www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/496, 187
`
`10/07/2021
`
`HIROKAZU TAKEHARA
`
`PIPMM-60927US1
`
`1021
`
`menans
`
`ORI
`PEA
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND,OH 44114-3108
`
`CHOY,PANG
`
`3624
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/04/2024
`
`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):
`
`patdocket@ pearne.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`17/496, 187
`Examiner
`PAN CHOY
`
`Applicant(s)
`TAKEHARAetal.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3624
`Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom 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, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 21 December 2023.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) 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 Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 1-8 and 14-20 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected.
`[) Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)() The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)C) accepted or b){) 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:
`—_c)LJ None ofthe:
`b)LJ Some**
`a)D) All
`1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin 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) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240102
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthe
`
`first inventorto file provisions of the AJA.
`
`Introduction
`
`2.
`
`The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications
`
`received on December 21, 2023. Claims 9 and 12 have been amended.
`
`Currently claims 1-20 are pending with claims 9-13 under consideration for examination
`
`and claims 1-8 and 14-20 being withdrawn as being directed to non-elected invention. Claim 9 is
`
`independent.
`
`Response to Amendments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s)of rejections in this Office
`
`Action.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant’s amendments do not overcomethe objection to the Specification as set forth
`
`in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the objection to the Specification is maintained.
`
`5.
`
`The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn
`
`in response to Applicant’s amendments.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant’s amendments to claims 9 and 12 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`rejection to claims 9-13 is maintained.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 3
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`7.
`
`Applicant’s arguments filed on December 21, 2023 have been fully considered but are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`8.
`
`In the Remarks on page 7, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
`
`that the amended claim 9 is subject-matter eligible because the claim integrates the alleged
`
`abstract ideas into a practical application. Specifically, claim recites “controlling the component
`
`mounting line to produce a plurality of mounting boards according to the updated production
`
`schedule”. This controlling of the mounting line is a practical application.
`
`In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examinerrespectfully disagrees. In order for a
`
`claim to integrate the exception as a practical application, the additional claimed elements must,
`
`for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field
`
`(see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP §
`
`2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
`
`(see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way
`
`beyondgenerally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
`
`environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, claim 9 recites the
`
`additional elements of “a single screen” and “an input device” for controlling the component
`
`mounting line to produce a plurality of mounting boards. The Specification discloses “an input
`
`device such as a keyboard, a touch panel, or a mouse andis used in an operating command,
`
`during data input, or the like; and a display device such as a liquid crystal panel and displays
`
`various items of information such as an operating screen for an operation by inputter” (see J 38);
`
`and “inputter 28 and display 29 are a number-of-worker inputter that is used to input numberof
`
`workers who perform arrangement work, in association with production time point57 for
`
`producing the mounting board” (see 7 53). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer
`
`components. At best, the additional elements may perform the steps of displaying schedule and
`
`workerinformation on a screen, and changing the production schedule data by inputting the
`
`number of workers andstart time. However, using the generic computer components for
`
`performing generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting
`
`information over a network have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. Thus, simply implementing the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 4
`
`abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amountto
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)). Collecting
`
`information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric
`
`Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable
`
`improvement in computer technology.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of
`
`Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Using a computerto accelerate an ineligible
`
`mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.”).
`
`9.
`
`In the Remarkson page 9, Applicant argues that Onda does not disclose changinga start
`
`time point or an end time point of an arrangement work including an attachment, detachment, or
`
`replacementof the carriage in the component mounting line based on the changed numberof
`
`workers and a time to be taken by each of the workers.
`
`In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examinerrespectfully disagrees. While Yoshiya
`
`discloses a method of managing the progress of the processing process of an object, the object to
`
`be processedis printed is attached to the object to be processes, the tag piece is cut out at the end
`
`of each processing step, and the tag piece is scanned with handy terminal to obtain information
`
`on the object to be processed (see pg. 2, {| 2-3); the work process master processes such as
`
`machining, cutting, polishing, and assembly that change the shape or properties of materials are
`
`classified as value-added work processes as work that improves the added value (pg. 4,{| 2);
`
`Onda discloses a user interface provides a system to movea plurality of segments together
`
`(attachment); and provides for exchanging segments. If the exchange operation were not
`
`available, a segment must be deleted (detachment), another segment must be movedto the
`
`deleted location and an additional segment must be created in the location where the segmentis
`
`removed from (replacement); when a workeris assigned for a work, a group of workersis
`
`displayed whoare available for the period of 10:00 to 12:30 and additional one hour before and
`
`after the period (see col. 20, lines 16-62). However, new ground(s) of rejection may be applied.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 5
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`10.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoeverinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition
`of matter, or any new and useful improvementthereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirementsof thistitle.
`
`11.
`
`Claims9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
`
`to an abstract idea without significantly more.
`
`Asper Step | of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whetherthe
`
`claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention,i.e., process, machine,
`
`manufacture, or composition of matter.
`
`In this case, claims 9-13 are directed to a method for controlling a component mounting
`
`line withouttied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four
`
`statutory categories. However, claims 9-13 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of
`
`compact prosecution.
`
`With respect to claims 9-13, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter
`
`because the claims are directed to a method withouttied to a particular machine in the body of
`
`the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whethera claim
`
`recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a
`
`particular machine or; (2) transformsa particular article to a different state or thing. See Jn re
`
`Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff'd, Bilski v. Kappos, 561
`
`U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
`
`In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim
`
`at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural
`
`phenomenon). Underthis step, a two-prong inquiry will be performedto determineif the claim
`
`recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determineif
`
`the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of
`
`the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84
`
`Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 6
`
`In Prong One,it is to determineif the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea
`
`enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
`
`Taking the method as representative, the claims recite the limitations of “displaying a
`
`production schedule, displaying a preparation work schedule, displaying a number of worker,
`
`changing the number of worker on a single screen and along a common production time point,
`
`changing the numberof workers displayed in the third region, updating the preparation work
`
`schedule displayed in the second region, updating the production schedule in the first region,
`
`managing the arrangement work according to the updated preparation work schedule, controlling
`
`the component mounting line to produce a plurality of mounting boarding to the updated
`
`production schedule”. Noneofthe limitations recites technological implementation details for
`
`any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any andall possible means. The
`
`limitations, as drafted, are directed to methods of organizing humanactivity including
`
`fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal
`
`behavioror relationships or interactions between people. For example, displaying preparation
`
`workschedule, changing the numberof worker, and managing the arrangement work, whichfall
`
`within the “certain methods of organizing humanactivity” grouping. The mere nominal
`
`recitation of “a single screen” and “via an input device” do not take the claim out of the certain
`
`methods of organizing humanactivity grouping. See Revised 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
`
`Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
`
`In Prong Two, it is to determineif the claim recites additional elements that integrate the
`
`exception into a practical application of the exception.
`
`Beyond the abstract idea, claim 9 recites the additional elements of “a single screen” and
`
`“an input device”. The Specification discloses “an input device such as a keyboard, a touch
`
`panel, or a mouseandis used in an operating command, during data input, or the like. Display is
`
`a display device such asa liquid crystal panel and displays various items of information such as
`
`an operating screen for an operation by inputter” (see § 38). When given the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation andin light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than
`
`generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality
`
`and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an
`
`abstract idea, or mere instructions to implementthe abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 7
`
`adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform
`
`generic computer functions does not automatically overcomeaneligibility rejection. Alice Corp.
`
`Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 8. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see
`
`also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function .
`
`.
`
`. does not impose
`
`meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract
`
`idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
`
`because nothing in the claimsthat reflects an improvementto the functioning of a computeritself
`
`or another technology. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception
`
`into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding
`
`to Step 2B.
`
`In Step 2B ofAlice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’ —i.e., an element or
`
`combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
`
`significantly more than a patent uponthe [ineligible concept’ itself.
`
`7d. (alternation in original)
`
`(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
`
`The claims as described in Prong Two above,nothing in the claimsthat integrates the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
`
`Claimsclaim 9 recites the additional elements of “a single screen” and “an input device”.
`
`The Specification discloses “an input device such as a keyboard, a touch panel, or a mouse andis
`
`used in an operating command,during data input, or the like. Display is a display device such as
`
`a liquid crystal panel and displays various items of information such as an operating screen for
`
`an operation by inputter” (see
`
`38). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in
`
`light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer
`
`components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no
`
`more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or
`
`mereinstructions to implementthe abstract idea on a computer. The additional elements, at best,
`
`may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, displaying, storing, and
`
`transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer components for performing
`
`generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 8
`
`or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at
`
`1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
`
`Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing
`
`generic computer functions do not amountto significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP
`
`2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, claims 9-13 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted
`
`from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above. Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed
`
`individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the
`
`abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amountto
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 9
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`12.
`
`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 groundofrejection if the prior art
`
`relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same undereither status.
`
`13.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which formsthe 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 ofthistitle, 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.
`
`14.
`
`Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiyaetal.,
`
`(JP 2014002705A, hereinafter: Yoshiya), and in view of Ondaet al., (US 5943051, hereinafter:
`
`Onda), and further in view of Yamadaet al., (US 20110073396, hereinafter: Yamada).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Yoshiya discloses a method for controlling a component mounting
`
`line, comprising:
`
`displaying, on a single screen and along a common production time point, a first region
`
`displaying a production schedule, a second region displaying a preparation work schedule, and a
`
`third region displaying a numberof workers (see pg. 9, { 4-5; pg. 12, [5 to pg. 13, 7 1; pg. 13, 7
`
`7-8);
`
`changing the number of workers displayed in the third region via an input device (see pg.
`
`11, { 6-8; pg. 13, 9. 3-8; pg. 16, ¥ 12-15);
`
`managing the arrangement work according to the updated preparation work schedule (see
`
`pg. 2, | 2-3; pg. 7, 17 to pg. 8, | 1); and
`
`controlling the component mounting line to produce a plurality of mounting boards
`
`according to the updated production schedule (see pg. 2, { 1-3, and { 6 to pg. 3, J 2; pg. 8,18 to
`
`pg. 9, I 2).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 10
`
`Yoshiya discloses a database may be provided with a rewritable worker performancefile
`
`associated with the worker master, the work in progress, completed work,etc. of the worker
`
`stored in this file may be updated at any time, or updated as needed(see pg. 3, {| 5-6); and the
`
`workprocess master processes such as machining, cutting, polishing, and assembly that change
`
`the shape or properties of materials are classified as value-added work processes as work that
`
`improvesthe addedvalue (pg. 4,{| 2).
`
`Yoshiya does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Onda in an
`
`analogousart for data synchronizing of user interface.
`
`updating the preparation work schedule displayed in the second region by changing a
`
`start time point or an end time point of an arrangement work including an attachment,
`
`detachment, or replacement of the carriage in the component mounting line based on the changed
`
`numberof workers and a timeto be taken by each of the workers (see col. 2, lines 45-59; col. 5,
`
`line 63 to col. 6, line 34; col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 27; col. 15, lines 12-38, col. 20, line 5 to
`
`col. 21, line 44); and
`
`updating the production schedule displayed in the first region by changingastart time
`
`point or an end time point of a production of a mounting board based on the changedstart time
`
`point or end time point of the arrangement work (see col. 13, lines 7-23; col. 14, lines 16-45; col.
`
`17, lines 8-24; claim 2).
`
`It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yoshiyato include the teaching of Onda in
`
`order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of
`
`a more optimal solution for information synchronization, in turn of operational efficiency. Since
`
`the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function asit did
`
`separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the
`
`combination were predictable.
`
`Onda discloses a user interface provides a system to movea plurality of segments
`
`together (attachment); and if the exchange operation were not available, a segment must be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 11
`
`deleted (detachment), another segment must be movedto the deleted location and an additional
`
`segment must be created in the location where the segment is removed from (replacement) (see
`
`col. 20, lines 16-62).
`
`Yoshiya and Onda do not explicitly disclose the work including an attachment,
`
`detachment, or replacement of the carriage; however, Yamada in an analogousart for managing
`
`scooter assembly work discloses
`
`an arrangement workincluding an attachment, detachment, or replacementof the carriage
`
`in the component mounting line (see {| 22-26).
`
`It would have been obviousto one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of
`
`Yoshiya and in view of Ondato include the teaching of Yamadain orderto gain the commonly
`
`understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more specific type of
`
`worksto be performed. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the
`
`same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognizedthat
`
`the results of the combination were predictable.
`
`In addition, the limitation of “an arrangement work including an attachment, detachment,
`
`or replacementof the carriage in the component mounting line” merely describing the type of
`
`works, which is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any
`
`functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that
`
`nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from priorart in term of
`
`patentability. (in re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed.Cir.
`
`2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Yoshiya does not explicitly disclose the following limitations;
`
`however, Onda discloses the method of claim 9, wherein thefirst region displays a production
`
`time of the plurality of mounting boards for each of a plurality of mounting lines (see col. 5, lines
`
`51-67; claim 1). It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yoshiyato include the teaching of
`
`Ondain order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the
`
`benefit of a more optimal solution for information synchronization, in turn of operational
`
`efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 12
`
`function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognizedthat the
`
`results of the combination were predictable.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Yoshiya does not explicitly disclose the following limitations;
`
`however, Onda discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second region indicates whether a
`
`carriage is attached to a component mounting line anda status of the carriage at a time point (see
`
`col. 6, 1-17; claim 1). It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yoshiya to include the
`
`teaching of Ondain order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as
`
`providing the benefit of a more optimalsolution for information synchronization, in turn of
`
`operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the
`
`same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognizedthat
`
`the results of the combination were predictable.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Yoshiya and Onda do not explicitly disclose the following
`
`limitations; however, Yamada discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second region
`
`displays a plurality of arrangement works and indicates whether each arrangement work is a
`
`detachment work or an attachment work, or a replacement work (see {| 22-26).
`
`It would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention to modify the system of Yoshiya and in view of Ondato include the teaching of
`
`Yamada in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing
`
`the benefit of a more specific type of works to be performed. Since the combination of each
`
`element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have recognizedthat the results of the combination were predictable.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Yoshiya discloses the method of claim 9, wherein changing the
`
`number of workers displayed in the third region includes one of decreasing a number of workers
`
`who perform the arrangement workat a time point or increasing a number of workers who
`
`perform the arrangement work at a time point(see pg. 4, 5; pg. 7, {| 6-8; pg. 8, 1 8 to pg. 9, { 2).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 13
`
`Conclusion
`
`15.
`
`Theprior art madeof record and notrelied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure.
`
`e Kodamaet al., (CN 1836477) discloses a method for managing and assisting the work
`
`of auxiliary substrate related operation of the worker to inform the responsible
`
`worker.
`
`e Masashiet al., (JP 2002006934) discloses a method for worker allocation adjustment
`
`on a production line with a high productivity and growth potential according to a
`
`result from the productivity evaluation of the worker.
`
`e “An optimization algorithm for integrated remanufacturing production planning and
`
`scheduling system”, by Haijun Wen, Shiwang Hou, Zhaohua Liu and Yongjiang Liu,
`
`School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, North University of China, TaiYuan,
`
`China. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 105 (2017) 69-76.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
`
`Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADEFINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
`
`Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this action. In the eventa first reply is filed within TWO
`
`MONTHSofthe mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE-MONTHshortened 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 1.136(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 MONTHSfrom the date of this
`
`final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to PAN G CHOY whose telephone numberis (571)270-7038. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/496,187
`Art Unit: 3624
`
`Page 14
`
`Examinerinterviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using
`
`a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicantis
`
`encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone numberfor the
`
`organization wherethis application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
`
`obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available
`
`to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit:
`
`https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more
`
`information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx fo