0004]). However, the examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant reviews this limitation,
`
`because even if the claims were patentable as claimed, one could implement the system in an
`
`identical manner as Applicant, except for the apparatuses being slightly spaced from each other.
`
`Such a system would not infringe on the claimed invention, because the apparatuses would not
`
`be disposed such that the back of one contacts the back of the other.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 8
`
`The concept of two component mounting apparatuses being controlled by a single controller is
`
`17.
`
`known:
`
`Ishitani discloses (refer to Fig. 1 and para. [0019]) two component mounting apparatuses (11 and
`
`13) controlled by a common controller (4). Ishitani shows that it is known to use a single controller
`
`to control two component mounting apparatuses.
`
`18.
`
`The concept of connecting multiple apparatuses, such that a first apparatus controls the
`
`operation of the connected apparatuses is known:
`
`Salansky, for example, discloses a plurality of machines (41, 41’ and 41”) for delivering balls,
`
`wherein the machines are connected by means of signal transmission cables (39, 39’) attached to
`
`connectors (42, 34’, 42’, 34”). Each machine has a controller (30, 30’, 30”) connected to the
`
`connectors via a transmission line (32, 32’). The machines can be operated independently, or the
`
`controller of the first machine, 41, can control the operation of the other two machines, 41’ and
`
`41”, the control signals being routed through the connectors, cables, and signal lines.
`
`Matrone teaches a system for configuring, automating and controlling operations performed on
`
`PCBs and other products. The example system disclosed by Matrone includes multiple conveyor
`
`units (13 and 12), wherein only a master conveyor unit (13) includes a controller. Slave conveyor
`
`units (2), do not include a controller, thereby avoiding the need for redundant microprocessors
`
`within each slave conveyor unit. The slave conveyor units are plugged into the master conveyor
`
`controller. See col. 9, In. 66 to col. 10, In. 14. The controller for each conveyor unit 13 is housed
`
`in the base of the unit and controls the conveyor unit 13 and slave conveyor units 12 on direction
`
`from the master control unit 17 (see col. 21, In. 62-65). Although not explicitly mentioned by
`
`Matrone, it is readily apparent that the conveyor unit 13 includes a connector by means of which
`
`the slave conveyor units 12 are ”plugged into” (see col. 10, In. 5). Moreover, since the control unit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 9
`
`of the master conveyor unit is housed within the base of the unit, there must be a transmission
`
`line for transmitting a signal from the control unit to the connector into which the slave conveyor
`
`units are plugged, and there must also be a transmission line within each slave conveyor unit 12,
`
`such that the control signals sent by the master conveyor unit 13 control the operation of the
`
`slave conveyor units 12. Also, the control unit also transmits signals for controlling the master
`
`conveyor unit 13. Matrone, therefore, teaches the concept of providing multiple devices, which
`
`perform identical functions, but providing only one of them as a master device, with a controller
`
`disposed therein, such that the other, slave devices, lack a controller, and plug into the master
`
`device and receive control signals therefrom.
`
`19.
`
`The concept of disposing a connector in an opening of the chassislhousing of an apparatus is
`
`known:
`
`Bickford shows that it is known to form an opening in a chassis of an apparatus (see connector
`
`aperture 130) so that a connector (120) can be disposed in the opening so as to be accessible from
`
`outside the chassis.
`
`20.
`
`Taking into consideration the teachings of all of these references, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective filing date of the application would have found it obvious to modify the apparatuses
`
`of APA and Nagao so as to be controlled by a single controller, since the apparatuses are used together to
`
`perform mounting operations on two substrates in parallel, and |shitani shows that a single controller can
`
`control two mounting apparatuses.
`
`21.
`
`Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a system
`
`such that the controller is located in one of the apparatuses, with a connector provided in each apparatus,
`
`and corresponding signal lines disposed within each apparatus between its connector and pertinent
`
`circuitry. Salansky and Matrone both show that it is known to connect apparatuses together such that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 10
`
`the controller located in a first apparatus can control the operation of the other apparatuses connected
`
`thereto, and Matrone shows that it is known to omit the controller from the other apparatuses, to reduce
`
`cost. Although Salansky and Matrone are not component mounting apparatuses, they are deemed related
`
`prior art because the claimed invention, although implement by Applicant in component mounting and
`
`printing apparatuses, is a general concept applicable to any environment in which multiple controller-
`
`operated apparatuses perform the same task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to locate the controller in only one of the two apparatuses, yet controlling the operation of
`
`both, in order to reduce cost of the apparatus not including a controller.
`
`22.
`
`Regarding the location of the connectors within respective openings on the back side of the first
`
`and second apparatus, this limitation is deemed obvious because the location of the connector can be
`
`changed without affecting the operation of the apparatuses. Since the apparatuses of APA and Nagao are
`
`disposed back-to-back, it makes sense to place the first transmission connector on the back of the first
`
`component mounting apparatus, and the second transmission connector on the back side of the second
`
`component mounting apparatus, so as to provide a short connection distance between the two
`
`connectors. Further, Bickford shows that it is known to form an opening in the chassis of an apparatus, so
`
`that a connector of the apparatus can be located within the opening. Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to provide a corresponding opening,
`
`in the back of each
`
`apparatus, so that the corresponding connector is located within the opening and accessible to the
`
`outside of the apparatus. As to the location of the first opening in registry with the second opening, it is
`
`deemed it would have been obvious to dispose the openings as such, to minimize the distance between
`
`the connectors when the apparatuses are disposed back-to-back.
`
`23.
`
`Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA and Nagao in
`
`view of |shitaniI Salansky, Matrone, and Bickford, further in view of Cheng.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 11
`
`24.
`
`APA, Nagao, Ishitani, Salansky, Matrone and Bickford, together render obvious the claimed
`
`invention. However,
`
`if Applicant
`
`interprets claims 2 as requiring a direct connector-to-connector
`
`connection between the two apparatuses, as opposed to using a cable therebetween, it should be noted
`
`that such a concept is not new.
`
`25.
`
`Cheng, for example, shows a printer 2 to which an expansion device 3 can be attached, wherein
`
`a signal can be transmitted between the printer and the expansion device by means of a connector 24 on
`
`the bottom of the printer and a connector 34 on the top surface of the expansion device, wherein the two
`
`connectors are directly connected (see Figs. 3 and 4).
`
`26.
`
`In view of the teachings of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the two component mounting apparatuses
`
`of APA and Nagao such that the first and second connectors can be directly connected when the
`
`apparatuses are disposed back-to-back.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`27.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
`
`28.
`
`Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the cited references in the
`
`manner recited in claim 2, because Salansky and Matrone are not component mounting apparatuses.
`
`29.
`
`The examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem solved by Applicant’s invention is reducing cost
`
`by providing a controller in only one of two component mounting apparatuses, and connecting the two
`
`apparatuses to each other such that the second apparatus is controlled by the controller located in the
`
`first apparatus. Salansky and Matrone show that this concept is known, in general, even if disclosed with
`
`respect to a different application, i.e. machines for delivering balls, as in Salansky, or a conveyor system,
`
`as in Matrone. It is deemed one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the applicability of such
`
`a concept to many types of apparatuses, in various fields of art, as providing multiple apparatuses of the
`
`same type is not specific to component mounting. Bickford is cited because it shows the concept of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 12
`
`disposing a connector in an opening of the chassis/housing of an apparatus is known. Such an
`
`arrangement is not unique to any particular type of apparatus. Rather, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art
`
`would have recognized such an arrangement can be applied wherever a connector is disposed in a
`
`chassis/housing of an apparatus, and thus it is not necessary for Bickford to be in the component mounter
`
`art.
`
`30.
`
`In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon
`
`improper hindsight reasoning,
`
`it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense
`
`necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only
`
`knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and
`
`does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
`
`See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the examiner has
`
`provided a clear analysis of the reasons to combine the teachings of the references, and it cannot be said
`
`the conclusion of obviousness is based on knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure.
`
`31.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues Salansky and Matrone disclose systems with a plurality of
`
`controllers, whereas claim 3 recites a single control unit. Therefore, Applicant argues modifying Ishitani in
`
`view of Matrone and Salansky would result in a system with multiple controllers.
`
`32.
`
`The examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned in #18, above, Matrone includes multiple
`
`conveyor units (13 and 12), wherein only a master conveyor unit (13) includes a controller. Slave conveyor
`
`units (2), do not include a controller. Therefore, it is deemed one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`found it obvious to implement the same arrangement in the component mounting apparatuses of Ishitani.
`
`Conclusion
`
`33.
`
`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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 13
`
`34.
`
`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.
`
`35.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally
`
`be reached on Monday - Friday noon-8:30pm.
`
`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, Peter
`
`Vo can be reached on 571-272-4690. The fax phone number for the organization where this application
`
`or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,839
`Art Unit: 3729
`
`Page 14
`
`/L|V|US R. CAZAN/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
`
`