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
`
`15/907,979
`
`02/28/2018
`
`Hideaki WATANABE
`
`AOYA1-58876
`
`1026
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`10’02’2018
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`VU~ STEPHEN A
`
`3652
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/02/2018
`
`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.
`15/907,979
`Examiner
`STEPHEN A VU
`
`Applicant(s)
`WATANABE et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA Status
`3652
`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 2/28/2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D 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 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 2/28/2018 is/are: a). accepted or b)E] 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)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Datem.
`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 20180926
`
`

`

`P
`lication/Control Number: 15/907,979
`Art Unit: 3652
`
`g
`Pa e 2
`
`DETAILED CORRIBPONDENCE
`
`Notice of Pre-AM or AM Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
`
`Inform ation Disclosure Statem ent
`
`3.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 28, 2018 is in compliance
`
`With the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being
`
`considered by the examiner.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 112
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 USC. 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.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC. 112(b) or 35 USC. 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.
`
`6.
`
`The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform With current US. practice.
`
`They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete With
`
`grammatical and idiomatic errors.
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 5,
`
`the phrase "of types " renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s)
`
`include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "of types "), thereby rendering the scope
`
`of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
`
`

`

`P
`lication/Control Number: 15/907,979
`Art Unit: 3652
`
`g
`Pa e 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 102
`
`8.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC. 102 and
`
`103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC. 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.
`
`9.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC. 102 that form the basis
`
`for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or
`otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 USC. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malstrom et al
`
`(US 2017/0057101).
`
`11.
`
`As to claim 1, Malstrom et al disclose a component mounting device (robotic positioning system
`
`per Abstract), as illustrated in Figures 1-9, for mounting a component on a substrate (see paragraph
`
`[0001] - capable of accomplishing this function), comprising apair of opening/closing members opening
`
`and closing (see paragraph [0002,0004]); and a plurality of adapters (10) detachably attached to the
`
`opening/c losing members, wherein the adapters are attached to the opening/closing members depending
`
`on the component to be mounted so as to clamp the component by using the adapters, and wherein the
`
`plurality of adapters includes first adapters (14) each having a flat clamping surface (42) clamping a body
`
`of the component and second adapters (12) each having a holding groove (20) holding an axial portion of
`
`the component via the first adapters.
`
`12.
`
`With claim 2, the axial portion of the component and substrate are considered to be a Material or
`
`Article Work ed Upon by Apparatus per MPEP 2115. The holding groove extends toward a tip (22) of
`
`the second adapter.
`
`

`

`P
`lication/Control Number: 15/907,979
`Art Unit: 3652
`
`g
`Pa e 4
`
`13.
`
`With claim 3, the flat clamping surface of the first adapter is covered with an elastic member
`
`(34).
`
`14.
`
`With claims 6-7, the method of mounting a component can be accomplished with the structural
`
`elements as discussed in claims 1-3 above.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`15.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC. 102 and
`
`103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC. 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.
`
`16.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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, notwithstandingthat 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.
`
`17.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere C0., 383 US. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966),
`
`that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC. 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.
`
`18.
`
`Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over Malstrom et al (US
`
`2017/0057101).
`
`19.
`
`With claim 4, Malstrom et al disclose the claimed invention except for the holding groove of the
`
`second adapter to be constructed of metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`

`

`P
`lication/Control Number: 15/907,979
`Art Unit: 3652
`
`g
`Pa e 5
`
`art at the time the invention was made to construct the second adapter of metal, since metal is well known
`
`to be durable and non-rusting and could handle the long automated process in a factory environment for
`
`the robotic positioning system.
`
`20.
`
`With claim 5, at the time the invention was made, Applicant has not disclosed why different
`
`cross-sectional shapes would provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated
`
`problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to
`
`perform equally well with the cross-sectional shape to be rectangular, since it allows the first adapters to
`
`be operably movable from a first position (Figure l) to a second position (Figure 6).
`
`Conclusion
`
`21.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
`
`Ostlund, Harada et al, Yakou, and Itoh are cited as being relevant art.
`
`22.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to STEPHEN A VU whose telephone number is (571)272- 1961. The examiner can normally
`
`be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
`
`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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewprac tice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’ s supervisor, Saul
`
`Rodriguez can be reached on (571)272-7097. 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 http://pair-
`
`direc t.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
`
`

`

`Applic ation/Control Number: 15/907,979
`Art Unit: 3652
`
`Page 6
`
`Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
`
`CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
`
`STEPHEN A VU
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 3652
`
`/STEPHEN A VU/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
`
`