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
`
`15/700,401
`
`09/11/2017
`
`HIROYOSHI NISHIDA
`
`PIPMM-58001
`
`9503
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`01’1“”
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`SKRZYCKI, JONATHAN MICHAEL
`
`2118
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/ 14/2020
`
`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.
`15/700,401
`Examiner
`JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI
`
`Applicant(s)
`NISHIDA, HIROYOSHI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2118
`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 08/01/2019.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] 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 Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1—6 and 8—9 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1 —6 and 8—9 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)
`
`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 20191216
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claims 1-6 and 8-9 (filed 08/01/2019) have been considered in this action.
`
`Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 2—6 have been presented in the same
`
`format as previously presented. Claim 9 is newly added. Claim 7 is canceled.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee
`
`set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since
`
`this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the
`
`fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous
`
`Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
`
`submission filed on 08/01/2019 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 08/01/2019 have been fully considered but
`
`they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Sun does not teach the
`
`claimed invention because Sun is using a simulation, and ”This is not done in real
`
`time — i.e., during the actual manufacturing process.”.
`
`In response to applicant's
`
`argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the real—
`
`time execution) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are
`
`interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not
`
`read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQZd 1057 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that the ”real—time” implementation of the
`
`invention is not actually claimed by the applicant, and because of this, opens the
`
`claims up to broader interpretation.
`
`It is further noted that Sun teaches that the simulation is used to create a
`
`schedule which includes optimized values of buffer thresholds, those buffer
`
`thresholds are then used in the actual act of running the plant (i.e. in real—time)
`
`once the schedule is implemented. So, while the schedules are determined
`
`beforehand, including threshold values for buffers, once implemented those
`
`thresholds are what is actually used by the plant to determine when the slow or
`
`stop of the plant is implemented, as described in paragraphs [0018—0023]. As
`
`previously noted by the examiner, Sun states ”[0022] a set of threshold values for
`
`a buffer level ratio (Le, a ratio of a buffer level to a buffer capacity of a buffer 18)
`
`is defined to determine the control actions for the stations 16. In an embodiment,
`
`the range of threshold values for a buffer 18 for controlling an upstream station
`
`16 is set to be between approximately 0.5 and 1.0 (i.e. the downstream buffer 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`is approximately half—full to full) in order to reduce or stop production output of
`
`the upstream station 16 when the downstream buffer 18 is close to full or full as
`
`previously described” so the schedule is merely defining an optimal buffer
`
`threshold, that threshold being used during operation of the plant. As shown in
`
`Table V and Table VI in paragraph [0034] of Sun’s specification, there are initial
`
`threshold values for the buffers, and then optimized values that are actually used
`
`during production, which have been determined through the scheduling process
`
`described by Sun. The fact that these thresholds are modified does not
`
`substantially change the actions which are performed when those thresholds are
`
`reached (i.e. slowing down or stopping production) which have the effect of
`
`lengthening the time taken for a manufacturing process, and once those
`
`thresholds are no longer in violation, returning the time taken to a normal state.
`
`For these reasons, the examiner holds the previous rejection.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is
`
`incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the
`
`rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
`
`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, 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.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Edinger et al. (US 4667403, herein Edinger) in view of Sun et al. (US
`
`20160179081) .
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Edinger teaches “A component mounting line control
`
`system which controls a component mounting line” ([col 3 lines 55-col 4 line 44]
`
`describes a master production computer that controls a production line)
`
`“including a component mounting device that mounts a component on a board"
`
`([col 3 lines 55—col 4 line 44] describes automatic assembly stations for assembling
`
`(mounting) components) “and a board retrieving unit that retrieves the board,
`
`the system comprising: an acquirer that acquires information from the board
`
`retrieving unit” ([col 3 lines 55—col 4 line 44] robot is used to remove specific
`
`board (retrieve) to be put onto assembly line, via commands from the controller
`
`(acquirer)) "a controller that controls the component mounting device based on
`
`the information acquired by the acquirer” ([col 3 lines 27-35] master production
`
`computer (controller) coordinates and manages the overall production process)
`
`"and a notifier that performs notification of the state of equipment, wherein
`
`the notifier performs notification” ([col 2 line 13] describes how a board is
`
`retrieved when a command signal (notification) is received which is performed by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`master production computer 10 that coordinates and manages the production
`
`process (state of equipment) and [col 3 line 61] discusses a terminal with a picture
`
`screen that can display to an operator a command to retrieve a board) ”and
`
`wherein the notified performs notification indicating that it is necessary to
`
`retrieve the board” ([col 3 line 61] the computer 10 can provide information on a
`
`terminal 16 which has a picture screen. From this information, an operator makes
`
`a manual removal of the type of board 20 from the storage 17).
`
`Edinger fails to teach “wherein, the controller lengthens the time taken
`
`for a manufacturing process in the component mounting device in a case where
`
`the acquirer acquires first warning information, which indicates that a board
`
`accommodation limit is about to be reached, from the board retrieving unit, and
`
`wherein the time taken for the manufacturing process in the component
`
`mounting device returns to a normal state when a board retrieval process has
`
`been completed”.
`
`Sun teaches "wherein, the controller lengthens the time taken for a
`
`manufacturing process in the component mounting device in a case where the
`
`acquirer acquires first warning information, which indicates that a board
`
`accommodation limit is about to be reached, from the board retrieving unit”
`
`([0022] In an embodiment, the range of threshold values for a buffer 18 for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be between approximately 0.5 and 1.0
`
`(i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—full to full) in order to reduce
`
`or stop production output of the upstream station 16 when the downstream
`
`buffer 18 is close to full or full as previously described; wherein a buffer
`
`corresponds to a board accommodation limit, and the case where reducing
`
`production corresponds to a lengthening of a manufacturing process; Table VI of
`
`[0034] shows when buffer 1 reaches between 67—99% various combinations of
`
`stations RMA, RMB and RMC are turned off, which in turn increases the time
`
`taken at those stations which are off) “and wherein the time taken for the
`
`manufacturing process in the component mounting device returns to a normal
`
`state when a board retrieval process has been completed” ([0022] In an
`
`embodiment, the range of threshold values for a buffer 18 for controlling an
`
`upstream station 16 is set to be between approximately 0.5 and 1.0 (i.e. the
`
`downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—full to full) in order to reduce or stop
`
`production output of the upstream station 16 when the downstream buffer 18 is
`
`close to full or full as previously described; Table VI of [0034] shows that when
`
`buffer 1 goes from 67% to 66%, which means that an item has been removed
`
`(retrieved) from the buffer and thus reducing the buffer storage, then station
`
`RMB will go from OFF to ON again, returning it to its normal running state).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the
`
`component mounting line control system with a board retriever, notifier for
`
`notification of board retrieval and controller taught by Edinger with the slowing of
`
`a manufacturing process when a buffer is about to become full and which returns
`
`the time to a normal state when a board is retrieved from the buffer so that an
`
`accommodation limit is no longer in violation because it would satisfy the
`
`suggestion of Sun to create ”[0002] a method for providing optimized production
`
`scheduling”. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine because both
`
`inventions relate to the field of manufacturing and more specifically towards ways
`
`to optimize and improve a manufacturing line, and thus a person of ordinary skill
`
`would be motivated to use the known technique of slowing manufacturing and
`
`providing a signal which indicates when a buffer is becoming full with the known
`
`devices constituting a component mounting production line in the same way.
`
`It is
`
`further noted that while Sun uses the example of an automobile factory, Sun also
`
`states ”[0014] The invention is not limited in its application to the exemplary
`
`embodiment details of construction and the arrangement of components set
`
`forth in the description or illustrated in the drawings” which suggests the
`
`invention can be applied to other manufacturing/production environments that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`utilize a sequence of machines with buffers, such as the electronic card
`
`manufacturing system of Edinger. By combining these elements, one of ordinary
`
`skill would expect to create a component mounting production line with assembly
`
`stations for mounting components and robots used to retrieve and move boards
`
`into the stations, controlled by a master production computer (controller) which
`
`includes a display for displaying that a board must be retrieved and that utilizes
`
`buffers that count capacity and cause the controller to slow production when
`
`buffer capacity is near full, and which also display a notification to retrieve a
`
`board when buffer capacity is near full.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Sun and Edinger teach the component mounting
`
`production control line taught in claim 1. Sun further teaches "wherein a state
`
`where the board accommodation limit is about to be reached is a state where
`
`the number of accommodated boards is equal to or greater than 70% and equal
`
`to or smaller than 90% of an accommodation capacity of the board retrieving
`
`unit” ([Table 5 and 0022] In an embodiment, the range of threshold values for a
`
`buffer 18 for controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be between
`
`approximately 0.5 and 1.0 (i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—
`
`full to full) in order to reduce or stop production output of the upstream station
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`16 when the downstream buffer 18 is close to full or full as previously described;
`
`wherein an instance where production is reduced when buffer capacity is nearly
`
`full).
`
`While Sun teaches various buffer ranges of 50—100%, less than 67%, 67%—
`
`83%, 83%—97%, etc. (table 5) it is noted that it would have been obvious to change
`
`the buffer range to 70%—90% when production is slowed because MPEP
`
`§2144.04(IV)(A) ”In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) establishes
`
`that changes to size/proportion are not patentably distinct from the prior art
`
`because they are considered routine and only require ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify
`
`the ranges set forth in Sun to fit their particular implementation. The modification
`
`of slowing down the machine in the range of 70%—90% instead of the range of
`
`67%—83% is considered an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of In re Rose.
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Sun and Edinger teach the component mounting
`
`production control line taught in claim 1. Sun further teaches "wherein the
`
`controller causes the component mounting device to stop the manufacturing
`
`process in a case where the acquirer acquires second warning information,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`which indicates that the board accommodation limit has been reached from the
`
`board retrieving unit” ([Table 5 & 0022]|n an embodiment, the range of threshold
`
`values for a buffer 18 for controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be between
`
`approximately 0.5 and 1.0 (i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—
`
`full to full) in order to reduce or stop production output of the upstream station
`
`16 when the downstream buffer 18 is close to full or full as previously described;
`
`wherein production is stopped when buffer is full (limit is reached), furthermore
`
`as taught by Table 5, when the buffer becomes more full production is slowed
`
`more until the buffer becomes completely filled, at which point production is
`
`stopped).
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Sun and Edinger teach the component mounting
`
`production control line taught in claim 3. Sun further teaches "wherein a state
`
`where the board accommodation limit has been reached is a state where the
`
`number of accommodated boards is greater than 90% and equal to or smaller
`
`than 100% of an accommodation capacity of the board retrieving unit” ([Table 5
`
`& 0022]|n an embodiment, the range of threshold values for a buffer 18 for
`
`controlling an upstream station 16 is set to be between approximately 0.5 and 1.0
`
`(i.e. the downstream buffer 18 is approximately half—full to full) in order to reduce
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`or stop production output of the upstream station 16 when the downstream
`
`buffer 18 is close to full or full as previously described; wherein production is
`
`stopped when buffer is full (limit is reached), furthermore as taught by Table 5,
`
`when the buffer becomes more full production is slowed more until the buffer
`
`becomes completely filled, at which point production is stopped).
`
`While Sun teaches various buffer ranges of 50—100%, less than 67%, 67%—
`
`83%, 83%—97%, etc. (table 5) it is noted that it would have been obvious to change
`
`the buffer range to 90%—100% when production is stopped because MPEP
`
`§2144.04(IV)(A) ”In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) establishes
`
`that changes to size/proportion are not patentably distinct from the prior art
`
`because they are considered routine and only require ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify
`
`the ranges set forth in Sun to fit their particular implementation. The modification
`
`of stopping the machine in the range of 90%—100% instead of the range of 99%—
`
`100% is considered an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`light of In re Rose.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Edinger and Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Donati et al.
`
`(US 20100287879, herein Donati).
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Edinger and Sun teach the component mounting
`
`production line control system that slows production based on accommodation
`
`capacity as incorporated in claim 1.
`
`Edinger and Sun fail to teach “in a case where the acquirer acquires third
`
`warning information, which indicates that there is an abnormality, from the
`
`board retrieving unit”.
`
`Donati teaches “in a case where the acquirer acquires third warning
`
`information, which indicates that there is an abnormality, from the board
`
`retrieving unit” ([0089] describes how when an overflow and speed sensor is
`
`activated (abnormal condition) the distribution equipment (component mounting
`
`device) rate is reduced (lengthens the time taken for the manufacturing process).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the
`
`component mounting production line control system that s|ows production based
`
`on accommodation capacity as taught by Edinger and Sun with the reaction to an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`abnormal condition as taught by Donati because as Donati suggests ”[0010] An
`
`ever—increasing need is hence felt for... Lines featuring integrated solutions such
`
`as centralized and robust automation control, increased configuration flexibility,
`
`same communication channels and automation solutions and hardware, and no
`
`need for customization of the line automation software”. Likewise, Donati points
`
`out that ”[0008] Line automation and control systems cannot provide the
`
`flexibility and functionality features required to satisfy the ever—increasing market
`
`demand for... higher production versatility”, meaning that the known technique
`
`of slowing a production line when an abnormal condition occurs is ready to
`
`improve the known component mounting production line. To a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, this combination would yield a predictable result of a
`
`component mounting production line that slows production when an abnormal
`
`condition occurs.
`
`Regarding Claim 6, Edinger and Sun teach the component mounting
`
`production line control system that slows production based on accommodation
`
`capacity as incorporated in claim 1. Donati further teaches "wherein the
`
`controller causes the component mounting device to stop the manufacturing
`
`process in a case where the acquirer acquires fourth warning information, which
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`indicates a transportation stoppage, from the component mounting device”
`
`([0086] describes how an automatic immediate stop procedure (stop the
`
`manufacturing process) is triggered when a blocked distribution equipment
`
`(transportation stoppage) occurs).
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edinger,
`
`Sun and Donati as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US
`
`20140244044, herein Davis).
`
`In regards to Claim 8, Edinger, Sun and Donati teach the component
`
`mounting line that is able to lengthen the amount of time taken for a
`
`manufacturing process on the basis of various warning information as
`
`incorporated by claim 5.
`
`Edinger, Sun and Donati fail to teach “a position information specifier;
`
`wherein the controller determined whether the operator is in the vicinity of
`
`component mounting line based on an operator location information output
`
`from the position information specifier, and in a case where the location of the
`
`operator has not been found...”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Davis teaches “a position information specifier; wherein the controller
`
`determined whether the operator is in the vicinity of component mounting line
`
`based on an operator location information output from the position
`
`information specifier” ([0135] FIG. 12 shows smartphone 20 determining its
`
`location via a GPS satellite 30; [0033] The Product App is able to determine its
`
`global location from the smartphone location capability and offer... other
`
`conditional elements for the specific location that the smartphone location
`
`capability reports as its current global position) "and in a case where the location
`
`of the operator has not been found...” ([0157] In step 1114, the Product App will
`
`ascertain if it can determine its global position from the smartphone location
`
`capabilities. If the Product App cannot determine its global position, or if the
`
`current position is unknown...).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the
`
`component mounting line that is able to lengthen the amount of time taken for a
`
`manufacturing process on the basis of various warning information with the use
`
`of a smartphone device that uses GPS to determine a global position of the
`
`smartphone user and is capable of determining when it cannot determine the
`
`global position of the smartphone as taught by Davis because it can be considered
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield
`
`predictable results. That is, one of ordinary skill would expect to take the known
`
`technique of using a smartphone with communications and GPS capabilities to
`
`determine the location of a user, and which can also determine when the location
`
`data cannot be found, and apply it to the known device ready for improvement of
`
`a component mounting line controller that is able to lengthen the amount of time
`
`taken for a manufacturing process based on various warning information to
`
`achieve the predictable result of a component mounting line controller that
`
`communicates with a smartphone device to establish the location of a user, and
`
`when that user location cannot be found will trigger the lengthening of an
`
`amount of time it takes to execute a manufacturing process in the component
`
`mounting device.
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edinger
`
`in view of Calliari et al. (US 20130001028, herein Calliari).
`
`Regarding Claim 9, Edinger teaches “A component mounting line control
`
`system which controls a component mounting line” ([col 3 lines 55-col 4 line 44]
`
`describes a master production computer that controls a production line)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`“including a component mounting device that mounts a component on a board"
`
`([col 3 lines 55—col 4 line 44] describes automatic assembly stations for assembling
`
`(mounting) components) “and a board retrieving unit that retrieves the board,
`
`the system comprising: an acquirer that acquires information from the board
`
`retrieving unit” ([col 3 lines 55—col 4 line 44] robot is used to remove specific
`
`board (retrieve) to be put onto assembly line, via commands from the controller
`
`(acquirer)) "a controller that controls the component mounting device based on
`
`the information acquired by the acquirer” ([col 3 lines 27-35] master production
`
`computer (controller) coordinates and manages the overall production process).
`
`Edinger fails to teach “and a position information specifier; wherein the
`
`controller determines whether an operator is in a vicinity of the component
`
`mounting line based on an operator location information output from the
`
`position information specifier, and in a case where the location of the operator
`
`has not been found, the controller lengthens the time taken for the
`
`manufacturing process in the component mounting device, and wherein the
`
`time taken for the manufacturing process in the component mounting device
`
`returns to a normal state when the operator is determined to be in the vicinity
`
`of the component mounting line”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 20
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Calliari teaches “and a position information specifier” ([0009] a
`
`transponder worn, directly or indirectly, by the operator in an arrangement for
`
`detecting the operator's position... photoelectric sensors or laser scanners
`
`attached to the machine in an arrangement for detecting the position of the
`
`operator's extremities within a predefined safety zone which enables the required
`
`work activities to be performed) “wherein the controller determines whether an
`
`operator is in a vicinity of the component mounting line based on an operator
`
`location information output from the position information specifier, and in a
`
`case where the location of the operator has not been found, the controller
`
`lengthens the time taken for the manufacturing process in the component
`
`mounting device” ([0012] The machine is designed to be shut down as soon as
`
`the operator leaves the defined working area; wherein a defined work area is
`
`interpreted to mean that the area outside the working area is undefined, or
`
`where the operator is not found [0040] Arrangement for detecting the position of
`
`the operator 13, for example by means of a transponder or similar device, which
`
`only makes it possible to put the machine into operation when the operator 13 is
`
`present within the defined proximity or operating area of the machine. This
`
`ensures that the machine does not remain in operation when not supervised;
`
`wherein when the operator is outside the defined proximity, it can be considered
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 21
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`that the location of the operator has not been found because the transponder
`
`only knows when the operator is inside the defined proximity as this is the
`
`boundary of its detection, and wherein stopping a machine when outside this
`
`proximity would inherently increase the time for a process) “and wherein the
`
`time taken for the manufacturing process in the component mounting device
`
`returns to a normal state when the operator is determined to be in the vicinity
`
`of the component mounting line” (0047] only to permit the machine to function
`
`when the operator is present in the working area; the energy supply to the
`
`machine is interrupted for this purpose; wherein because the machine is operable
`
`only when the operator is present, it can be considered a normal state as the time
`
`taken for the task returns to its operable time instead of being in a stopped state).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the
`
`component line mounting system as taught by Edinger with the location—based
`
`safety system that only allows a device to operate when an operator wearing a
`
`transponder is within a known safety perimeter as taught by Calliari because it
`
`would have the added benefit stated by Calliari of ”[0040] This ensures that the
`
`machine does not remain in operation when not supervised” which is a potential
`
`safety hazard to persons whom are not the