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
`
`15/485,774
`
`04/12/2017
`
`Hirokazu TAKEHARA
`
`PIPMM-57388
`
`9993
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`””9””
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`ROSS~ SCOTTM
`
`3623
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/19/2019
`
`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)
`
`

`

`017/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/485,774
`Examiner
`SCOTT M ROSS
`
`Applicant(s)
`TAKEHARA et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3623
`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 15 August 2019.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) D 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 Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`8)
`Claim(s 120 Is/are rejected
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. 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)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)[] accepted or b)l:] 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)D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)l:i 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.
`
`3D 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) [3 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] 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 20191122
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`This is a Final Office Action. In response to Non-Final on 05/16/19, Applicant, on
`
`08/15/19, amended claims 1-3, 11-13, and 15. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and
`
`rejected below.
`
`Priority
`
`1.
`
`Applicant is claiming Foreign priority to Foreign Application JAPAN 2016-087716
`
`filed on 04/26/2016.
`
`2.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of some certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR
`
`1.55.
`
`3.
`
`Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.
`
`119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the
`
`foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41 .154(b) and
`
`41 .202(e).
`
`Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded
`
`for the non-English application.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 112
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.7The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing
`out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
`invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 112 (pI'C-AIA), second paragraph:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 3
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre—AIA), second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
`
`matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the applicant regards as the
`
`invention.
`
`Claim 3, 2nd limitation, recites “judges” and “judging unit”. Judging can indicate that an
`
`opinion is being formed or a conclusion. Judging does not always produce the same result since
`
`it opinion based. Thus, rendering “judging” to be subjective. For the purposes of examination,
`
`Examiner is interpreting “judging” to mean the comparison of two values. Appropriate
`
`correction or clarification is required.
`
`Response to Argument
`
`Previous 112 indefiniteness rejections to Claims 1-2 and 4-20 with respect to
`
`“judging” are withdrawn based on current amendments to Claim 1.
`
`Previous 112 rejections relating to written description failing to disclose
`
`corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to link the
`
`structure, material, or acts to the function with respect to "a production-capacity
`
`estimator that estimates", "a judging unit that judges", and "a determiner that
`
`determines," are withdrawn based on Applicant’s citation to Specification, Figure 3, to
`
`the management computer 3.
`
`35 USC 101
`
`Applicant argues that “assembly boards being produced in a component
`
`mounting line according to an assignment of operators” recites a “transformation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 4
`
`resulting from the alleged abstract idea and are directed to significantly more than the
`
`alleged abstract idea.
`
`Examiner responds, “producing the assembly boards in the first component
`
`mounting line according to the assignment of operators” further describes worker
`
`assignment relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
`
`between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
`
`and thus further describes the abstract idea.
`
`However, even if the limitation were considered an additional element under Step
`
`2A Prong 2- the limitation would not be considered a transformation. See 2106.05(c)
`
`-
`
`Particular Transformation [R-08.2017] — Where a transformation is recited in a claim,
`
`the following factors are relevant to the significantly more analysis:
`
`1. The particularity or generality of the transformation. According to the Supreme
`
`Court, an invention comprising a process of "‘tanning, dyeing, making waterproof
`
`cloth, vulcanizing India rubber [or] smelting ores’... are instances... where the use
`
`of chemical substances or physical acts, such as temperature control, changes
`
`articles or materials [in such a manner that is] sufficiently definite to confine the
`
`patent monopoly within rather definite bounds." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.
`
`63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) (discussing Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (56
`
`U.S.) 252, 267-68 (1854)). Therefore, a more particular transformation would
`
`likely provide significantly more.
`
`Examiner notes “producing” is broadly recited and thus the assembly boards receive a
`
`very general transformation.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 5
`
`2. The degree to which the recited article is particular. A transformation applied to a
`
`generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception. A transformation that can be
`
`specifically identified, or that applies to only particular articles, is more likely to
`
`provide significantly more.
`
`Examiner notes the assembly boards is a generically recited article.
`
`3. The nature of the transformation in terms of the type or extent of change in state
`
`or thing. A transformation resulting in the transformed article having a different
`
`function or use, would likely provide significantly more, but a transformation
`
`resulting in the transformed article merely having a different location, would likely
`
`not provide significantly more. For example, a process that transforms raw,
`
`uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as
`
`
`discussed in O‘*‘*\, 450 U.S. 175, 184, 209 USPQ 1, 21 (1981)),
`
`
`provides significantly more.
`
`Examiner notes “producing...the assembly boards in the first component mounting line
`
`according to the assignment of operators” is broadly recited and the nature (type or
`
`extent of change in state or thing) is unknown.
`
`4. The nature of the article transformed. Transformation of a physical or tangible
`
`object or substance is more likely to provide significantly more than the
`
`transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental
`
`judgment.
`
`The assembly boards are physical obiects; however - the other four factors in the
`
`analysis weigh against a transformation.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 6
`
`5. Whether the transformation is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use (i.e., the
`
`extent to which (or how) the transformation imposes meaningful limits on the
`
`execution of the claimed method steps). A transformation that contributes only
`
`nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data
`
`gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. For
`
`example, in x the Supreme Court found claims regarding calibrating the proper
`
`dosage of thiopurine drugs to be patent ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit
`
`had held that the step of administering the thiopurine drug demonstrated a
`
`transformation of the human body and blood.
`
`\ 566 U.S. at 76, 101 USPQZd at
`
`
`1967. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that this step was only a field-of-use
`
`limitation and did not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. ld. See
`
`
`
`& (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity
`
`and field of use, respectively.
`
`Thus, the “producing” limitation would be considered extra-solution activity because,
`
`under BRI, “producing...assembly boards in a component mounting line according to an
`
`assignment” is well known. See 2106.05lg)
`
`Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity |R-
`
`08.2017|. When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-
`
`solution activit
`
`examiners ma consider the followin :
`
`1 Whether the extra-solution
`
`limitation is well known. See Kodama, Background Art - 0002- An electronic circuit is
`
`assembled by using various substrate-related-operation performing machines. Those
`
`substrate-related-operation performing machines are, for example, a solder printing
`
`machine that prints solder cream on a circuit substrate; an adhesive applying machine
`
`that applies adhesive to a circuit substrate; and a component mounting machine that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 7
`
`mounts circuit components such as electronic components on a circuit substrate. Those
`
`substrate-related-operation performing machines need various assisting works that are
`
`carried out by workers). Thus, producing the assembly boards in the first component
`
`mounting line according to the assignment of operators” is not considered to be a
`
`transformation.
`
`With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application — the
`
`limitation “producing the assembly boards in the first component mounting line
`
`according to the assignment of operators” further describes worker assignment relating
`
`to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
`
`(including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and thus further
`
`describes the abstract idea. However, even if the “producing” limitation were
`
`considered an additional element, under Step 2A Prong 2. the “producing the assembly
`
`boards in the first component mounting line according to the assignment of operators”
`
`would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this additional
`
`element would be considered extra-solution activity because, See
`
`2106.05(g)
`
`Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-08.2017]. When determining
`
`whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may
`
`consider the following:
`
`(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known: Under
`
`BRI, “producing...assembly boards in a component mounting line according to an
`
`assignment” is well known. See Kodama, Background Art - 0002- An electronic circuit
`
`is assembled by using various substrate-related-operation performing machines. Those
`
`substrate-related-operation performing machines are, for example, a solder printing
`
`machine that prints solder cream on a circuit substrate; an adhesive applying machine
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 8
`
`that applies adhesive to a circuit substrate; and a component mounting machine that
`
`mounts circuit components such as electronic components on a circuit substrate.
`
`Those substrate-related-operation performing machines need various assisting works
`
`that are carried out by workers). Thus, “producing the assembly boards in the first
`
`component mounting line according to the assignment of operators” does not integrate
`
`the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`Applicant argues, “None of the cited references estimate production capacity
`
`based on operator information.”
`
`Examiner responds the claim does not require production capacity to be
`
`estimated based on operator information:
`
`The claim recites, “a production-capacity estimator that estimates, based on a_t
`
`least one of the floor-disposition information, the production-lot information, the event
`
`information, the operator information, and the production-plan information, a production
`
`capacity of the first component mounting line for producing the assembly boards
`
`according to the production plan.”
`
`Applicant argues, “Moreover, none of the cited references assign one or more
`
`operators to devices if it is determined that an estimated production capacity is equal to
`
`or greater than a target production capacity....lt is submitted that a combination of the
`
`above-cited references - without taking the teachings of the present application into
`
`account - would only have led one skilled in the art to add more machines to a process
`
`if an estimated production goal was less than a target production goal. There is nothing
`
`in any of the cited references that discloses, teaches, or suggests assigning operators
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 9
`
`to a machine when it is determined that an estimated production capacity is equal to or
`
`greater than a target production capacity, as required by the present claims.”
`
`In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one
`
`cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
`
`are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
`
`USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986).
`
`Examiner responds as stated in 103 Rejection, Kodama’s determines a
`
`responsible worker at Figure 13, 863, 0134-0135. The simultaneous work is
`
`determined in the previous step, S62, 0134, 0137. The simultaneous work that is
`
`determined is considered to be the “production capacity being equal to or greater than
`
`the target production capacity.”
`
`Kodama teaches:
`
`a determiner that determines one or more operators out of the plurality of
`
`operators to be assigned to the plurality of first component-mounting-related devices
`
`based on the operator information (Kodama: Paragraphs [01341-[0135], “At Step $63,
`
`the computer determines, based on the pre-set worker information and the
`
`current worker information, a responsible worker to carry out the recovering work
`
`as the objective work.”; Figure 13, element $63)
`
`in a case where the judging unit judges that the estimated production capacity is
`
`equal to or greater than the target production capacity (Kodama: Figure 13, elements
`
`S62 and S67;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 10
`
`Kodama, 0134 - If the urgency degree is “L”, a negative iudgment is made
`
`at Step S61, and the control goes to Step S62 to determine simultaneous works.
`
`More specifically described, at Step S62, the computer searches for one or more
`
`supplying works whose recommended arrival times fall within a pre-set time
`
`duration following a time of occurrence of the recovering work, which need
`
`stopping of the operation of the substrate-related-operation performing machine
`
`10 as the obiect of the recovering work, and which can be simultaneously carried
`
`out by other workers than a responsible worker for the recovering work. For
`
`example, regarding the recovering work E1, a work-object code of the work E1 is
`
`C-XY-4N3, and one or more supplying works that can be carried out
`
`simultaneously with the work E1 are works that need stopping of the operation of
`
`the general-purpose component mounting machine 10XY of the substrate-related-
`
`operation performing group 120 (hereinafter, abbreviated to the “machine C-XY”).
`
`More specifically described, the computer searches, in the supplying work list,
`
`for a supplying work whose recommended arrival time is subseguent to 00'40"
`
`obtained by adding a margin time (e.g., 30 seconds), such as a movement time, to
`
`the time (00'10") of occurrence of the work E1 and falls within the pre-set time
`
`leg, 5 minutes) following the occurrence time, and which needs stopping of the
`
`operation of the machine C-XY. Conseguently the computer determines, as a
`
`simultaneous work for the work E1, the work N5 (C-XY-411) whose recommended
`
`
`arrival time is 02'40". In this case a recoverin work e.
`.
`the work E1 and a
`
`different assistin work e.
`
`. the work N5 are determined asa luralit of
`
`simultaneous works for each other. In the case where the computer searches and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 11
`
`finds a plurality of supplying works each of which can gualify as a simultaneous
`
`work, one of those supplying works that has the earliest time to carry out is
`
`finally determined as a simultaneous work. On the other hand, in the case where
`
`the computer cannot find any supplying works that can qualify as a simultaneous
`
`work or works, no simultaneous work is determined.).
`
`Paragraph [0137], “At Step $67, the computer informs a responsible worker
`
`for the substrate-related-operation performing machine 10 the operation of which
`
`has been stopped because of its failure, of a fact that the assignment of a
`
`supplying work to that machine 10 is canceled, and additionally updates the
`
`current worker information file and the supplying work list.” Where the
`
`simultaneous work (i.e. S62) is considered to be the production capacity being
`
`equal to or greater than the target production capacity.
`
`Yet, Kodama does not teach:
`
`a judging unit that judges Whether or not the estimated production capacity is
`
`equal to or greater than a predetermined_target production capacity; and
`
`...in a case where the judging unit judges that the estimated production capacity
`
`is equal to or greater than the target production capacity
`
`However, in the same field of endeavor, Talmaki teaches:
`
`a judging unit that judges Whether or not the estimated production capacity is
`
`equal to or greater than a predetermined target production capacity (Talmaki:
`
`Paragraph [0059], “ If the overall performance at the work area 106 as well as the
`
`performance of any individual tasks or machines 10 that are being measured are
`
`outside of the expected ranges at decision stage 88, the controller 111 may determine
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 12
`
`at decision stage 89 whether the performance is above or below the expected range”;
`
`Paragraph [0060], “ f the performance is above the expected range at decision stage
`
`89, the controller 111 may determine at stage 90 (FIG. 7)”); and
`
`in a case where the judging unit judges that the estimated production capacity is
`
`equal to or greater than the target production capacity (Talmaki: Paragraph [0059], “If
`
`the overall performance at the work area 106 as well as the performance of any
`
`individual tasks or machines 10 that are being measured are outside of the expected
`
`ranges at decision stage 88, the controller 111 may determine at decision stage 89
`
`whether the performance is above or below the expected range”; Paragraph [0060], “ If
`
`the performance is above the expected range at decision stage 89, the controller 111
`
`may determine at stage 90 (FIG. 7)”).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kodama’s work
`
`management apparatus in view of Sato’s system for assisting in management of
`
`packaging plant to incorporate a judging unit that judges whether or not the estimated
`
`production capacity is equal to or greater than a predetermined target production
`
`capacity; and in a case where the judging unit judges that the estimated production
`
`capacity is equal to or greater than the target production capacity as taught by Talmaki.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications
`
`in order to monitor operations and re-allocating machines as necessary (Talmaki:
`
`Paragraph [0001]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 13
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
`manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
`improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 us. C. 101 because the claimed invention
`
`is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or
`
`an abstract idea) without significantly more.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1 -20 are directed to an
`
`abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the
`
`abstract idea.
`
`With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, the claims recite an
`
`abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations reciting functionality that
`
`“optimizes assignment of an operator executing a work for producing assembly
`
`boards in the first component mounting line...”
`
`“estimates, based on at least one of the floor-disposition information, the
`
`production-lot information, the event information, the operator information, and the
`
`production-plan information, a production capacity of the first component mounting line
`
`for producing the assembly boards according to the production plan”
`
`“compares the estimated production capacity with a predetermined target
`
`production capacity”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 14
`
`“determines one or more operators out of the plurality of operators to be
`
`assigned to the plurality of first component-mounting-related devices based on the
`
`operator information...”
`
`“and wherein the assembly boards are produced in the first component mounting
`
`line according to the assignment of operators.”
`
`The elements identified above recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the identified
`
`elements recite an abstract idea relating to certain methods of organizing human activity
`
`because the claimed functions describe worker management and assignment which are
`
`related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
`
`(including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, the
`H II
`claimed ”estimating comparing” and determining” steps describe mental processes
`
`because the steps amount to no more than performing observations or evaluations or
`
`judgments that can be practically performed in the mind. The final limitation, “and
`
`wherein the assembly boards are produced in the first component mounting line
`
`according to the assignment of operators” further describes worker assignment relating
`
`to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
`
`(including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and thus further
`
`describes the abstract idea.
`
`Similarly, claims 2-10 recite the abstract concept identified above. Specifically,
`
`the claim elements of claims 2-10 further describe worker management and assignment
`
`including re-estimating and re-assigning (Claims 2 and 3), determining one or more
`
`assignment ranges (Claim 4), and recite certain methods of organizing human activity
`
`as well as mental processes for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 15
`
`1. Furthermore, the multiplication performed in Claim 7 indicates that the claimed
`
`elements recite a mathematical concept associated with multiplying a maximum
`
`production capacity by a predetermined coefficient equal to or less than 1.
`
`As a result, claims 2-10 recite an abstract idea related to certain methods of
`
`organizing human activity under Step 2A Prong One.
`
`With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not include additional
`
`elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes
`
`various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of
`
`the framework. These additional elements include a “first component mounting line that
`
`includes a plurality of first component-mounting-related devices coupled to one another
`” II
`H
`II
`and placed on a floor... including a component mounter, management apparatus , a
`H H
`H II
`H II
`
`memory,
`
`a production-capacity estimator,
`
`a judging unit,
`
`a determiner.” When
`
`considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that “management
`H
`II
`J! ”
`” II
`
`apparatus , a memory,
`
`a production-capacity estimator,
`
`a judging unit,” “a
`
`determiner” are not additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical
`
`application because these elements are generic computing elements performing
`
`generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea
`
`on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the “first component mounting line
`
`that includes a plurality of first component-mounting-related devices coupled to one
`
`another and placed on a floor... including a component mounter,” are not additional
`
`elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these
`
`elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
`
`environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 16
`
`.As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that would integrate the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
`
`Claims 2-5 and 7-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited
`
`with respect to claim 1. Claim 6 recites “a second component mounting line including a
`
`plurality of second component-mounting-related devices coupled to one another is
`
`placed on the floor, the plurality of second component-mounting-related devices
`
`including a component mounter.” These additional elements do not integrate the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application because these elements generally link the use
`
`of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP
`
`2106.05(h).
`
`As a result, claims 2-10 do not include additional elements that would integrate
`
`the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same
`
`reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
`
`With respect to Step 28 of the framework, the claims do not include additional
`
`elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim
`
`1 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A
`
`Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include a “first component
`
`mounting line that includes a plurality of first component-mounting-related devices
`
`coupled to one another and placed on a floor... including a component mounter,”
`”
`II
`” H
`H II
`
`“management apparatus , a memory,
`
`a production-capacity estimator,
`
`a judging
`ll
`
`”
`
`unit,” “a determiner.” Examiner submits that the “management apparatus , a memory,”
`” II
`
`”a production-capacity estimator,
`
`a judging unit,” “a determiner.” do not amount to
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea because these elements are generic computing
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/485,774
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`Page 17
`
`elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to
`
`apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The “memory that
`
`stores” further recites insignificant extrasolution activities to the judicial exception for
`
`storing data. The “first component mounting line that includes a plurality of first
`
`component-mounting-related devices coupled to one another and placed on a
`
`floor... including a component mounter,” do not amount to significantly more than the
`
`abstract idea because these elements because these elements generally link the use of
`
`the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP
`
`2106.05(h). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination
`
`adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements
`
`individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea under Step ZB.
`
`As noted above, claims 2-5 and 7-10 do not include any additional elements
`
`beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 2-5 and 7-10 do not
`
`include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under
`
`Step ZB for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
`
`Claim 6 recites “a second component mounting line including a plurality of
`
`second component-mounting-related devices coupled to one another is placed on the
`
`floor, the plurality of second component-mounting-related devices including a
`
`component mounter” which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
`
`because these elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular
`
`technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, looking at
`
`the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/