www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/403,484
`
`01/11/2017
`
`TETSUSHI OOHORI
`
`PIPMM-57105
`
`2069
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`07’1””
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`EIN~ KATHERINE Y
`
`2113
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/10/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/403,484
`Examiner
`KATHERINE LIN
`
`Applicant(s)
`OOHORI et al.
`Art Unit
`2113
`
`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 4—2—2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—20 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—17 and 19—20 is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) 13—15 and 17—18 is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* 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
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp 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)C] accepted or b)E] 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)C] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)CI All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)CI None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] 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 Date_
`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 20190703
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`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.
`
`Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 13-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four
`
`categories of patent eligible subject matter because the Claim(s) is/are drawn to software per se.
`
`Claim(s) 1 recites an apparatus comprising a component mounting line, a computer processing
`
`unit, a remote operation control unit, an error type determination unit, and a notification unit. The Spec
`
`does not have a special definition. In addition, “a computer processing unit”, not a commonly used term in
`
`the art, can be interpreted as software. As such, the noted Claim(s) is/are drawn to software per se.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-12, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over KITAMURA (U320170064101A1) in view of Foreman et al. (US 20050077639 A1), and further in
`
`view of Kodama et al. (US 20040080897 A1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`KITAMURA discloses:
`
`1. A component mounting apparatus, comprising:
`
`a computer processing unit; (100)
`
`Page 3
`
`a remote operation control unit (fig 2: remote operation terminal 300) allowing each of the one or more
`
`processing devices (fig 1 : image forming apparatuses 100) to be remotely operated via the network (fig 1 :
`
`a network 500) by the management device (fig 2: remote operation terminal 300); (par 45: a user inputs a
`
`remote operation request to the image forming apparatus 100 through the operation panel 330 of the
`
`remote operation terminal 300.)
`
`an error type determination unit (image forming apparatuses 100; control part 110) determining a type of
`
`an error occurring in the one or more processing devices (100); and (par 24: The control part 110 is
`
`provided with a remote-operation response process part 110a, a 'ob-status transmission response
`
`process part 110b; par 53: When the authentication of the user ID is ends in failure, or when the operation
`
`request from the remote operation terminal 300 is determined not to be acceptable, the remote operation
`
`response processor 110a transmits a predetermined error message to the SIP server 200; par 69: The
`
`job-status transmission response process part 110 b executes a job status transmission response
`
`process for responding to a job status transmission request from the remote operation terminal 300; par
`
`115: check all sorts of statuses detectable by the image forming apparatus 100, such as a failure status
`
`indicating whether a failure is occurred in the image forming apparatus 100)
`
`a notification unit (control part 110), by performing a notification, notifying the occurrence of the error in
`
`the one or more processing devices, (par 24: The control part 110 is provided with a remote-operation
`
`response process part 110a, a job-status transmission response process part 110b; par 69: The 'ob-
`
`status transmission response process part 110 b executes a 'ob status transmission response process for
`
`
`responding to ajob status transmission request from the remote operation terminal 300; par 115: check
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 4
`
`all sorts of statuses detectable by the image forming apparatus 100, such as a failure status indicating
`
`whether a failure is occurred in the image forming apparatus 100)
`
`wherein the error type determination unit (image forming apparatuses 100; control part 110) determines
`
`whether or not the error (failure) occurring in the one or more processing devices (fig 3: P40: User Login
`
`at image forming apparatuses 100) is a remote response error (the remote operation response processor
`
`110a transmits a predetermined error message), the remote response error... ., and (par 24: The control
`
`part 110 is provided with a remote-operation response process part 1 10a, a 'ob-status transmission
`
`response process part 110b; par 29: A user ID to identify a remote operation terminal 300 whose
`
`operation is to be permitted is stored in the user information storage area 120 a; par 53: The
`
`authentication of the user ID is carried out by determining whether the user ID set in the user information
`
`is stored in the user information storage area 120 a .....When the authentication of the user ID is ends in
`
`
`failure,... .the remote operation response processor 110a transmits a predetermined error message to the
`
`SIP server 200)
`
`wherein the notification unit (control part 110) performs the notification in a first notification pattern
`
`(remote-operation response process part 110a) in a case where the error is the remote response error
`
`(par 53: When the authentication of the user ID is ends in failure, or when the operation request from the
`
`remote operation terminal 300 is determined not to be acceptable, the remote operation response
`
`processor 110a transmits a predetermined error message to the SIP server 200) and performs the
`
`notification in a second notification pattern (job-status transmission response process part 110b) in a case
`
`where the error is not the remote response error (par 69: The 'ob-status transmission response process
`
`part 110 b executes a 'ob status transmission response process for responding to a job status
`
`transmission request from the remote operation terminal 300; par 115: check all sorts of statuses
`
`detectable by the image forming apparatus 100, such as a failure status indicating whether a failure is
`
`occurred in the image forming apparatus 100). (par 24: The control part 110 is provided with a remote-
`
`o eration res onse rocess
`
`art 110a a 'ob-status transmission res onse rocess
`
`art 110b
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 5
`
`However, KITAMURA does not explicitly disclose, while Foreman teaches:
`
`...being an error (do not match valid entries) responded to by the remote operation by the
`
`management device (par 449: a computer system located remotely at a client site) (par 477: order
`
`submitted by the user may be sent to a receiver computer .....
`
`If any of the entries do not match valid
`
`
`entries, GUI 2230 may display an error message to the user....GUl 2230 may also be configured to allow
`
`a user to alter the invalid entry; par 474: GUI 2230 may be displayed on a controller computer, a receiver
`
`computer, and/or a client computer system)
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to combine a remote operation of KITAMURA with remote login by a client computer
`
`system of Foreman. Foreman is relevant art, taking into consideration the element of claim 1 “A
`
`component mounting apparatus comprising: a component mounting line” which is part of a manufacturing
`
`apparatus and Foreman discloses a manufacturing apparatus. In addition, Foreman teaches a controller
`
`computer for remotely controlling target computers, just like Kitamura. Kitamura and Foreman both seek
`
`to recognize and mitigate errors of entry from a remote device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to combine the two references in order to avoid slow server response time.
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman does not explicitly disclose, while Kodama teaches:
`
`a component mounting line (an electronic circuit component mounting system) in which one or more
`
`processing devices (electronic circuit components) are connected to constitute the component mounting
`
`line, a management device (fig 3: 140) connected to the component mounting line by a network, and at
`
`least one of the one or more processing devices (electronic circuit components) configured to
`
`perform physical component mounting to one or more substrates (circuit substrate); (par 4)
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to combine a failure status indicating whether a failure is occurred in a machine of
`
`KITAMURA (par 16, 115) in view of Foreman with the display to indicate an occurrence of an error of an
`
`component mounting machine of Kodama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 6
`
`combine the two references in order to avoid a cumbersome modification for the process. (Kodama: par
`
`4)
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama discloses:
`
`4. The component mounting apparatus of Claim 1,
`
`.in the second notification pattern (job-status transmission response process part 110b)
`
`.the remote response error (par 53: the remote operation response processor 110a transmits a
`
`predetermined error message)
`
`the remote operation by the management device (remote operation terminal 300)
`
`.in the first notification pattern (remote-operation response process part 1 10a)
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Kodama does not explicitly disclose, while Foreman teaches:
`
`wherein the notification unit performs the notification... (error messages may be displayed) in a case
`
`where the error is
`
`.(par 144: When the machine encounters an error in these areas, the following error
`
`messages may be displayed) and the error is not eliminated even after... .is terminated (par 144: the
`
`problem continues after a system restart) afterthe notification...(error messages may be displayed).
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama discloses:
`
`5. The component mounting apparatus of Claim 1,
`
`....in the second notification pattern (job-status transmission response process part 110b)
`
`.the remote response error (par 53: the remote operation response processor 110a transmits a
`
`predetermined error message)
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Kodama does not explicitly disclose, while Foreman teaches:
`
`wherein the notification is performed... (may display an error message) in a case where the error (do not
`
`match valid entries) is... .and an input unit of the one or more processing devices (par 449: by using an
`
`user input device such as a keyboard coupled to a receiver computer) is in a state of operation during the
`
`occurrence of the error (allow a user to alter the invalid entry). (par 477: If any of the entries do not match
`
`valid entries, GUI 2230 may display an error message to the user....GUl 2230 may also be configured to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 7
`
`allow a user to alter the invalid entry; par 474: GUI 2230 may be displayed on a controller computer, a
`
`receiver computer, and/or a client computer system.)
`
`Claim(s) 6, 9-10, 12 is/are rejected as being the method implemented by the apparatus of claim(s) 1, 4-5,
`
`11 and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama discloses:
`
`11.
`
`(New) The component mounting apparatus of Claim 1,
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman does not explicitly disclose, while Kodama teaches:
`
`wherein the error that is not the remote response error is a device error responded to non-
`
`remotely on-site of the component mounting line. (fig 9: s14)
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama discloses:
`
`16. (New) The component mounting apparatus of Claim 1,
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman does not explicitly disclose, while Kodama teaches:
`
`wherein the at least one of the one or more processing devices that is configured to perform
`
`physical component mounting to one or more substrates is configured to move both components,
`
`and substrates for mounting components thereto, through a plurality of manufacturing steps
`
`resulting in at least one component mounted on at least one substrate. (par 17, 103, 177)
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama discloses:
`
`19.
`
`(New) The component mounting apparatus of Claim 11,
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman does not explicitly disclose, while Kodama teaches:
`
`wherein the error that is determined to be a device error is an error of component supply (par 304)
`
`or component drop responded to non-remotely on-site of the component mounting line.
`
`Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected as being the method implemented by the apparatus of claim(s) 19, and is/are
`
`rejected on the same grounds.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 8
`
`Claim(s) 2-3, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITAMURA
`
`(U320170064101A1) in view of Foreman et al. (US 20050077639 A1), and further in view of Kodama
`
`et al. (US 20040080897 A1), and further in view of Meinck (Master Class: The Ultimate Guide to
`
`Using the Messages App for iPhone).
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama discloses:
`
`2. The component mounting apparatus of Claim 1,
`
`the notification unit (fig 2: 110) being disposed in each of the one or more processing devices (fig 2: 100),
`
`in the first notification pattern (remote-operation response process part 110a)
`
`in the second notification pattern (job-status transmission response process part 110b)
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama does not explicitly disclose, while Meinck teaches:
`
`wherein the notification unit (Messages app) includes at least a first notification unit (p 11: text tone)
`
`performing audible expression-based notification (p 10: message tone) and a second notification unit (p
`
`12: Messages app) performing visual expression-based notification (p 12: incoming messages),...
`
`wherein,..., the notification by the second notification unit is performed without the notification by the first
`
`notification unit being performed, and (p 23: mute in messages)
`
`wherein the notification is performed by each of the first notification unit and the second notification
`
`unit ..... (p 10 and 12: incoming messages with message tones)
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to combine a status notification and a remote operation terminal as a smartphone of
`
`KITAMURA in View of Foreman and Kodama (Kitamura: paragraph 18) with notifications and iPhone of
`
`Meinck. Both Kitamura and Meinck teach user interfaces and seek to provide a user with notification of
`
`information requiring the users attention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`combine the two references in order to solve the problem of getting disturbed by alert sounds. (Meinck:
`
`par 23)
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama discloses:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 9
`
`3. The component mounting apparatus of Claim 1,
`
`in the first notification pattern (remote-operation response process part 110a)
`
`in the second notification pattern (job-status transmission response process part 110b)
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama does not explicitly disclose, while Meinck teaches:
`
`wherein the notification unit (Messages app) further includes a third notification unit (p 11: text tone)
`
`performing sound-based notification (p 10: message tone) and a fourth notification unit (p 12: Messages
`
`app) performing visual expression-based notification (p 12: incoming messages), the notification unit
`
`(Messages app) being disposed in the management device (iPhone), (p 2: The Messages app on iPhone)
`
`wherein the notification is performed by each of the third notification unit and the fourth notification unit....,
`
`and (p 10 and 12: incoming messages with message tones)
`
`wherein both the third notification unit and the fourth notification unit perform no notification ..... (p 31:
`
`block text messages)
`
`Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected as being the method implemented by the apparatus of claim(s) 2-3, and is/are
`
`rejected on the same grounds.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claim(s) 13-15, 17-18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
`
`would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and
`
`any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
`
`Response to Remarks
`
`Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 13-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim(s) is/are drawn
`
`to software per se. Although CPU was suggested by the examiner to overcome the rejection during
`
`interview, amended “computer processing unit” is not CPU. It is suggested that a “central processing unit”
`
`be amended in the claim(s).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 10
`
`Claim(s) 6-8, 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of an abstract idea. The
`
`amendments overcome the rejection under the 2019 PEG.
`
`The amendments overcome the rejection under 112(b).
`
`Applicant has amended the claims to add aspects of a component mounting line. KITAMURA
`
`does not explicitly describe this feature. Kodama discloses it in par 4.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office
`
`action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally
`
`be reached on Monday-Friday; 8 am. - 5 pm. EST.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`ArtUnh:21l3
`
`Page 11
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Bryce Bonzo can be reached on (571) 272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information 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.
`
`/KATHERINE LIN/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2113
`
`