`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/950,905
`
`07/25/2013
`
`Eiichi Hachiya
`
`51464
`
`1320
`
`04’26’20” —PEARNE&GORDON LLP m
`7590
`52054
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`ITSKOVICHa MIKHAIL
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 14-3 108
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2483
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/26/2017
`
`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.
` 13/950,905 HACHIYA ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2483MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH $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 04/10/2017.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)lX| This action is non-final.
`2a)I:| 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)IXI C|aim(s) 11 14 17and 18 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6 III Claim s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`11 14 17and 18 is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`
`
`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
` S
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events) .h/index.‘
`
`
`
`
`
`, or send an inquiry to PF"I-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`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) D 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 20170413
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1. 114
`
`1.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
`
`04/10/2017 has been entered.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 04/10/2017 have been fully considered but they
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`3.
`
`Generally, Examiner recommends identifying the specific algorithms or series of
`
`steps that Applicant regards to be inventive and particularly claiming them. Rephrasing
`
`previously rejected limitations, elaborating on elements well known in the art, describing
`
`intended uses, or reciting extra solutions direct examination away from the invention
`
`and do not meaningfully advance prosecution.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant argues: “The examiner argues in the Office action that Hachiya
`
`discloses the setting step. However, as admitted by the examiner in the Office action,
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Hachiya only discloses selecting the line camera 11 or the shutter camera 12 depending
`
`on the size or shape of the electric component 2. Hachiya fails to disclose setting to the
`
`first imaging mode or the second imaging mode”
`
`Examiner notes that Hachiya clearly teaches a selection of imaging modes based
`
`on available cameras and the size of the component to be imaged, and selection of any
`
`additional modes or combinations is rendered obvious over the combination of
`
`references and the mere fact that such modes are made available by the combination of
`
`imaging components in Hachiya. Note Applicant’s admissions in Specification, Pages
`
`2—3.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant argues: “Hachiya is silent about the use of the visual fields of the line
`
`camera 11 and the shutter camera 12 for determining whether the first imaging mode or
`
`the second imaging mode is set.”
`
`Examiner notes that an intended use is not a limitation, and Claim 11 does not
`
`set forth the steps or algorithmic basis of using the fields of view in processing such that
`
`it performs the intended detection and mode selection, and thus does not preclude the
`
`modes available in the prior art and their general selection based on the type of object
`
`being imaged.
`
`lf Applicant believes that a particular use is inventive, Applicant should
`
`explicitly claims the steps of such use.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant argues: “The amended claim 11 recites "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,
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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". Hachiya does not disclose the above
`
`recognizing step, as admitted by the examiner in the Office action.”
`
`Examiner notes that newly amended language has not been addressed in the
`
`prior action, and thus no such admission was made by the Office. See updated reasons
`
`for rejection below.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant argues: “Jansson does not disclose recognizing, when the imaging
`
`form is set to the first imaging mode
`
`Hachiya does not disclose the above
`
`recognizing step, as admitted by the examiner in the Office action.”
`
`Examiner notes that newly amended language has not been addressed in the
`
`prior action, and thus no such admission was made by the Office. Further, a selection
`
`of an imaging mode in software is a variable available and recognizable by such
`
`software, and thus a recognition of a mode selection is not a meaningful limitation on
`
`the operation of the apparatus. Since the claim is not limited to particular steps of
`
`recognizing to indicate anything more complex is going on, the claims do not set forth a
`
`limitation different from the cited teachings of the prior art.
`
`8.
`
`Applicant argues: “none of Hachiya, Jansson and Skunes discloses a three-
`
`dimensional component imaging device which can image a three-dimensional image”
`
`Examiner notes that neither do the claims. See updated reasons for rejection
`
`below.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`9.
`
`Applicant argues: “The recognizing means 8 disclosed in Hachiya is a camera
`
`which images a two-dimensional image, and which is not capable of imaging a three-
`
`dimensional image.”
`
`Examiner notes that neither the claims nor the arguments define a format of the
`
`three-dimensional image that excludes two-dimensional images.
`
`10.
`
`Applicant argues: “Skunes is merely cited for the limitation of claim 6
`
`Examiner reminds the Applicant that the referenced citations made in the
`
`rejections are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the
`
`examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is
`
`incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety
`
`since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate
`
`examiner's rationale of record. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc, 721 F.2d
`
`1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Arguments
`
`that ignore the substance of the prior art and the guidance of the Office Action as a
`
`whole are not persuasive of patentability.
`
`11.
`
`Examiner suggests elaborating on the particular steps/algorithms that Applicant
`
`believes to distinguish its method from the prior art. Reciting broad steps with specific
`
`intended results does not provide clarity as to the claim scope or a reasonable basis for
`
`allowance.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`12.
`
`Examiner withdraws the rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first and second paragraphs in view of the
`
`amendments and cancellations.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`2.
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 11, 14, 17-18 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.
`
`4.
`
`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 lnterferences in Exparte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. 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
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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 Steigewa/d, 131
`
`USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Exparte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Exparte
`
`Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
`
`5.
`
`Claim 11 recites: “a three-dimensional component imaging device which can
`
`image a three-dimensional image, which comprises at least three area cameras,
`
`which are independent devices having different visual fields” which is a broad limitation
`
`“a three-dimensional component imaging device” followed by a circular definition “which
`
`can image a three-dimensional image” followed by a narrower limitation “which
`
`comprises at least three area cameras which are independent devices having different
`
`visual fields” which does not clearly correspond to the first limitation because three area
`
`cameras produce area images and not three-dimensional images (not without
`
`substantial non-trivial processing). Thus, to the extent this language can limit the
`
`claims, the scope of this description is indefinite.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 14, 17-18 are rejected as dependent on Claim 11.
`
`Also Claim 14 recites: “wherein the forth imaging form is a form recognizing
`
`based on a three-dimensional image imaged by each of the at least three area
`
`cameras,” which is indefinite because it is unclear how each area camera (such as a
`
`wide angle camera) can produce a three-dimensional image (without limitation or
`
`possession of specialized processing).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Claim Construction
`
`8.
`
`Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but
`
`does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim
`
`to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not
`
`exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim
`
`are:
`
`(A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby”
`
`clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. The clause is given weight when it provides "meaning and
`
`purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result”
`
`of the invention.
`
`In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481,
`
`1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Where Applicant recites optional claim language, such as optional claim
`
`language following the term(s) “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 suggests rephrasing such claim
`
`language to recite limitations corresponding to the subject matter of the claim.
`
`9.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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 of the
`
`claim.
`
`Machine limitations should make clear that the use of the 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, 9/ al, 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.
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not
`be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`3.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`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 1 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
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`4.
`
`
`Claims 11 14 17 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”). Also note Applicant admitted prior art in
`
`Specification Pages 1-3 that broadly describe elements as cited in Hachiya and Skunes.
`
`10.
`
`Regarding Claim 11: “An electronic component mounting method performed
`
`by an electronic component mounting apparatus, the electronic component
`
`mounting apparatus comprising: a plurality of nozzles which picks up and hold
`
`the electronic component having a second surface held by the nozzle and a first
`
`surface opposite to the second surface which is an one side of the component; a
`
`three-dimensional component imaging device which can image a three-
`
`dimensional image, which comprises at least three area cameras, each of which
`
`comprises a first imaging element and a second imaging element which are
`
`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 visual fields of the second imaging elements
`
`of the at least three area cameras are common to each other regardless of the
`
`area camera;”
`
`(Note that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it
`
`merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where
`
`the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead,
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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 in the preamble, the method steps (for selecting an imaging mode
`
`based on object elements visible by each camera) stand on their own and are not
`
`limited by the specific structural elements of the intended apparatus described in the
`
`preamble, i.e. use of structural elements of the 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.)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“said electronic component mounting method comprising:
`
`setting, by a controller, (“The control circuit for the recognizing means 8”
`
`that sets imaging and processing parameters. Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61 -62.)
`
`c.
`
`an imaging form of the component imaging device to a first imaging
`
`mode if a whole part of the first surface of the electronic component held
`
`by 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 an
`
`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 of the electronic component” Hachiya,
`
`Column 2, lines 20-21.)
`
`d.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`cameras, and (“A recognizing means 8 is provided for recognizing the position
`
`and the shape of the electronic components.” Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61 -63.)
`
`e.
`
`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 components can be imaged by individual imagers, and in the second
`
`imaging mode a single large component can be imaged simultaneously by
`
`multiple imagers, such as when imagers have offset positions.
`
`Jansson teaches the above claim capability in the context of optical
`
`inspection of electronic components: “apparatus for inspecting an array of
`
`electronic components, comprising a scanning device adapted to capture images
`
`of at least one surface of each of the respective components” where “the first
`
`camera 222 is preferably vertically-offset from the viewing position of the second
`
`camera 224,” and “multiple images of strips of light taken at various positions
`
`using particular lighting effects can be compiled and assembled to form a single
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`representation comprising the whole surface area of the substrate 216 during
`
`processing.”
`
`Jansson, Paragraphs 7 and 67. Thus two offset imagers can be
`
`used simultaneously to image an array of electronic components, and the
`
`multiple image results can be used individually or combined to produce claimed
`
`effects. Further Jansson teaches: “multiple images of strips of light taken at
`
`various positions using particular lighting effects can be compiled and assembled
`
`to form a single representation comprising the whole surface area of the
`
`substrate 216 during processing.” Jansson, Paragraph 67.
`
`Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hachiya to
`
`recognize a first electronic component held by the holding unit, based on an
`
`image that is imaged by the first imaging element, and recognize a second
`
`electronic component that is held together with the first electronic component by
`
`the holding unit, based on an image that is imaged by the second imaging
`
`element, and recognize the electronic component that is held by the holding unit,
`
`based on an image in which the image that is imaged by the first imaging
`
`element is combined with the image that is imaged by the second imaging
`
`element, as taught in Jansson, in order to increase machine throughput and
`
`reduce machine handling by generating more image data from a single
`
`inspection pass. Jansson, Paragraphs 67-68.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`f.
`
`Also, for compact prosecution, note that where Hachiya and Jansson do
`
`not teach apparatus elements directed to “a plurality of nozzles which pick up
`
`and hold the electronic component“
`
`Yamazaki teaches the suggested apparatus application in the context of
`
`optical
`
`inspection of electronic components: “a plurality of components are
`
`sucked by the multiple placement head from component feeding sections.”
`
`Yamazaki, Column 1, lines 61-63 and Fig. 12.
`
`Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hachiya and
`
`Jansson to use a holding device comprising a plurality of nozzles sucking the
`
`electronic component stored in the component supply device, as taught in
`
`Skunes, in order to optimize component mounting sequences. Yamazaki,
`
`Column 1, lines 44-46.
`
`g.
`
`Also for compact prosecution, where Hachiya, Jansson, and Yamazaki do
`
`not teach apparatus elements directed to “the component imaging unit has at
`
`least three area cameras that include two imaging elements.”
`
`Skunes teaches the above claim feature in the context of optical
`
`inspection of electronic components: “Whenever an on-head linescan sensor is
`
`used with another type of on-head sensor, both such sensors could be disposed
`
`on different placement heads in a multi-head pick and place machine” Skunes,
`
`Column 6, lines 2—5.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hachiya, Jansson,
`
`and Yamazaki to use at least three area cameras that include two imaging
`
`elements, as taught in Skunes, in order to equip multiple placement heads with
`
`inspection cameras and to ensure that each placement head is utilized to its
`
`fullest capacity. Skunes, Column 6, lines 15 Also note AAPA, Specification,
`
`Page 2, second paragraph.
`
`5.
`
`Regarding Claim 14: “The electronic component mounting method
`
`according to claim 11,
`
`h.
`
`wherein the first imaging element and the second imaging element
`
`are independent devices, and (“The recognizing means 8 is constructed as
`
`shown in FIG. 2, in which a line camera 11 and a shutter camera 12 are
`
`disposed.” Hachiya, Column 4, lines 5-7 and Fig. 2.)
`
`i.
`
`the controller controls the first imaging element and the second
`
`imaging element independently so as to image the electronic component
`
`held by the holding device.” (“a selecting means for selecting either the line
`
`camera or the shutter camera depending on the size or shape of the electronic
`
`component.” Hachiya, Column 2, lines 20-21.)
`
`6.
`
`Regarding Claim 17: “The electronic component mounting method
`
`according to claim 11: wherein when the imaging form is set to the second
`
`
`imaging mode, the generated image includes a whole part of the first surface of
`
`third electronic component.” (Jansson teaches: “a scanning device adapted to
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`capture images of at least one surface of each of the respective components, whereby
`
`to inspect said surface.” Jansson, Paragraph 7 and statement of motivation in Claim
`
`1 1.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya,
`
`Jansson, Skunes, and Yamazaki in view of Applicant admitted prior art in the
`
`Specification pages 1-3.
`
`8.
`
`Regarding Claim 18: “The electronic component mounting method
`
`according to claim 11 further comprising:
`
`j.
`
`setting by the controller, a second imaging form to a third imaging
`
`form or a forth imaging form based on a kinds of the electronic component;
`
`(“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.)
`
`k.
`
`
`wherein the third imaging form is a form recognizing based on a two-
`
`dimensional image imaged by one of the at least three area cameras; and
`
`(“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.)
`
`|.
`
`Hachiya, Jansson, Skunes, and Yamazaki do not teach: “wherein the
`
`forth imaging form is a form recognizing based on a three-dimensional
`
`im_agg imaged by each of the at least three area cameras.” (Note rejection
`
`under section 112 above.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 13/950
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site