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
`
`06’29’2020
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`SKRZYCKI, JONATHAN MICHAEL
`
`2118
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/29/2020
`
`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 04/14/2020.
`CI 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)
`
`1—6 and 8—12 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— 12 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)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 04/29/2020.
`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 20200527
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claims 1-6 and 8-12 (filed 04/14/2020) have been considered in this action.
`
`Claims 1—6 and 8—9 have been amended. Claims 10—12 are newly presented.
`
`Claim 7 has been canceled.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statement filed 04/29/2020 fails to comply with
`
`the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because both the Chinese
`
`patent CN105393653 and Chinese patent search results are presented in non—
`
`English language, and no statement of relevance has been provided as required
`
`by 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(3).
`
`It has been placed in the application file, but the
`
`information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
`
`Applicant is advised that the date of any re—submission of any item of information
`
`contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any
`
`missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining
`
`compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement,
`
`including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See
`
`MPEP § 609.05(a).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 paragraph 2, filed 04/14/2020, with
`
`respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1—6 and 8—9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect
`
`to the use of prior art reference Sun have been fully considered and are
`
`persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further
`
`consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly presented
`
`prior art reference Kurata et al. (US 20090099678) which teaches these
`
`deficiencies.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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 C0,, 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.
`
`Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Edinger et al. (US 4667403, herein Edinger) in view of Kurata et al. (US
`
`20090099678, hereinafter Kurata).
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Edinger teaches “A component mounting system
`
`comprising 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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); Fig. 1 shows storage device (1), buffer storage devices (2.n) from which
`
`the boards are stored for retrieval) “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 the board retrieval unit” ([col 2 line 13] describes how a board is retrieved
`
`when a command signal (notification) is received which is performed by 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; [col 3 line 55]
`
`”The master production computer 10 initiates the charging of the overall card
`
`modules or printed circuit board production line in that it successively determines
`
`the removal of a specific type of printed circuit board 20 from a printed circuit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`board storage 17”) “and wherein a component-mounted board is manufactured
`
`in the component mounting system by mounting the component on the board
`
`through soldering” (Fig. 1 shows soldering line (8), Fig. 2 shows soldering device
`
`(24) [col 4 line 46] soldering stations L51 and LSZ then receives the printed circuit
`
`with the components assembled thereon to perform a soldering operation to
`
`secure the components to the printed circuit board).
`
`Edinger fails to teach “wherein, the controller adjusts an operating state
`
`of the component mounting device from a normal state to a first state, in which
`
`a manufacturing process time is lengthened without stopping the component
`
`mounting device, when the acquirer acquires first warning information, which
`
`indicates that a number of boards in the board retrieving unit is equal to or
`
`greater than a first percentage and equal to or smaller than a second
`
`percentage of an accommodation capacity of the board retrieving unit; wherein
`
`the operating state of the component mounting device returns to the normal
`
`state when a board retrieval process has been completed”.
`
`Kurata teaches "and a board retrieving unit that retrieves the board, the
`
`system comprising: an acquirer that acquires information from the board
`
`retrieving unit” ([0015] ”The stocker 30a stocks each board... The conveyer 154
`
`transports the board stocked in the stocker 30a”; Fig. 4 Stocker (14) and (30)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`[0107] ”a board which is not yet mounted with a component is stocked in the
`
`stocker 14, while a finished board mounted with components is stocked in the
`
`stocker 30”) “wherein, the controller adjusts an operating state of the
`
`component mounting device from a normal state to a first state, in which a
`
`manufacturing process time is lengthened without stopping the component
`
`mounting device” (Fig. 12 and [0151] the board manufacturing quantity control
`
`unit 305b lowers the mounting takt time level by one level (520). This increases
`
`the line takt time resulting in a decrease in the quantity of boards to be
`
`manufactured during the operating time... For methods of lowering the mounting
`
`takt time level, for example, it is possible to give examples of: a method of
`
`lowering the speed for each of the components in a uniform manner; a method of
`
`selecting a specific component and lowering the speed; and lowering only the
`
`level for the component with the maximum speed level (for example, the level
`
`one).; wherein takt time is manufacturing process time) “when the acquirer
`
`acquires first warning information, which indicates that a number of boards in
`
`the board retrieving unit is equal to or greater than a first percentage and equal
`
`to or smaller than a second percentage of an accommodation capacity of the
`
`board retrieving unit” (Fig. 12 and [0149] The board manufacturing quantity
`
`control unit 305b checks whether or not the shipment inventory quantity is within
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`a predetermined range of optimum inventory quantity TH 1(518)...[0151] In the
`
`case where the shipment inventory quantity is equal to or larger than the
`
`optimum inventory quantity TH1 (NO in $18), the board manufacturing quantity
`
`control unit 305b lowers the mounting takt time level for the mounter 22 or 24 by
`
`one level (520); wherein the optimum inventor quantity TH1 is the first
`
`percentage and the maximum is the maximum storage capacity, which is inherent
`
`to any storage device as space is not unlimited) "wherein the operating state of
`
`the component mounting device returns to the normal state when a board
`
`retrieval process has been completed” (Fig. 12 and 13 [0263] ”The acceleration
`
`increasing and decreasing unit 704 is a processing unit which is included in the
`
`manufacturing condition determining unit 703, and which adjusts, in particular,
`
`the transportation acceleration of the multiple head unit 110 and so on from
`
`among the mounting conditions”; Fig. 12 shows that process of calculating takt
`
`time is looping, thus once the shipment inventor quantity is less than or equal to
`
`the optimum quantity after being slowed it would be increased again; Fig. 13
`
`shows that inventory can both increase and decrease; [0265] acceleration data
`
`500 are created by setting the largest acceleration possible within a non—
`
`problematic range for mounting quality as the upper limit...even when an
`
`adjustment is made to increase acceleration in the acceleration increasing and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`decreasing unit 704, it is regarded as impossible to set acceleration to equal to or
`
`higher than the acceleration data 500 (by setting the numeral smaller; wherein
`
`the only way to reduce an inventory is to ’retrieve’ it).
`
`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 taught by Edinger with the use of an
`
`inventory threshold that increases a manufacturing time without stopping the
`
`component mounting device when the inventory goes above the threshold
`
`amount but below the maximum as taught by Kurata because it would have the
`
`stated benefit of Kurata of ”[0017] a mounter which suppresses the occurrence of
`
`inventory shortage or excess inventory as much as possible, and further to offer a
`
`manufacturing management method for enabling power savings in the case
`
`where the line is not utilized to its full capacity” by solving the problem of ”[0007]
`
`a manufacturing plan tends to generate excess inventory rather than inventory
`
`shortage. Any generation of such inventory necessitates storage space for
`
`mounted boards and thus causes storage expenses and so on”.
`
`In other words,
`
`by incorporating this feature of Kurata, Edinger’s system would have fewer
`
`expenses caused by holding an excess number of boards, and also reduce the
`
`electric power usage by reducing the operating speed of the system. By
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`combining these elements, a person of ordinary skill would expect to take the
`
`known method of using a threshold inventory value to reduce the speed of a
`
`component mounting device and increase that speed once the inventory is again
`
`reduced below the threshold and apply it to the known component mounting line
`
`system to achieve the predictable result of a component mounting line system
`
`that is able to slow down and speed up to keep the inventory at an optimal level.
`
`In regards to Claim 10, Edinger and Kurata teach the component mounting
`
`system as incorporated by claim 1 above. Kurata further teaches “The
`
`component mounting system of Claim 1, wherein the manufacturing process
`
`time of the component mounting device in the first state is lengthened by
`
`decreasing a transportation speed of the component mounting device without
`
`stopping the component mounting device” ([0023] The manufacturing quantity
`
`of boards may also be controlled in the board manufacturing quantity control
`
`step by decreasing the transportation speed of the head in the multi—function
`
`mounter included in the mounting line in the case where the inventory quantity is
`
`equal to or larger than the optimum inventory quantity).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Claim 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Edinger in view of Kurata and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20160179081,
`
`hereinafter Sun).
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Edinger and Kurata teach the component mounting
`
`production control line as incorporated by claim 1.
`
`Edinger and Kurata fail to teach “wherein the first warning information
`
`indicates that the number of boards in the board retrieving unit is equal to or
`
`greater than 70% and equal to or smaller than 90% of the accommodation
`
`capacity of the board retrieving unit”.
`
`Sun further teaches “wherein the first warning information indicates that
`
`the number of boards in the board retrieving unit is equal to or greater than
`
`70% and equal to or smaller than 90% of the 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 ha|f—fu|| 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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.
`
`It further would have been obvious because the buffer thresholds taught by
`
`Sun are identical to the inventory capacity of Kurata, as both indicate a capacity
`
`for holding a certain number of boards. Thus, the modification of the optimal
`
`inventory threshold to be a specific value, and making the second percentage be
`
`less than the maximum capacity would have been obvious as this is merely
`
`adjusting a known quantity to a specific value.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Edinger and Kurata teach the component mounting
`
`production control line as incorporated by claim 1.
`
`Kurata further teaches “wherein the controller causes the component
`
`mounting device to stop the manufacturing process” ([0158] power consumption
`
`may also be reduced, by stopping any of the beams included in the stages
`
`(stopping power supplies). Moreover, in the case of the multiple mounting head
`
`including plural pickup nozzles, the use of part of the pickup nozzles may be
`
`stopped).
`
`Edinger and Kurata fail to teach "wherein the controller causes the
`
`component mounting device to stop the manufacturing process in a case where
`
`the acquirer acquires second warning information, which indicates that the
`
`board accommodation limit has been reached from the board retrieving unit”.
`
`Sun teaches "wherein the controller causes the component mounting
`
`device to stop the manufacturing process in a case where the acquirer acquires
`
`second warning information, which indicates that the board accommodation
`
`limit has been reached from the board retrieving unit” ([Table 5 & 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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).
`
`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 system of Edinger and Kurata with the ability to stop
`
`the component mounting device when a capacity has been reached because this
`
`would have the added benefit of preventing a bottleneck and wasting energy
`
`running the production line as there is no more capacity to store any of the
`
`boards being manufactured. This is in line with Kurata’s stated intent of allowing
`
`energy reduction so that savings can be realized through reduced energy use. By
`
`combining these elements, it can be considered using the known technique of
`
`stopping a production line when inventory capacity are full to the known
`
`component mounting production line that slows production when a threshold
`
`inventory capacity is reached to achieve the predictable result of a component
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`mounting production line that slows production when inventory is above a
`
`threshold and stops production once the inventory capacity is reached.
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Edinger, Kurata and Sun teach the component mounting
`
`production control line taught as incorporated by 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 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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.
`
`Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Edinger and Kurata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Donati et
`
`al. (US 20100287879, herein Donati).
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Edinger and Kurata teach the component mounting
`
`production line control system that slows production based on accommodation
`
`capacity as incorporated in claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Edinger and Kurata 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 slows production based
`
`on accommodation capacity as taught by Edinger and Kurata with the reaction to
`
`an 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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 Kurata 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
`
`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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edinger,
`
`Kurata 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, Kurata 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, Kurata 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...”.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 20
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 21
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Edinger in view of Calliari et al. (US 20130001028, herein Calliari) and Kurata et al.
`
`(US 20090099678, hereinafter Kurata).
`
`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)
`
`“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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/700,401
`
`Page 22
`
`Art Unit: 2118
`
`board (retrieve) to be put onto assembly line, via commands from the controller
`
`(acquirer); Fig. 1 shows storage device (1), buffer storage devices (Zn) from which
`
`the boards are stored for retrieval; ) “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; [col 3 line 55] ”The master production computer 10
`
`initiates the charg