www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`14/736,817
`
`06/11/2015
`
`HideO MATSUOKA
`
`PIPMM-54594
`
`7454
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`06’2””
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`CARTER CHRISTOPHER W
`
`2118
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/25/2019
`
`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)
`
`

`

`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www,uspto,gov
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Application Number: 14/736,817
`
`Filing Date: 11 Jun 2015
`
`Appellant(s): MATSUOKA, Hideo
`
`Andrew W. Jenkins
`
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`This is in response to the appeal brief filed 3/14/2019.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/736,817
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Page 3
`
`(1) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 3/28/2018 from which the appeal
`
`is taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of rejection (if any) listed under the
`
`subheading ”WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.” New grounds of rejection (if any) are provided under the
`
`subheading "NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION."
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`With respect to Argument A detailed on pages 7-9 in the appeal brief filed on 3/14/2019, the
`
`appellant argues that the reference of Elhanan (US PGPUB 20070250201) fails to explicitly teach the
`
`limitation of,
`
`”...the data creating apparatus receives the request from the component data creation
`
`requesting unit and creates the component data regarding the alternative component by copying the
`
`component data regarding the component that is replaced with the alternative component...”.
`
`In light of the appeal brief and in view of discussions held with the appellant during an interview
`
`on 6/21/2018, the appellant argues that the claim is interpreted such that the when a component is
`
`exhausted in a pick and place machine, the component data from the component to be replaced is
`
`copied and input as the component data for the alternative component similar to a copy and paste
`
`function. The advantage and reasoning is disclosed in paragraph [0049] of the present specification in
`
`which this process is used to mitigate the need for a worker to manually input the new data which can
`
`lead to human error issues with the pick and place machining process.
`
`The office understands that the intent of the invention is to perform a direct copy and paste of
`
`all of the component data of the component to be replaced in place of the component data of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/736,817
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Page 4
`
`replacement part in the control program regardless of the parameters associated with the new part,
`
`thus overwriting information directly into memory. However, the office does not interpret the current
`
`claim language to perform the intended function.
`
`In particular, the claim recites, ”...creates the component data...by copying the component
`
`data”. This is then sent over to the controller to be used as the component information for the
`
`replacement component regardless of the replacement components specific component data. While
`
`one could interpret the instant claims as having the component data of the alternative component be a
`
`complete and direct copy of the original component, the Examiner does not believe that is the only
`
`interpretation. The Examiner has interpreted the claim such that the process of creating the alternative
`
`component data requires the data to be copied, but the claims do not preclude other steps from
`
`occurring after or before the copying. As long as the original data is copied as part of the creation
`
`process, the claim limitation is met, the claim does not require the two component data to be identical,
`
`only that a copying operation takes place during the creation of the alternate data..
`
`Pointing now to the Elhanan reference, and in particular Fig. 22 and paragraphs [0070]-[0075], a
`
`similar event occurs in which a component is exhausted in a pick and place machine and the need for a
`
`substitute component arises. In response, with reference to box 1 of Fig. 22, the system uses original
`
`component to generate generic component parameters, thus creating a copy of the original
`
`components data. The system then uses the data to select a component with the same generic
`
`component data of the original component thus replacing the part with a copy of the original. In the
`
`event there is a discrepancy, only a correction is made for the discrepancy while the rest of the
`
`component remains a copy of the original component being replaced. When a replacement part is
`
`found, the system then utilizes the generated generic component parameters in the control program
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/736,817
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Page 5
`
`regardless of the specific component data of the replacement part as the control instructions for the
`
`pick and place machine.
`
`For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/CHR|STOPHER W CARTER/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2118
`
`Conferees:
`
`/ROBERT E FENNEMA/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
`
`/BR|AN W WATHEN/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
`
`Requirement to pay appeal forwarding fee.
`
`In order to avoid dismissal of the instant appeal in any
`
`application or ex parte reexamination proceeding, 37 CFR 41.45 requires payment of an appeal
`
`forwarding fee within the time permitted by 37 CFR 41.45(a), unless appellant had timely paid the fee
`
`for filing a brief required by 37 CFR 41.20(b) in effect on March 18, 2013.
`
`