`“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
`
`10’2“)” —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
`
`10/25/2017
`
`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.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH $2215 2483
`-- 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 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () 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)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 07/25/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| 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)|:| 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 Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 11 14 and 17-19 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 11 14 and 17-19is/are rejected.
`
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`* If any)claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`
`
`()
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`
`I/'/\WIIW.USOI.O. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`h/index.‘s orsend an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`hit
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l 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:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20171018
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 07/25/2017 have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`3.
`
`Generally, 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 or for use with a particular selection of known structures does
`
`not provide clarity as to the claim scope or a reasonable basis for allowance.
`
`4.
`
`Regarding the rejection of Claims 11, 14, 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b),
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`" Claim 11 has been amended to delete the limitation "which can
`
`image a three-dimensional image". Thus, the rejection as it applies to claim 11 should
`
`be withdrawn."
`
`Examiner notes that this does not address the full reasons provided for rejection.
`
`Please see reasons for rejection below.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant argues: “Hachiya only discloses that in case of larger electronic
`
`components, the line camera 11 is used (column 5, lines 50-55) and in case of smaller
`
`electronic components, the shutter camera 12 is used (column 6, lines 38-46). Thus,
`
`Hachiya fails to disclose setting an imaging form of the component imaging device to a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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.”
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant argues: “Hachiya does not judge whether a component has a first
`
`surface crossing the visual fields of two cameras.”
`
`Examiner notes that the claims do not include methodology for automated
`
`judging. See updated reasons for rejection below.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant argues: “Jansson is merely cited for the two recognizing steps.
`
`Skunes is merely cited for the limitation "the component imaging unit has at least three
`
`area cameras that include two imaging elements"
`
`Yamazaki is merely cited for the
`
`limitation "a plurality of nozzles which pick up and hold the electronic component"”
`
`Examiner notes that Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to
`
`improving the claim language. The referenced citations made in the rejections above
`
`are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art documents in which the examiner
`
`believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent
`
`upon the applicant to analyze each prior art document in its entirety since other areas of
`
`the document may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`record. See 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).
`
`8.
`
`Applicant argues: “Hachiya does not disclose the above recognizing step, as
`
`admitted by the examiner in the Office action. The examiner argues in the Office action
`
`that Jansson teaches the above claim capability in the context of optical inspection of
`
`electronic components. However, as we discussed previously, in Jansson, one camera
`
`22 is positioned above one surface of the electronic components, and another camera
`
`224 is positioned below another opposite surface of the electronic components.
`
`Jansson fails to disclose combining the images of the same surface of the electronic
`
`component.”
`
`In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one
`
`cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
`
`are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
`
`USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986). The fact that Jansson is not cited to teach combining images on the same
`
`surface does not support Applicant’s argument that Jansson does not teach a
`
`recognizing capability.
`
`9.
`
`Applicant argues: “In addition, none of Hachiya, Jansson, Skunes and Yamazaki
`
`discloses a three-dimensional component imaging device which can image a three-
`
`dimensional image”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`Examiner notes that the claim does not disclose a three-dimensional component
`
`imaging device which can image a three-dimensional image, and thus does not
`
`preclude embodiments in the prior art.
`
`10.
`
`Applicant argues: “claim 18 requires setting the two-dimensional image
`
`recognition (the third imaging mode) or the three-dimensional image recognition (the
`
`forth imaging mode) based on a kind of the electronic component. Hachiya only
`
`discloses switching the line camera or the shutter camera.”
`
`Examiner notes that Hachiya discloses the claimed methodology for selecting
`
`modes on some basis of the component. Applicant's intended use is neither a particular
`
`method limitation nor obvious over the combination of the references cited below.
`
`11.
`
`Applicant argues: “Regarding new claim 19, none of the cited references
`
`discloses when the imaging form is set to the second imaging mode, imaging the first
`
`surface which is the same surface of the third electronic component by each of the three
`
`area cameras which are positioned on the same side of the third electronic component.”
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`1.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
`regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 11, 14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
`
`AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AlA
`
`the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`3.
`
`A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls
`
`within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since
`
`the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent
`
`protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board
`
`of Patent Appeals and lnterferences in Ex parte Wu, 1O USPQZd 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat.
`
`App. & lnter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then
`
`narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a
`
`question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely
`
`exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required
`
`feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of EX parte 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).
`
`4.
`
`Claim 11 recites: “a three-dimensional component imaging device, 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 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`processing). Thus, to the extent this language can limit the claims, the scope of this
`
`description is indefinite.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 14, 17-19 are rejected as dependent on Claim 11.
`
`Also Claim 18 recites: “wherein the forth imaging mode is a form recognizing
`
`based on a three-dimensional image imaged by all of the at least three area cameras,”
`
`which is indefinite because it is unclear how all area cameras (such as wide angle
`
`cameras) can produce a three-dimensional image (without limitation or possession of
`
`specialized processing).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`12.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
`therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`13.
`
`In accordance with the Machine-or-Transformation test, the claimed process
`
`must:
`
`(1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus (machine implemented); or (2)
`
`particularly transform a particular article to a different state or thing. A method claim
`
`that does not require machine implementation or does not cause a transformation will
`
`fail the test and should be rejected under § 101. However, the mere presence of a
`
`machine tie or transformation is not sufficient to pass the test. The machine limitations
`
`should make clear that the use of the machine in the claimed process imposes a
`
`meaningful limitation on the claim’s scope, by a specific limitation to structure other than
`
`what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.01;
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lntern., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 573 U.S., 189 L. Ed. 2d 296
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`(2014); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (An
`
`abstract idea 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.)
`
`14.
`
`Claims 11, 14, 17-19 are rejected as being directed toward non-statutory subject
`
`matter. Based upon analysis of the present claims, the claims appear to be directed
`
`toward abstract ideas, (a) automating a mental process of selecting an operation mode
`
`based on visual appearance of the subject (imaged on otherwise), imaging and
`
`extracting information at a high level of abstraction, and selecting profiles for digital
`
`image processing (i.e. setting and recognizing the setting of imaging modes on some
`
`basis of an image) which are not considered statutory as defined in In re Prater,
`
`Dig/tech Image Techs, LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Using profiles in a digital image processing system is
`
`ineligible); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, MA, 776
`
`F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Scanning and information processing
`
`methodology is ineligible); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAutomotive LLC, (Fed Cir.
`
`May 17, 2016) (Method for recording, transmitting and administering digital images is
`
`ineligible); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1972) (common
`
`computing elements for use in conversion of numerical information is ineligible); in view
`
`of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 573 U.S., 189 L. Ed. 2d
`
`296 (2014). Also note that claiming the results of a visual determination at a high level
`
`of abstraction does not have specific limitations to patentable subject matter.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F. 3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (A
`
`purely mental process can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer) and
`
`McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namoo Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (Presenting intended results without a particular automation beyond
`
`what is well-understood, routine, or conventional is ineligible).
`
`The elements of the present claims, when considered individually and in
`
`combination, are not directed toward significantly more than an abstract idea itself; i.e.
`
`logical computation (setting a mode, recognizing when a mode is set) is applied at a
`
`high level of generality; claims are presented by statements of intended results (i.e.
`
`recognizing, when the imaging form is set to the first imaging mode) without limitation to
`
`non-trivial computing functions or hardware; applies well-understood, routine, and
`
`conventional activities commonly used in industry (i.e. setting, by a controller, an
`
`imaging form of the component imaging device to a first imaging mode based on a
`
`logical condition, and selecting a type of camera to be used in imaging). Note that while
`
`the claims indicate a use of the method with an electronic component mounting
`
`apparatus, the use does not impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claimed
`
`method in selecting operating modes, because apparatus components such as cameras
`
`can be substituted for other components known in the art without materially changing
`
`the scope of the claimed mode selection steps (i.e. number of nozzles and type of
`
`imaging device do not affect the claimed setting by a controller an imaging mode).
`
`Further, there are no limitations directed toward judicially recognized
`
`improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the structure of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`the computer itself; or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an
`
`abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, the claims do not specify
`
`steps of making a machine or steps of transforming an article from one form to another,
`
`and do not specify a specific modification to a computer that performs the method,
`
`unlike Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed Cir. May 12, 2016) (Providing custom
`
`hardware specification for memory used in computing).
`
`The claims should be amended to include limitations toward the technical field.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`7.
`
`Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but
`
`does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim
`
`to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not
`
`exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim
`
`are:
`
`(A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby”
`
`clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. The clause is given weight when it provides "meaning and
`
`purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result”
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`8.
`
`Claim scope is not limited by claim language directed to content of a signal (such
`
`as an image or a mode number) but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim
`
`language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure, and thus does not require a
`
`separate reason for rejection.
`
`See, In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d
`
`1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical
`
`in structure or composition, or the claimed and prior art methods are identical or
`
`substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or
`
`obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,
`
`433 (CCPA 1977); M.P.E.P. 2112.01. While substantive rejection of such language is
`
`provided below for purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner suggests rephrasing
`
`such claim language to recite limitations corresponding to the subject matter 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.)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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:
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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
`
`lnt ’l 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.
`
`4.
`
`
`Claims 11 14 17 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over US 6211958 to Hachiya (“Hachiya”) in view of US 20040156539 to Jansson
`
`(“Jansson”) and further in view of US 6538244 to Skunes (“Skunes”) and further in view
`
`of US 7133731 to Yamazaki (“Yamazaki”). Also note Applicant admitted prior art in
`
`Specification Pages 1-3 that broadly describe elements as cited in Hachiya and Skunes.
`
`9.
`
`Regarding Claim 11: “An electronic component mounting method for
`
`mounting an electronic component on a substrate performed by an electronic
`
`component mounting apparatus,
`
`the electronic component mounting apparatus comprising: providing an
`
`electronic component mounting apparatus comprising: a 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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 claim language such as in 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, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand
`
`alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie,
`
`187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
`
`In this case while Applicant may intend the use of the claimed method with the
`
`apparatus described above, the method steps (for selecting an imaging mode based on
`
`object elements visible by each camera) stand on their own and are not limited by the
`
`specific structural elements of the intended apparatus described, i.e. use of structural
`
`elements 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`components 55 2 from the tray 3” Hachiya, Column 3, lines 51-52 and Figs. 2. “The
`
`recognizing means 8 is constructed as shown in FIG. 2, in which a line camera 11 and a
`
`shutter camera [area camera] 12 are disposed,” each having a different but overlapping
`
`field of view. Hachiya, Column 4, lines 5-7. “The control circuit for the recognizing
`
`means 8” that sets imaging and processing parameters. Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61-
`
`62. “a selecting means for selecting either the line camera or the shutter camera
`
`depending on the size or shape of the electronic component” Hachiya, Column 2, lines
`
`20-21. Also note embodiments in Jansson, Paragraphs 7 and 67-68 and statement of
`
`motivation below.)
`
`a.
`
`setting, by a controller, (“The control circuit for the recognizing means 8”
`
`that sets imaging and processing parameters. Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61-62.)
`
`b.
`
`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.)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`c.
`
`recognizing, when the imaging form is set to the first imaging mode,
`
`a whole part of the first surface of a first electronic component held by one
`
`of the plurality of nozzles, based on an image that is imaged by the first
`
`imaging element of at least one of the at least three area cameras, and
`
`recognizing a whole part of the first surface of a second electronic
`
`component that is held together with the first electronic component by
`
`another one of the plurality of nozzles, based on an image that is imaged
`
`by the second imaging element of at least one of the at least three area
`
`cameras, and (“A recognizing means 8 is provided for recognizing the position
`
`and the shape of the electronic components.” Hachiya, Column 4, lines 61 -63.)
`
`d.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/950,905
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 2483
`
`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,
`
`b