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
`
`15/074,019
`
`03/18/2016
`
`KENICHIRO ISHIMOTO
`
`PIPMM-56123
`
`9555
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`12/04/2019
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`CASS“ ROBERT A
`
`2115
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/04/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/074,019
`Examiner
`ROBERT A CASSITY
`
`Applicant(s)
`ISHIMOTO, KENICHIRO
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2115
`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 19 September 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 1_—11Is/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.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 18 March 2016 is/are: a). accepted or b)l:) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`SD 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 1 August2019_
`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 20191129
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claims 1—11 are pending examination in this Office action.
`
`Claim 1 is independent.
`
`Claim 11 is new.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013,
`
`is being examined under the
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`5.
`
`This Office action is final.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`6.
`
`The following is aquotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.—The 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 U.S.C. 112 (pre—AIA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointingout and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1—11 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.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 1 recites “the rule table defines a plurality of patterns, each of the plurality of
`
`patterns specifies multiple setting values that are grouped and associated together”.
`
`It is unclear what the patterns and values relate to. Specifically,
`
`it is unclear if the
`
`patterns are intended to be patterns created on the carrier tape, patterns for components to be
`
`affixed to the carrier, movement patterns for the setting support system or some other pattern.
`
`Furthermore, it is unclear how the settings values are “grouped together” as recited in the claim.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 3
`
`Claims 2— 10 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 1 and suffer from the same
`
`indefiniteness.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`9.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, US. Code not included in this action can be found
`
`in a prior Office action.
`
`10.
`
`Claims l—3, 7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yamamura, et al. (US Patent Publication 2005/0160593 A1) in view of Yamazaki (US Patent
`
`Publication 2015/0289386 A1) and further in view of Maenishi, et al. (US Patent Publication
`
`2004/0073322 A1, hereinafter Maenishi I).
`
`The teachings of Yamamura and Yamazaki from the previous Office actions are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
`
`Neither Yamamura nor Yamazaki explicitly teach the newly amended limitation: wherein
`
`for each linked component parameter and operation parameter, the rule table defines a plurality
`
`of patterns, each of the plurality of patterns specifies multiple setting values that are grouped and
`
`associated together.
`
`However, Maenishi I teaches another setting support system for setting an operational
`
`parameter that stipulates an operation of a mounting an electronic component onto a substrate by
`
`a component mounting apparatus and further teaches wherein for each linked component
`
`parameter and operation parameter, the rule table defines a plurality of patterns, each of the
`
`plurality of patterns specifies multiple setting values that are grouped and associated together
`
`[1810—1820, Figs lO7A— 107B; Figs 107A-B show a tableforpickup patterns based on
`
`components. .
`
`. rules based on component size and type are used to determine the pickup
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 4
`
`pattern] [2313] [0554—0560; ralesfor mounting paths] [0902; components are arranged
`
`according to specified rules].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill
`
`in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to combine the teachings of Maenishi I with Yamamura and Yamazaki. Yamamura teaches
`
`setting operation parameters for a component mounting system that determines an operating
`
`mode based on component parameters and parameters related to the carrier tape being used.
`
`Yamazaki teaches component information correlating to the operating parameters and storing the
`
`parameters in a data table of a storage unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`motivation to store component and operating parameters in a table because tables are easy to use
`
`for comparing and performing mathematical calculations.
`
`Yamamura and Yamazaki collectively teach setting operational parameters for
`
`component mounting system that determines an operating mode based on component parameters
`
`and parameters related to the carrier tape being used that are stored in a table of a storage unit.
`
`Maenishi Iteaches using rule tables for determining pickup patterns for component on the carrier
`
`tape based on component type and size. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation
`
`to use the rules specified in Maenishi within the carrier type generation systems of Yamamura
`
`and Yamazaki to efficiently place components on the carrier tape.
`
`Claims 2, 3, 7 and 9 are rejected as being obvious in view of Yamazaki and Yamamura as
`
`disclosed in the previous Office action and further in view of Maenishi I as disclosed above.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill
`
`in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to combine the teachings of Maenishi I with Yamamura and Yamazaki for the same reasons
`
`as disclosed above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claim 11, Yamamura, Yamazaki and Maenishi I teaches the setting support
`
`system of claim 1, but may not explicitly teach the component information is information
`
`regarding polarity of the electronic component, a polarity mark, a mark position, a component
`
`type [Yamazaki, 0032-0033]
`
`[Maenishi, 0016, 0688-0689]
`
`and price.
`
`Examiner notes that none of the cited references teach that the component information
`
`includes all of polarity of the electronic component, a polarity mark, a mark position, a
`
`component type and price. However, claim 1 (from which claim 11 depends) requires “a
`
`controller of the component mounting apparatus that includes an input unit into which a setting
`
`value of a component parameter includes at least one of component information .
`
`.
`
`. and tape
`
`information relating to the carrier tape. Yamamura, Yamazaki and Maenishi I teach the
`
`controller of the component mounting apparatus includes an input unit into which a setting value
`
`of a component parameter that includes a tape information relating to the carrier tape is input as
`
`disclosed above. Since the claims only require “at least one of” component information relating
`
`to the electronic component and tape information relating to the carrier tape, the new limitations
`
`of claim 11 which further defines the component information is not patentable of Yamamura,
`
`Yamazaki and Maenishi I.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill
`
`in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to combine the teachings of Maenishi I with Yamamura and Yamazaki for the same reasons
`
`as disclosed above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 6
`
`ll.
`
`Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura, et al.
`
`(US Patent Publication 2005/0160593 A1) in view of Yamazaki (US Patent Publication
`
`2015/0289386 A1) in view of Maenishi, et al. (US Patent Publication 2004/0073322 A1,
`
`hereinafter Maenishi I) further in view of Suhara (US Patent Publication 2011/0002509 A1,
`
`hereinafter Suhara I).
`
`Claim 5 is rejected as being obvious in view of Yamazaki, Yamamura and Suhara I as
`
`disclosed in the previous Office action and further in view of Maenishi I as disclosed above.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`to combine the teachings of Suhara I
`
`with Yamazaki, Yamamura and Maenishi I. Yamazaki, Yamamura and Maenishi I collectively
`
`teach setting operational parameters for a component mounting system that determines an
`
`operating mode based on component parameters and parameters related to the carrier tape being
`
`used that are store in a table of a storage unit and using a rule table for establishing pick—up
`
`patterns for components based on predetermined rules. Suhara I teaches supplying electric
`
`components (EC’s) and controlling an apparatus for mounting electric components by
`
`controlling timing Within the apparatus to optimize the use of the mounting apparatus. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize the operating parameters of Yamazaki, Yamamura and
`
`Maenishi Iwould relate to controlling the speed of the feeding the carrier tape
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 7
`
`12.
`
`Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura, et al.
`
`(US Patent Publication 2005/0160593 A1) in view of Yamazaki (US Patent Publication
`
`2015/0289386 A1) in view of Maenishi, et al. (US Patent Publication 2004/0073322 A1,
`
`hereinafter Maenishi I) and further in view of Maenishi, et al. (US Patent Publication
`
`2015/073205 A1, hereinafter Maenishi II).
`
`Claim 8 is rejected as being obvious in view of Yamazaki, Yamamura and Maenishi II as
`
`disclosed in the previous Office action and further in view of Maenishi I as disclosed above.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Maenishi
`
`II with Yamazaki, Yamamura and Maenishi I. Yamazaki, Yamamura and Maenishi I collectively
`
`teach setting operational parameters for a component mounting system that determines an
`
`operating mode based on component parameters and parameters related to the carrier tape being
`
`used that are store in a table of a storage unit and using a rule table for establishing pick—up
`
`patterns for components based on predetermined rules. Maenishi II teaches another electronic
`
`component mounting system and further teaches the system includes a unit for performing
`
`collation. One of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have motivation to incorporate a collation
`
`component in the electronic component mounting system before actual mounting to provide for
`
`more efficient operation of the electronic component mounting system.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 8
`
`13.
`
`Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura, et
`
`al. (US Patent Publication 2005/0160593 A1) in view of Yamazaki (US Patent Publication
`
`2015/0289386 A1) in view of Maenishi, et al. (US Patent Publication 2004/0073322 A1,
`
`hereinafter Maenishi I) and further in view of Suhara, et al. (US Patent Publication
`
`2005/0036274 A1, hereinafter “Suhara II”).
`
`Claim 10 is rejected as being obvious in view of Yamazaki, Yamamura and Suhara I as
`
`disclosed in the previous Office action and further in view of Suhara II as disclosed above.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Suhara II
`
`with Yamazaki, Yamamura and Maenishi I. Yamazaki, Yamamura and Maenishi I collectively
`
`teach setting operational parameters for a component mounting system that determines an
`
`operating mode based on component parameters and parameters related to the carrier tape being
`
`used that are store in a table of a storage unit and using a rule table for establishing pick—up
`
`patterns for components based on predetermined rules. Suhara II teaches that the component
`
`parameters are dependent on parameters of the carrier tape and specifies the parameters of the
`
`carrier tape. It would have been obvious to use the carrier tape parameters to adjust settings for
`
`the component mounting apparatus.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`l4.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot
`
`because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 9
`
`Conclusion
`
`15.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
`
`Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
`
`Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR l.l36(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within TWO
`
`MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE—MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR l.l36(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.
`
`In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this
`
`final action.
`
`16.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to ROBERT A CASSITY whose telephone number is (571)270—
`
`3150. The examiner can normally be reached on M—F: 7:30—4 PM.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone,
`
`in—person, and video conferencing using
`
`a USPTO supplied web—based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is
`
`encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
`
`htth/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Thomas Lee can be reached on 571—272—3667. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 10
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see htth/pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`ROBERT A. CASSITY
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 2115
`
`/ROBERT A CASSITY/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
`29 November 2019
`
`