www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`14/798,861
`
`07/14/2015
`
`Isato IWATA
`
`PIPMM-54714
`
`9049
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`03’1””
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`PIERRE LOUIS ANDRE
`
`2127
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/13/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`14/798,861
`Examiner
`ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS
`
`Applicant(s)
`IWATA et al.
`Art Unit
`2127
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`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 12/18/2018.
`[: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—10 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) fl 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 aflowabte. 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:I Some**
`
`c)CI 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 20190306
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA 0r 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.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The amendment filed on 12/ 18/2018 has been received and fully considered.
`
`Claims 1—10 are presented for examination.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`4.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2018/2018 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive. As per Applicant’s assertions that: “Amended claim I recites the step of
`
`”comparing a simulation result of the production cycle time regarding a bottleneck stage that
`
`has the longest production cycle time of the plurality of mounting apparatuses after change of
`
`the component data with a production cycle time or a simulation result of the production cycle
`
`time before change of the component data, and outputting a comparison result”. Neither of the
`
`cited references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests these limitations. ”, the Examiner
`
`respectfully notes that Kurata does provides for comparing at least a simulation result with a
`
`production cycle (see fig.29 provides for comparing at least one result to with aa production
`
`cycle, wherein when the throughput currently achieved by the mounter 22 is compared with the
`
`above target throughput (S608), and when the current throughput is faster than the target
`
`throughput (S608: current TP>target TP), acceleration is decreased (S609), and the
`
`throughput is recalculated based on the decreased acceleration. Comparison is continued where
`
`Steps S608 and S609 are repeated until the throughput that is the closest to the target throughput
`
`and not slower than the target throughput is calculated. At para 175, he states that the board
`
`inventory quantity calculating unit 305a specifies a bottleneck line, prior to displaying and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 3
`
`making his comparison, from among plural mounting lines (S32). The bottleneck line is a line
`
`that has the largest takt time among plural mounting lines, see further fig. 13, 17, para 180—181,
`
`and that combination of the cited references clearly render obvious the limitation as amended.
`
`As per Applicant’s assertion that: ”neither Kurata nor Sakamoto describes an inquiry
`
`prompting a determination of whether to employ the improvement plan for execution is output
`
`along with the improvement plan.
`
`the Examiner respectfully notes Sakamoto, used as a
`
`secondary reference in the rejection, is the same field of endeavor and clearly provides for
`
`improving production of a mounting machine including the steps of changing the component
`
`data (see abstract) and executing a simulation after changing the data (see abstract para 40, 45),
`
`wherein a comparison is made to obtain the degree of improvement in the cycle time CT and the
`
`CT difference is then outputted (see abstract, para 43—46), it displays that shortening of cycle
`
`time is possible and it can aim at the improvement of production progress by change of board
`
`data or a plan on the display part of a display/operating unit 820 (Step S87) (para 45). Sakamoto
`
`at para 09— 10, further provides for determining information relevant for the improvement which
`
`makes it easier to understand the degree of improvement to apply and notify the contents which
`
`were from among the plans under production, see further para 15, and that the combination of the
`
`cited references to Kurata and Sakamoto clearly render obvious the instant claims limitations.
`
`Claim Reiections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 4
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al.
`
`(USPG_PUB No. 2009/0099678), in View of Sakamoto (JP2013—125939A).
`
`6.1
`
`In considering claims 1, 3, and 10, Kurata et al. teaches a component mounting
`
`method in a component mounting apparatus, the method comprising:
`
`mounting, by the component mounting apparatus, a component onto a board using a plurality of
`
`pieces of production data linked to component data (see fig.], board A mounting line
`
`manufacturing 200 boards and 150 boards, respectively, see further para 13-17); changing the
`
`component data in order to suppress an operational error with respect to a component type (see
`
`para 201-202, 213-16, 227, in the case where the shipment inventory quantity exceeds the
`
`optimum inventory quantity in the simulation results displayed in $24 and where it is required to
`
`change the manufacturing condition so that the shipment inventory quantity will be within the
`
`optimum inventory quantity (YES in S48), the simulation unit 505a acquires the manufacturing
`
`condition (S42), and the processes after the mounting sequence determining process (310) are
`
`repeated by an operator inputting the manufacturing condition again with the use ofthe input
`
`unit 303. [0202] As described above, according to the system related to the third embodiment,
`
`the operator can simulate the shipment inventory by changing the conditions for the mounting
`
`line in various ways); executing, after changing the component data, a simulation of a production
`
`cycle time based on the production data (see para 27, the board manufacturing quantity
`
`managing method may also include a manufacturing condition input accepting step of accepting
`
`an input of a manufacturing condition for the mounting line, and a simulation step of causing a
`
`computer to simulate the inventory quantity of boards based on the manufacturing condition, see
`
`further para 20], which states that in the case where the shipment inventory quantity exceeds the
`
`optimum inventory quantity in the simulation results displayed in $24 and where it is required to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 5
`
`change the manufacturing condition so that the shipment inventory quantity will be within the
`
`optimum inventory quantity (YES in S48), the simulation unit 505a acquires the manufacturing
`
`condition (S42), and the processes after the mounting sequence determining process (S10) are
`
`repeated by an operator inputting the manufacturing condition again with the use ofthe input
`
`unit 303, and further para 260, 285); comparing a simulation result of the production cycle time
`
`regarding a bottleneck stage that has the longest production cycle time of the plurality of
`
`mounting apparatuses after change of the component data with a production cycle time or a
`
`simulation result of the production cycle time before change of the component data, and
`
`outputting a comparison result (see fig.29 (s608, s614, para 287-290, 299, Next, when the
`
`throughput currently achieved by the mounter 22 is compared with the above target throughput
`
`(S608), and when the current throughput isfaster than the target throughput (S608: current
`
`TP>target TP), acceleration is decreased (S609), and the throughput is recalculated based on
`
`the decreased acceleration. Steps S608 and S609 are repeated until the throughput that is the
`
`closest to the target throughput and not slower than the target throughput is calculated. [0290]
`
`On the other hand, when the current throughput is slower than the target throughput (S608:
`
`current TP<target TP), acceleration is increased (S611), and the throughput is recalculated
`
`based on the increased acceleration. In the case where the recalculated throughput exceeds the
`
`limit (S613: Y), a warning is shown in the display unit 706 (S614). At para 175, he states that the
`
`board inventory guantity calculating unit 305a specifies a bottleneck line from among plural
`
`mounting lines (S32 2. The bottleneck line is a line that has the largest takt time among plural
`
`mounting lines, see further fig. 13, 17, para 180—181); and making an improvement plan for the
`
`production cycle time as a target based on a simulation result after change of the component data
`
`(see para 28, with this configuration, since it is possible to simulate the inventory quantity in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 6
`
`advance, the operator can determine an optimum manufacturing condition. This makes it
`
`possible to reduce cost losses resulting from shipment inventory or process inventory, more
`
`specifically, the apparatus of Kurata continuously adjusts the throughput. The apparatus first
`
`acquires and sets initial data, such as the number of boards to be manufactured, the time to start
`
`manufacturing and the time to terminate manufacturing (see para [0276]). This information
`
`constitutes production data. The apparatus then starts manufacturing, i.e. mounting boards on
`
`components (para. [0278]). Then the number of boards to be manufactured is calculated (para.
`
`[0279]). Then the target throughput (i. e. which is based on cycle time) is calculated (see para
`
`[0285]). The current throughput is compared with the target throughput and adjustments are
`
`made, such as increasing or decreasing the mounting acceleration (i. e. speed). Various
`
`issues, such as downstream checking of the boards determining that some boards are defective,
`
`or interruptions in manufacturing (see para [028]]-[0284]) can cause the number ofboards to
`
`be produced to be updated. This causes a change in the target throughput, which causes a
`
`mounting speed change (i. e. change in component data ), and outputting the improvement plan
`
`(see para 29-30, it is preferable that the board inventory quantity simulation method should
`
`further include a graph display step of displaying, as a graph, the transition of the simulated
`
`inventory quantity ofboards. With this configuration, the operator can tell at a glance whether
`
`or not the inventory quantity is optimum, see further para 27], 290).
`
`While Kurata at para 184 states that in S20 of FIG. 17 the mounting takt time level for the
`
`current line is lowered, but he does not specifically teach that a production cycle time
`
`improvement degree is outputted. Sakamoto discloses a method for improving production of a
`
`mounting machine including the steps of changing the component data (see abstract) and
`
`executing a simulation after changing the data (see para 40, 45), wherein a comparison is made
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 7
`
`to obtain a degree of improvement in the cycle time CT and the CT difference is then outputted
`
`(see para 43—46).
`
`Kurata and Sakamoto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and
`
`that the model analyzes by Sakamoto is similar to that of Kurata. Therefore it would have been
`
`obvious at the time of filing of the Applicant’s invention to combine the method of Sakamoto
`
`with that of Kurata because Sakamoto teaches production progress improvement (see para 46).
`
`6.2
`
`As per claims 2 and 4, the combined teachings of Kurata et al. and Sakamoto
`
`teach that wherein the improvement plan includes at least one of a change of an operation
`
`sequence of a component mounting operation in which the component is extracted by a suction
`
`nozzle and mounted onto the board, a change in component arrangement in a component supply
`
`section, an addition of a suction nozzle type to be used, and an exchange of a component
`
`arrangement between plural component mounting apparatuses, in the component mounting
`
`apparatus (para 277, 300, this information constitutes production data. The apparatus then starts
`
`manufacturing, i.e. mounting boards on components (see Kutata para. [0278]). Then the number
`
`of boards to be manufactured is calculated (see Kurata para. [0279]). Then the target throughput
`
`(i.e. which is based on cycle time) is calculated (see Kutata para [0285]). The current throughput
`
`is compared with the target throughput and adjustments are made, such as increasing or
`
`decreasing the mounting acceleration (i.e. speed). Various issues, such as downstream checking
`
`of the boards determining that some boards are defective, or interruptions in manufacturing (see
`
`Kurata para [0281]—[0284]) can cause the number of boards to be produced to be updated. This
`
`causes a change in the target throughput, which causes a mounting speed change (i.e. change in
`
`component data).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 8
`
`6.3
`
`As per claim 5, the combined teachings of Kurata et al. and Sakamoto teach that
`
`wherein the operational error comprises a suction error or a mounting position shift with respect
`
`to the component (see Kurata para 290, in the case where the recalculated throughput exceeds the
`
`limit (S613: Y), a warning is shown in the display unit 706 ($614)).
`
`6.4 With regards to claim 6, the combined teachings of Kurata et al. and Sakamoto
`
`teach that wherein the component data comprises a component shape of the component,
`
`component related information indicating a size, a number of leads, lead width and length, and
`
`mounting operation condition information that regulates mounting operation conditions of the
`
`component in the component mounting apparatus (see Kurata para 116, 129, the component
`
`library 307b is a library which collects specific information about every component type that the
`
`mounter 22 can deal with, and, as shown in FIG. 10, includes: a component size of each
`
`component type; takt time (the takt time specific to each of the component types under given
`
`conditions) and other restriction information (such as a usable type ofpickup nozzle, a
`
`recognizing method by the component recognizing camera 126, and the maximum speed level for
`
`the multiple mounting head 12]), Kurata para [0247], Specifically, this mounter 22 serves as: a
`
`mounter which can mount a variety of electronic components, from a small component to a
`
`connector; a multi-fimction mounter which can mount a large electronic component equal to and
`
`more than 10 mm in length and width, an irregularly-shaped component such as a switch and a
`
`connector, and an IC components such as a Quad Flat Package (QFP) and a Ball Grid Array
`
`(BGA); an apparatus in which the multiple head unit 110 can hold plural electronic components
`
`at a time and transport them from the component supply unit 115 to a point above the board; and
`
`a high-speed mounter which can mount the components at high speed by reducing the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 9
`
`reciprocation frequency of the multiple head unit 110 between the component supply unit 115
`
`and the point above the board).
`
`6.5
`
`Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of Kurata et al. and Sakamoto teach
`
`that wherein the mounting operation condition information comprises a nozzle type indicating
`
`the type of the suction nozzle corresponding to the type of the component, a suction speed or a
`
`mounting speed that regulates the speed of the component mounting operation, and imaging
`
`conditions including a camera type and an illumination condition used in imaging the component
`
`by a component recognizing camera (see Kurata para 116, 129, the component library 307b is a
`
`library which collects specific information about every component type that the mounter 22 can
`
`deal with, and, as shown in FIG. 10, includes: a component size of each component type; takt
`
`time (the takt time specific to each of the component types under given conditions) and other
`
`restriction information (such as a usable type ofpickup nozzle, a recognizing method by the
`
`component recognizing camera 126, and the maximum speed level for the multiple mounting
`
`head 121), para [0247], Specifically, this mounter 22 serves as: a mounter which can mount a
`
`variety of electronic components, from a small component to a connector; a multi-function
`
`mounter which can mount a large electronic component equal to and more than 10 mm in length
`
`and width, an irregularly-shaped component such as a switch and a connector, and an IC
`
`components such as a Quad Flat Package (QFP) and a Ball Grid Array (BGA); an apparatus in
`
`which the multiple head unit 110 can hold plural electronic components at a time and transport
`
`them from the component supply unit 115 to a point above the board; and a high-speed mounter
`
`which can mount the components at high speed by reducing the reciprocation frequency of the
`
`multiple head unit 110 between the component supply unit 115 and the point above the board).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 10
`
`6.6 With regards to claims 8—9, the combined teachings of Kurata et al. and Sakamoto
`
`teach that wherein an inquiry prompting a determination of whether to employ the improvement
`
`plan for execution is output along with the improvement plan (Sakamoto provides for improving
`
`production of a mounting machine including the steps of changing the component data (see
`
`abstract) and executing a simulation after changing the data (see abstract para 40, 45), wherein
`
`a comparison is made to obtain the degree ofimprovement in the cycle time CT and the CT
`
`difi‘erence is then outputted (see abstract, para 43-46), it displays that shortening of cycle time is
`
`possible and it can aim at the improvement ofproduction progress by change of board data or a
`
`plan on the display part ofa display/operating unit 820 (Step S87) (para 45). Sakamoto atpara
`
`09-10, further provides for determining information relevant for the improvement which makes it
`
`easier to understand the degree of improvement to apply and notify the contents which were from
`
`among the plans under production, see further para 15). Therefore it would have been obvious
`
`at the time of filing of the Applicant’s invention to combine the method of Sakamoto with that of
`
`Kurata because Sakamoto teaches production progress improvement (see para 46).
`
`Claim Obiections
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 1
`
`and 3 recite the phrase “. .. of the plurality of mounting apparatuses. . .”, however, no plurality
`
`of apparatuses was previously recited by the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`M
`
`8.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 11
`
`8.1
`
`Sidner et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2011/0270429) teaches an advanced production
`
`planning system for allocating production capacity to meet a demand includes a demand
`
`receiver, a demand consolidator, a capacity balancer, and a planning module.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1—10 are rejected and 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 action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE—MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing
`
`date of this final action.
`
`10.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272—
`
`8636. The examiner can normally be reached on M—F 8:00 AM—5:00 PM.
`
`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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571—272—2279. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/798,861
`Art Unit: 2127
`
`Page 12
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/
`
`Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127
`March 7, 2019
`
`