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
`
`10/25/2019
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`EIN~ KATHERINE Y
`
`2113
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/25/2019
`
`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)
`
`

`

`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 10—10—2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`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—21 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) fl is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—12 and 17—21 is/are rejected.
`
`CIaim(s)13iis/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`E] 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
`
`httpfiwww.”smogovmatentszinit_events[pph[index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredhack@g§ptg.ggv.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)D The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)C] accepted or b)I:] objected to by the Examiner.
`11):] The drawing(s) filed on
`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)U Some**
`
`c)U None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`21:] 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)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`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 20191018
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`KITAMURA (US20170064101A1) 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 Cui (US 20150112485 A1).
`
`KITAMURA discloses:
`
`1. A component mounting apparatus, comprising:
`
`a central processing unit; (100)
`
`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.)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 3
`
`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 1 10 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 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)
`
`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, (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 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 4
`
`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), and (par 24: The control part 110 is provided with a
`
`remote-o eration res onse rocess art110a a'ob-status transmission res onse rocess art110b
`
`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 (controller computer) (fig 42: controller computer 2002 and receiver computer 2006;
`
`par 466: The GUI preferably displays controller and/or receiver computer data requests and responses;
`
`par 477: If any of the entries do not match valid entries, GUI 2230 may display an error message to the
`
`user; par 474: GUI 2230 may be displayed on...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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 5
`
`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 onsite service visits by performing remote
`
`operations from the management device (KITAMU RA: fig 2).
`
`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
`
`combine the two references in order to avoid a cumbersome modification and time-consuming for the
`
`process (Kodama: par 4), and avoid onsite service visits by performing remote operations from the
`
`management device (KITAMURA: fig 2).
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama does not explicitly disclose, while Cui teaches:
`
`an error of a board position deviation error imaged and recognized by a board recognition
`
`camera, or a component recognition error imaged and recognized by a component recognition
`
`camera. (par 1-2, 117, 120: first sentence)
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to combine remote operations of KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama with
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 6
`
`remote operations of Cui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two
`
`references in order to re-evaluate all the conditions are qualified. (Cui: par 86-90)
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama and Cui 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 110a)
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Kodama and Cui 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 (par 144: the problem continues after a system restart)
`
`after the notification (error messages may be displayed).
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama and Cui 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 and Cui 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, 18, 20 is/are rejected as being the method implemented by the apparatus of claim(s)
`
`1, 4-5, 11, 17, 19 and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama and Cui discloses:
`
`11.
`
`(New) The component mounting apparatus of Claim 1,
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Cui 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 and Cui discloses:
`
`17.
`
`(Previously presented) The component mounting apparatus of Claim 1,
`
`wherein the error determined to be a remote response error
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama does not explicitly disclose, while Cui teaches:
`
`an error of component supply or an error in component positioning determined via component monitoring.
`
`KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama and Cui discloses:
`
`19.
`
`(New) The component mounting apparatus of Claim 11,
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Cui 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.
`
`KITAMURA discloses:
`
`21. (New) A component mounting apparatus, comprising:
`
`a central processing unit; (100)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 8
`
`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 1 10 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 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)
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 9
`
`at image forming apparatuses 100) is an error (the remote operation response processor 110a transmits
`
`a predetermined error message), (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 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 1 10) performs the notification in a first notification pattern
`
`(remote-operation response process part 110a) in a case where the error is the 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 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),
`
`and (par 24: The control part 110 is provided with a remote-operation response process part 110a, a 'ob-
`
`status transmission response process part 1 10b)
`
`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 (controller computer) (fig 42: controller computer 2002 and receiver computer 2006;
`
`par 466: The GUI preferably displays controller and/or receiver computer data requests and responses;
`
`par 477: If any of the entries do not match valid entries, GUI 2230 may display an error message to the
`
`user; par 474: GUI 2230 may be displayed on...a receiver computer, and/or a client computer system)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 10
`
`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 ofa 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 onsite service visits by performing remote
`
`operations from the management device (KITAMU RA: fig 2).
`
`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
`
`combine the two references in order to avoid a cumbersome modification and time-consuming for the
`
`process (Kodama: par 4), and avoid onsite service visits by performing remote operations from the
`
`management device (KITAMURA: fig 2).
`
`However, KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama does not explicitly disclose, while Cui teaches:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 11
`
`an error of component supply or an error in component positioning determined via
`
`component monitoring. (par 1-2, 117, 120: first sentence)
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to combine remote operations of KITAMURA in view of Foreman and Kodama with
`
`remote operations of Cui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two
`
`references in order to re-evaluate all the conditions are qualified. (Cui: par 86-90)
`
`Claim(s) 2-3, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITAMURA
`
`(US20170064101A1) 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 Cui (US 20150112485 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 and Cui 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 and Cui 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), 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)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 12
`
`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 and Cui (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 and Cui discloses:
`
`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 and Cui 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 13
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claim(s) 13-15 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.
`
`Foreign priority under 35 USC119 is acknowledged in PTO-326.
`
`Response to Remarks
`
`Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-5, 11, 13-17, 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101, the amendments
`
`overcome the rejection.
`
`Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`The Remarks state, “the errors disclosed in Kitamura...These errors are not remote response
`
`errors - errors in the processing device that can be responded to by a remote operation via the network
`
`by the management device. Foreman’s error processing is related to an error message in response to an
`
`invalid order for creating an eyeglass lens, and not to an error of the processing device (eyeglass lens
`
`forming apparatus) itself.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Foreman discloses controller
`
`computer 2002 and receiver computer 2006 in fig 42. Foreman discloses GUI may be displayed on a
`
`receiver computer in par 474. The GUI preferably displays controller computer data responses in par 466.
`
`Foreman’s invalid entries are errors in the receiver computer that are responded to via the network (fig
`
`42: 2004) by the controller computer in lens forming apparatus 2000.
`
`The Remarks state, “No notification is contemplated for remote response errors, which are not
`
`discussed. Moreover, nothing in the references suggests that handling of operation-request errors
`
`(Kitamura/Foreman) would apply to errors of a processing device (Kodama), or vice versa.” However, the
`
`examiner respectfully disagrees. Kitamura in view of Foreman discloses notification is contemplated for a
`
`remote response error, while Kodama discloses indicating an occurrence of an error of a component
`
`mounting machine.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/403,484
`Art Unit: 2113
`
`Page 14
`
`The Remarks state, “the claimed apparatus determining and notifying whether an error is a
`
`remote response error still would not result...there still is no motivation in the references for modifying
`
`Kodama’s device to perform notification for a remote response error. That is, Kodama only is concerned
`
`with notification for errors responded to on-site and makes no mention of an error that may be responded
`
`to remotely via the network by the management device.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
`
`Kitamura discloses determining and notifying whether an error is a remote response error in par 24, 29,
`
`53, 69. Foreman teaches an error that may be responded to remotely via the network by the management
`
`device in fig 42, par 466. Kodama, indicating an occurrence of an error of a component mounting
`
`machine, discloses processing devices and a management device are connected to the component
`
`mounting line in fig 3, par 4.
`
`Conclusion
`
`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.
`
`lf 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 Retrie