UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/074,019
`
`03/18/2016
`
`KENICHIRO ISHIMOTO
`
`PIPMM-56123
`
`9555
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`08’1””
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-3108
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`EXAM“
`
`CASS“ ROBERT A
`
`2115
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/ 13/2018
`
`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)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/074,019
`Examiner
`ROBERT A CASSITY
`
`Applicant(s)
`ISHIMOTO, KENICHIRO
`Art Unit
`AIA 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 5 July 2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 18 March 2016 is/are: a). accepted or b)C] 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)D Some”
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1..
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180807
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claims 1—9 are pending examination in this Office action.
`
`Claim 1 is independent.
`
`This action is final.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`in a prior Office action.
`
`5.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013,
`
`is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`6.
`
`The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as well as the claim interpretations made
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) from the previous Office action have been overcome by amendment.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`7.
`
`The rejection of claims 1—9 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are incorporated by reference to the
`
`extent applicable to the amended claims.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. itll because the claimed invention is directed to
`
`a judicial excentit‘in (i.e., a law of nature. a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
`
`without significantly more. independent claim 1 is concerned with creating a rule table from.
`
`input setting values and from a stored table. The claimed. concept is an abstract idea because it
`
`is tantamount to ideas that have already been determined to be abstract ideas that are not
`
`
`patent eligible. Classen ltnmimetheraJies.
`
`inc, v. Bioeen EDEC, 659 FM l057, hit) U.S.RQQd
`
`1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011); obtaining and ("my/igniting knee/Viz dam is (m abstmct idea and is: no!
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`patenteiigibie C iherfirmrce Corn, y, Retail Decisions, Ind: 654- F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Kill); obtaining and comparing intangible data is an ribsz‘n‘iotidecti aim? is notpmem eligible. In
`
`other words, receiving intangible data (setting values and data from the correlation table), and
`
`performing some cooqmrisoh or mathematical function to the received da ta to create a rule or
`
`deterrrrination is an abstract idea that is not patent eligible umler 35 USC. §l0l The claimt's)
`
`doesldo not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. than
`
`the judicial exception. The additional claim elements require setting an operational parameter for
`
`operating a component of a component mounting apparatus, but, do not further define the abstract
`
`concept or provide additional
`
`limitations
`
`that are not generic uses of Emown hardware or involve
`
`
`steps that cannot be performed mentally or with the aid of pencil and paper. Alice Cori. V. CLS
`
`Bank International, E34 53. {It 2347 (a {Jaitilfiibiiéfi‘ automation. ofwimi' ("on he pet/dimmed it? the
`
`hmmm mind, or by a barium using pm and paper is a patent ineiigibie abstmet idea).
`
`Independent claim 1 has been amended to further include: a controller of the component
`
`mounting system and that the component mounting apparatus is configured to perform an
`
`operation of the component mounting apparatus based on the rule table created by the creation
`
`processor. The introduction of a controller itself is no more than a generic computer component
`
`being used in a conventional manner and does not represent significantly more than the abstract
`
`idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) and MPEP 2106.05(b)(1). Furthermore, the idea that the
`
`component mounting apparatus is configured to perform an operation based on the rule table
`
`does not amount to significantly more. While some types of operations may amount to
`
`significantly more, the claim merely recites the apparatus is to perform an operation based on the
`
`rule table. Performing an operation includes operations which would themselves be abstract
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 4
`
`ideas. Consequently,
`
`the newly amended limitations of the claim does not amount to
`
`significantly more and the claim remains patent ineligible.
`
`Claim '2 further include the component parameter is a parameter that has no direct
`
`relationship to the operation by the cm‘nponeut mtnrnting apparatus but does not
`
`inelurle significantly more than the ahstract idea because the additional
`
`limitations do not ii‘iyolye
`
`steps that cannot he performed mentally or with the aid of pencil and paper or present anything
`
`heyond the receipt and comparison of intangible data. Consequently,
`
`the claim is not patent
`
`e ligilile .
`
`Claims 3—5, 8 and 9 further includes generic computer or technical hardware that is used
`
`in a known way tie, the setting unit, display unit, component mounting apparatus),
`
`However, the inclusion oi" generic computer hardware heing used in a known way is not
`
`
`significantly more than the abstractirlea, Dietgoal inruwations. MAC
`Bravo Media l_,i_,C., 599
`
`Fed. Appx. 956 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8., EOlS), when the claim is directed to an (ill?Sfi’a(flid€a, and il/iC
`
`additional (fléi’tiéi'lm do not ammmi in Significantly awn: than the abstract idea, but imsreiy
`
`implement rite: idea Lifting generic amumier iccl’moiogy ilic ciaimr are Ilefl'palé‘lll eligible. See
`
`also MPEP Zlfiéflfittlltii). Consequently,
`
`the claims are not patent eligible.
`
`Claims 6 and 7 further defines the rule tahle, However, using a more complex table to
`
`store setting values does not add significantly more to the ahstractirlea because the thrust of
`
`the claim is still to receive intruigihle data and perform some conipaiison or calculation on the
`
`
`data to determine a rule. Classen lnununothera ies, Inc v. Bingen lDEC, 659 F.3d £057,
`
`lGO
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. Elll l); oliiaiizing and coninaring lazuli-in data is an abstract idea and
`
`
`is imipmem eligible. Cs,'l,it=:rSotii“ce Cor . y. Retail. Decisions. inc, 65-4 F.3d l36ti (Fed.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 5
`
`Cir. 201 l); obtaining amt afompai‘ng intangible dam is an abstract idea and is not patent
`
`eligible. Consequently, the claims am not patent eligible.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`9.
`
`Claim l—3, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yamamura, et al. (US Patent Publication 2005/0160593 A1) in view of Yamazaki, et al. (US
`
`Patent Publication 2015/0289386 A1).
`
`The teachings of Yamamura and Yamazaki from the previous Office action are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to include a controller of the component mounting apparatus
`
`that includes an input unit into which a setting value of a component parameter that includes at
`
`least one of component information relating to the electronic component and tape information
`
`relating to the carrier tape; and
`
`wherein the component mounting apparatus is configured to perform an operation of the
`
`component mounting apparatus based on the rule table created by the creation processor.
`
`Regarding the newly amended limitations, Yamamura teaches a controller of the
`
`component mounting apparatus [0027; control unit14] [0033, Fig 3; control system] that
`
`includes an input unit into which a setting value of a component parameter that includes at least
`
`one of component information relating to the electronic component [0035; according to the
`
`electronic components to be mounted (componentparameter)] and tape information relating to
`
`the carrier tape [0034; indication ofkindofcarrier tape is a carrier tapeparameter] and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 6
`
`wherein the component mounting apparatus is configured to perform an operation of the
`
`component mounting apparatus based on the rule table created by the creation processor [Claim
`
`1; the stored data is used to performa mounting operation].
`
`Yamamura teaches the storage is configured to store data correlating the component
`
`parameter to the operational parameter, but may not explicitly teach that the storage is
`
`configured to store a correlation table.
`
`Yamazaki teaches another setting support system for setting an operational parameter that
`
`stipulates an operation of a component mounting apparatus and further teaches
`
`acontroller of the component mounting apparatus [0023; mounter] includes several
`
`operation unit that act as a controller (i.e., mounting control operation unit 10] [Fig 2] that
`
`includes an input unit [0027; operation and input unit I 7] into which a setting value of a
`
`component parameter that includes at least one of component information relating to the
`
`electronic component and tape information relating to the carrier tape [0006; operating
`
`parameters are set by component type] [0024—0026] [0043]; and
`
`wherein the component mounting apparatus is configured to perform an operation of the
`
`component mounting apparatus based on the rule table created by the creation processor [0023;
`
`the electronic component mounting operation unit controls a mounting mechanism] [0002; the
`
`electronic component mounting device is usedfor executing a component mounting operation
`
`based on an operating parameter storedin a data table].
`
`It weuld ha ve been obvious to me of tn‘tiinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to combine the teachings ef Yatnannna and Yamazaki. Yamamura teaches
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 7
`
`"it'antazaiti teaches component inlorination correlating to 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 the component and operating parameters in a table heeause tables are easy to
`
`use for comparing and perti‘irnring mathematical calculations on stored data.
`
`10.
`
`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, et al. (US Patent Publication
`
`2015/0289386 A1) and further in View of Suhara (US Patent Publication 2011/0002509 A1).
`
`The rejection of claim 5 as disclosed in the previous Office action and in View of the
`
`additional
`
`teachings of Yamamura and Yamazaki as further disclosed above is respectfully
`
`maintained.
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordintnfy skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to conihine the teachings of Sahara with Yarnannu‘a and ‘r’antazalri. Yamarnurt
`
`and Yamazalti 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 stored in a table of a storage unit. Sahara 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 ‘r’amazahi
`
`and Yamanrura would relate to controlling the speed of the eeding the earrier tape on EC
`
`supplying unit and would have motivation to optimize the system by incorporating
`
`adjustments to timing and feeding speed as taught in Sahara.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 8
`
`11.
`
`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, et al. (US Patent Publication
`
`2015/0289386 A1) and further in view of Maenishi, et al. (US Patent Publication 2015/0173205
`
`A1).
`
`The rejection of claim 8 as disclosed in the previous Office action and in view of the
`
`additional
`
`teachings of Yamamura and Yamazaki as further disclosed above is respectfully
`
`maintained.
`
`It would lia ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art het'ore the effective tiling
`
`date to eombine the teaeliings of Maenislii with Yamamura and Yamagalgi. Yamamura
`
`and Yamamki collectively teach setting operational parameters for a component mounting
`
`system that determines an operating rnode based on component parameters and parameters
`
`related to the cairier ta pe heing used tl'iat, are stored in a table of a storage nnit. Maenishi teaches
`
`another electronic component mounting system and, further teaches the system includes a unit
`
`for perti'n‘tning collation. One of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have motivation to incorpt'n‘ate
`
`a et‘itlation in the electrt‘inic component tnrntnting system before the actual mounting action
`
`to provide for more efficient operation of the eleetronie component mounting system.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`12.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 5 July 2018 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive. Applicant (1) traverses the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §101 characterizing the
`
`claims as being patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea Without significantly more
`
`and (2) argues that the combination of Yamamura and Yamazaki do not teach utilizing stored
`
`information in a correlation table.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 9
`
`13.
`
`Regarding point (1), Applicant specifically argues that in the present case that the data is
`
`not merely obtained and compared, but involves a rule table based on input data and a correlation
`
`table such that an operation of the component apparatus is performed based on the created rule
`
`table.
`
`The fact a table is used to store data is not significantly more than the abstract idea of
`
`analyzing and manipulating data. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). Enfish recognized that merely using a table is not different than other conventional
`
`databases and does not amount to significantly more than an underlying abstract idea. Examiner
`
`notes that the claims in Enfish were found to be patent eligible not because they involved storing
`
`data in a table, but because they involved a self—referential table that achieved benefits over
`
`conventional databases. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. The amended limitations further recite that
`
`the component mounting apparatus is configured to perform an operation based on the rule table
`
`without defining what type of action is performed or how the action is to be performed. While
`
`some types of operations may amount to significantly more, the claim merely recites the
`
`apparatus is to perform an operation based on the rule table. Performing an operation includes
`
`operations which would themselves be abstract ideas. Consequently,
`
`the newly amended
`
`limitations of the claim does not amount to significantly more and the claim remains patent
`
`ineligible .
`
`14.
`
`Regarding point (2), the combination of references teaches creating a rule table.
`
`Yamamura teaches the storage is configured to store data correlating the component parameter to
`
`the operational parameter, but may not explicitly teach that the storage is configured to store a
`
`correlation table. Yamazaki teaches storing rule data in a table. Applicant argues that Yamazaki
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 10
`
`adjusts stored data rather than using stored information to generate a completely new table.
`
`However, Examiner maintains the position that the rules stored in the data table of Yamazaki
`
`must have been created using the setting values of the component parameter and correlation table
`
`in the same manner that the Applicant cites as updating the data in the table. Specifically,
`
`Yamazaki uses a creation processor to create and maintain data in a rule table from the setting
`
`value of the component parameter and the setting value of the operational parameter which are
`
`input into the input unit and from the correlation table that is stored in the storage [0026] [0042]
`
`[0002—0003; operating parametersfor executing each operation in an optimaloperation mode is
`
`set in advance according to the type of the electronic component and is stored in theform ofa
`
`data table (operatingparameters (rules)for executing operations are set in advance and stored
`
`in a table )].
`
`Conclusion
`
`15.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing
`
`date of this final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/074,019
`Art Unit: 2115
`
`Page 11
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`8 August 2018
`
`