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
`
`15/700,401
`
`09/11/2017
`
`HIROYOSHI NISHIDA
`
`PIPMM-58001
`
`9503
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`05/02/2019
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`SKRZYCKI, JONATHAN MICHAEL
`
`2118
`
`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.
`15/700,401
`Examiner
`JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI
`
`Applicant(s)
`NISHIDA, HIROYOSHI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2118
`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 01/28/2019.
`[: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)
`
`1—6 and 8 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) 1—6 and 8 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). 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)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Datew.
`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 20190424
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claims 1-6 and 8 (filed 01/28/2019) have been considered in this action.
`
`Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claim 8 is a new claim.
`
`Claims 2—6 are presented in their original format.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 paragraphs 2, filed 01/28/2019, with
`
`respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered and are
`
`persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2019, with respect to rejection of claim 1
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant has asserted that the provided references fail to teach the notifier
`
`which performs notification indicating that it is necessary to retrieve the board,
`
`but the examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to clarify their
`
`interpretation of the claim and how it relates to the provided references.
`
`In
`
`response to applicant's argument that the combination of Sun and Edinger fail to
`
`teach the notification indicating that it is necessary to retrieve a board, the test
`
`for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the
`
`claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
`
`Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
`
`suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
`
`USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Edinger was utilized to teach ”A component mounting
`
`line control system” by pointing to the ’[col 3 lines 55—col 4 line 44] a master
`
`production computer (10) that controls a production line’ which is described in
`
`[col 3 line 61] as having ’the computer 10 can provide a terminal 16 which has a
`
`picture screen’. Keeping in mind that this reference was filed with the USPTO in
`
`1985, when the personal computer revolution was still in its infancy and the
`
`terminology surrounding this new technology was not well—known, the use of la
`
`picture screen’ would be construed by one of ordinary skill to mean a monitor or
`
`screen which has the capability of displaying notifications to a user. Furthermore,
`
`Edinger specifically states in the referenced paragraphs that ”From this
`
`information, an operator makes a manual removal of the type of board 20 from
`
`the storage 17” where the information provided to the operator is conveyed via
`
`the screen, thus supporting the interpretation that the master production
`
`computer of Edinger is capable and performs the act of displaying notifications
`
`that it is necessary to retrieve a board. Sun was utilized to teach the first warning
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`information which indicates that the board accommodation limit is about to be
`
`reached through the use of the buffer with a threshold value that is capable of
`
`detecting the fullness of a buffer (i.e. board accommodation limit) in order to
`
`send an additional command. Sun has thus established that it is capable to use
`
`the buffer threshold to make the determination as to when a board
`
`accommodation limit is about to be reached. According to MPEP 2114.|V
`
`”Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all
`
`devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior
`
`art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a
`
`rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate. See In re
`
`Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1258, 84 USPQ2d 1929, 1935—1936
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Because all the components necessary for a person of ordinary
`
`skill to create a notifier that performs notification indicating that it is necessary to
`
`retrieve the board when a board accommodation limit is about to be reached are
`
`taught by Edinger and Sun, and because the combination of these elements
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill, the rejection under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103 is considered proper and is held.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`o The limitation “wherein the controller determined whether”
`
`contains a typographical error and should read ”wherein the
`
`controller determines whether”
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Edinger et al. (US 4667403, herein Edinger) in view of Sun et al. (US
`
`20160179081) .
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Edinger teaches “A component mounting line control
`
`system which controls a component mounting line” ([col 3 lines 55-col 4 line 44]
`
`describes a master production computer that controls a production line)
`
`“including a component mounting device that mounts a component on a board"
`
`([col 3 lines 55—col 4 line 44] describes automatic assembly stations for assembling
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`(mounting) components) “and a board retrieving unit that retrieves the board,
`
`the system comprising: an acquirer that acquires information from the board
`
`retrieving unit” ([col 3 lines 55—col 4 line 44] robot is used to remove specific
`
`board (retrieve) to be put onto assembly line, via commands from the controller
`
`(acquirer)) "a controller that controls the component mounting device based on
`
`the information acquired by the acquirer” ([col 3 lines 27-35] master production
`
`computer (controller) coordinates and manages the overall production process)
`
`"and a notifier that performs notification of the state of equipment, wherein
`
`the notifier performs notification” ([col 2 line 13] describes how a board is
`
`retrieved when a command signal (notification) is received which is performed by
`
`master production computer 10 that coordinates and manages the production
`
`process (state of equipment) and [col 3 line 61] discusses a terminal with a picture
`
`screen that can display to an operator a command to retrieve a board) ”and
`
`wherein the notified performs notification indicating that it is necessary to
`
`retrieve the board” ([col 3 line 61] the computer 10 can provide information on a
`
`terminal 16 which has a picture screen. From this information, an operator makes
`
`a manual removal of the type of board 20 from the storage 17).
`
`Edinger fails to teach “wherein, the controller lengthens the time taken
`
`for a manufacturing process in the component mounting device in a case where
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`the acquirer acquires first warning information, which indicates that a board
`
`accommodation limit is about to be reached, from the board retrieving unit, and
`
`wherein the notified performs notification indicating that it is necessary to
`
`retrieve the board in a case where the acquirer acquires the first warning
`
`information, which indicates that the board accommodation limit is about to be
`
`reached, from the board retrieving unit”.
`
`Sun teaches "wherein, the controller lengthens the time taken for a
`
`manufacturing process in the component mounting device in a case where the
`
`acquirer acquires first warning information, which indicates that a board
`
`accommodation limit is about to be reached, from the board retrieving unit”
`
`([0022] In an embodiment, the range of threshold values for a buffer 18 for
`
`controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be between approximately 0.5 and 1.0
`
`(i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—full to full) in order to reduce
`
`or stop production output of the upstream station 16 when the downstream
`
`buffer 18 is close to full or full as previously described; wherein a buffer
`
`corresponds to a board accommodation limit, and the case where reducing
`
`production corresponds to a lengthening of a manufacturing process) "and
`
`wherein the notified performs notification indicating that it is necessary to
`
`retrieve the board in a case where the acquirer acquires the first warning
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`information, which indicates that the board accommodation limit is about to be
`
`reached, from the board retrieving unit” ([0022] In an embodiment, the range of
`
`threshold values for a buffer 18 for controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be
`
`between approximately 0.5 and 1.0 (i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is
`
`approximately half—full to full) in order to reduce or stop production output of the
`
`upstream station 16 when the downstream buffer 18 is close to full or full as
`
`previously described; wherein Sun expresses the capability of controlling and
`
`notifying (sending/receiving commands) various equipment based on buffer
`
`capacity (accommodation |imit)).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the
`
`component mounting line control system with a board retriever, notifier for
`
`notification of board retrieval and controller taught by Edinger with the slowing of
`
`a manufacturing process when a buffer is about to become full and which notifies
`
`that it is necessary to remove a board because a buffer is almost at capacity
`
`because it would satisfy the suggestion of Sun to create ”[0002] a method for
`
`providing optimized production scheduling”. Furthermore, it would have been
`
`obvious to combine because both inventions relate to the field of manufacturing
`
`and more specifically towards ways to optimize and improve a manufacturing
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`line, and thus a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the known
`
`technique of slowing manufacturing and providing a signal which indicates when a
`
`buffer is becoming full with the known devices constituting a component
`
`mounting production line in the same way. By combining these elements, one of
`
`ordinary skill would expect to create a component mounting production line with
`
`assembly stations for mounting components and robots used to retrieve and
`
`move boards into the stations, controlled by a master production computer
`
`(controller) which includes a display for displaying that a board must be retrieved
`
`and that utilizes buffers that count capacity and cause the controller to slow
`
`production when buffer capacity is near full, and which also display a notification
`
`to retrieve a board when buffer capacity is near full.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Sun and Edinger teach the component mounting
`
`production control line taught in claim 1. Sun further teaches "wherein a state
`
`where the board accommodation limit is about to be reached is a state where
`
`the number of accommodated boards is equal to or greater than 70% and equal
`
`to or smaller than 90% of an accommodation capacity of the board retrieving
`
`unit” ([Table 5 and 0022] In an embodiment, the range of threshold values for a
`
`buffer 18 for controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be between
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`approximately 0.5 and 1.0 (i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—
`
`full to full) in order to reduce or stop production output of the upstream station
`
`16 when the downstream buffer 18 is close to full or full as previously described;
`
`wherein an instance where production is reduced when buffer capacity is nearly
`
`full).
`
`While Sun teaches various buffer ranges of 50—100%, less than 67%, 67%—
`
`83%, 83%—97%, etc. (table 5) it is noted that it would have been obvious to change
`
`the buffer range to 70%—90% when production is slowed because MPEP
`
`§2144.04(IV)(A) ”In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) establishes
`
`that changes to size/proportion are not patentably distinct from the prior art
`
`because they are considered routine and only require ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify
`
`the ranges set forth in Sun to fit their particular implementation. The modification
`
`of slowing down the machine in the range of 70%—90% instead of the range of
`
`67%—83% is considered an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of In re Rose.
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Sun and Edinger teach the component mounting
`
`production control line taught in claim 1. Sun further teaches "wherein the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`controller causes the component mounting device to stop the manufacturing
`
`process in a case where the acquirer acquires second warning information,
`
`which indicates that the board accommodation limit has been reached from the
`
`board retrieving unit” ([Table 5 & 0022]|n an embodiment, the range of threshold
`
`values for a buffer 18 for controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be between
`
`approximately 0.5 and 1.0 (i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—
`
`full to full) in order to reduce or stop production output of the upstream station
`
`16 when the downstream buffer 18 is close to full or full as previously described;
`
`wherein production is stopped when buffer is full (limit is reached), furthermore
`
`as taught by Table 5, when the buffer becomes more full production is slowed
`
`more until the buffer becomes completely filled, at which point production is
`
`stopped).
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Sun and Edinger teach the component mounting
`
`production control line taught in claim 3. Sun further teaches "wherein a state
`
`where the board accommodation limit has been reached is a state where the
`
`number of accommodated boards is greater than 90% and equal to or smaller
`
`than 100% of an accommodation capacity of the board retrieving unit” ([Table 5
`
`& 0022]|n an embodiment, the range of threshold values for a buffer 18 for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be between approximately 0.5 and 1.0
`
`(i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—full to full) in order to reduce
`
`or stop production output of the upstream station 16 when the downstream
`
`buffer 18 is close to full or full as previously described; wherein production is
`
`stopped when buffer is full (limit is reached), furthermore as taught by Table 5,
`
`when the buffer becomes more full production is slowed more until the buffer
`
`becomes completely filled, at which point production is stopped).
`
`While Sun teaches various buffer ranges of 50—100%, less than 67%, 67%—
`
`83%, 83%—97%, etc. (table 5) it is noted that it would have been obvious to change
`
`the buffer range to 90%—100% when production is stopped because MPEP
`
`§2144.04(IV)(A) ”In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) establishes
`
`that changes to size/proportion are not patentably distinct from the prior art
`
`because they are considered routine and only require ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify
`
`the ranges set forth in Sun to fit their particular implementation. The modification
`
`of stopping the machine in the range of 90%—100% instead of the range of 99%—
`
`100% is considered an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`light of In re Rose.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Edinger and Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Donati et al.
`
`(US 20100287879, herein Donati).
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Edinger and Sun teach the component mounting
`
`production line control system that slows production based on accommodation
`
`capacity as incorporated in claim 1.
`
`Edinger and Sun fail to teach “in a case where the acquirer acquires third
`
`warning information, which indicates that there is an abnormality, from the
`
`board retrieving unit”.
`
`Donati teaches “in a case where the acquirer acquires third warning
`
`information, which indicates that there is an abnormality, from the board
`
`retrieving unit” ([0089] describes how when an overflow and speed sensor is
`
`activated (abnormal condition) the distribution equipment (component mounting
`
`device) rate is reduced (lengthens the time taken for the manufacturing process).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the
`
`component mounting production line control system that s|ows production based
`
`on accommodation capacity as taught by Edinger and Sun with the reaction to an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`abnormal condition as taught by Donati because as Donati suggests ”[0010] An
`
`ever—increasing need is hence felt for... Lines featuring integrated solutions such
`
`as centralized and robust automation control, increased configuration flexibility,
`
`same communication channels and automation solutions and hardware, and no
`
`need for customization of the line automation software”. Likewise, Donati points
`
`out that ”[0008] Line automation and control systems cannot provide the
`
`flexibility and functionality features required to satisfy the ever—increasing market
`
`demand for... higher production versatility”, meaning that the known technique
`
`of slowing a production line when an abnormal condition occurs is ready to
`
`improve the known component mounting production line. To a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, this combination would yield a predictable result of a
`
`component mounting production line that slows production when an abnormal
`
`condition occurs.
`
`Regarding Claim 6, Edinger and Sun teach the component mounting
`
`production line control system that slows production based on accommodation
`
`capacity as incorporated in claim 1. Donati further teaches "wherein the
`
`controller causes the component mounting device to stop the manufacturing
`
`process in a case where the acquirer acquires fourth warning information, which
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`indicates a transportation stoppage, from the component mounting device”
`
`([0086] describes how an automatic immediate stop procedure (stop the
`
`manufacturing process) is triggered when a blocked distribution equipment
`
`(transportation stoppage) occurs).
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edinger,
`
`Sun and Donati as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US
`
`20140244044, herein Davis).
`
`In regards to Claim 8, Edinger, Sun and Donati teach the component
`
`mounting line that is able to lengthen the amount of time taken for a
`
`manufacturing process on the basis of various warning information as
`
`incorporated by claim 5.
`
`Edinger, Sun and Donati fail to teach “a position information specifier;
`
`wherein the controller determined whether the operator is in the vicinity of
`
`component mounting line based on an operator location information output
`
`from the position information specifier, and in a case where the location of the
`
`operator has not been found...”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Davis teaches “a position information specifier; wherein the controller
`
`determined whether the operator is in the vicinity of component mounting line
`
`based on an operator location information output from the position
`
`information specifier” ([0135] FIG. 12 shows smartphone 20 determining its
`
`location via a GPS satellite 30; [0033] The Product App is able to determine its
`
`global location from the smartphone location capability and offer... other
`
`conditional elements for the specific location that the smartphone location
`
`capability reports as its current global position) "and in a case where the location
`
`of the operator has not been found...” ([0157] In step 1114, the Product App will
`
`ascertain if it can determine its global position from the smartphone location
`
`capabilities. If the Product App cannot determine its global position, or if the
`
`current position is unknown...).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the
`
`component mounting line that is able to lengthen the amount of time taken for a
`
`manufacturing process on the basis of various warning information with the use
`
`of a smartphone device that uses GPS to determine a global position of the
`
`smartphone user and is capable of determining when it cannot determine the
`
`global position of the smartphone as taught by Davis because it can be considered
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield
`
`predictable results. That is, one of ordinary skill would expect to take the known
`
`technique of using a smartphone with communications and GPS capabilities to
`
`determine the location of a user, and which can also determine when the location
`
`data cannot be found, and apply it to the known device ready for improvement of
`
`a component mounting line controller that is able to lengthen the amount of time
`
`taken for a manufacturing process based on various warning information to
`
`achieve the predictable result of a component mounting line controller that
`
`communicates with a smartphone device to establish the location of a user, and
`
`when that user location cannot be found will trigger the lengthening of an
`
`amount of time it takes to execute a manufacturing process in the component
`
`mounting device.
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`action is not mailed until after the end of the TH REE—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 mailing date
`
`of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
`
`the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone
`
`number is (571)272—0933. The examiner can normally be reached on M—F 7230—5.
`
`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, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571)272—2748. 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 20
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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(to|l—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.
`
`/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2118
`
`/ROBERT E FENNEMA/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
`
`