DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 Rejection
Applicant states (pp. 7) that limitation “output…a first image…and a second image…, the first image being distinguishable from the second image” cannot be performed in the mind. This is correct, but the “output” action is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Applicant further states (pp. 8) that the claims as a whole is directed to a practical application of accurately identifying various data groups. Examiner respectfully disagrees, since all additional elements beyond mental processes are either high-level recitations of generic computer components/functions (Step 2A Prong Two) or recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (Step 2B).
103 Rejection
Applicant states (pp. 10) that the cited prior art of record combined does not teach the amended limitations on the first/second image being a substrate image of the specific/normal reference data group schematically indicating a state in which multiple components are mounted on the substrate and including character information identifying the specific/normal reference data group. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kurata stores component set history information (i.e., data group) including identification (i.e., character) information on the components supplied by part feeders, loading positions of part feeders, and timing at which components are set in part feeders [0007].
Kurata uses a component recognition camera to image and recognize electronic components retained by a traveling mounting head. A substrate recognition camera travels above the substrate positioned by the substrate transport mechanism, and images and recognizes the substrate (i.e., first/second substrate images). A mounting position correction is conducted taking into account (i.e., indicating) the recognition results (i.e., states) of the components and the substrate [0033]. An input unit is an input device such as a touch panel switch set in a keyboard (i.e., buttons) or a display panel (i.e., display device) [0057].
The diagnostic tool of Wright reports back (i.e., outputs) a unique identity code (i.e., identification information) corresponding to (i.e., identifying) the specifications being used to assemble (i.e., mount) the product (i.e., specific reference data group), which is then included in the product tracking data history (Wright: [0021]). Any changes (i.e., derivative data group) to (i.e., associated with) specifications can be made (i.e., determined) with certainty (i.e., distinguishable) as to which version (i.e., type: specific vs. normal) is being used (Wright: [0046]).
In summary, the cited prior art of record combined teaches the argued limitations of independent claims 1 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea as a mental process without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1
Claim 1 recites “A data management device” comprising a storage device and a processor. Claim 13 recites “A data management method”. Each claim is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1 and 13 recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“store a set of data…defined as a data group, one…is defined as a reference data group, the data group managed in association…is defined as an association data group, and one…is defined as a derivative data group” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate by grouping data into subsets based on their mutual dependencies and relationships.
“determine whether the derivative data group is associated with each of…the reference data groups” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe or evaluate to identify the derivation dependency and relationship of one subset on another.
“[first/second] image…indicating a state…and including character information…, the first image being distinguishable from the second image” recites an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally evaluate or judge by comparing two images to decide if they are different.
“determine an enablement…by using…and selecting the difference data” and “prohibit updating…by not selecting the difference data” recite an abstract idea as a mental process. One can decide whether to update the difference data depending on the nature of differences.
Step 2A – Prong Two
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 13 include additional elements “storage device”, “processor”, “substrate”, “display device”, “input device”, “touch panel”, “update button” and “return button”, which are high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP §2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 13 include additional element “display an image” and “output a [first/second] image including identification information”, which qualify as “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, and is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity per MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
The conclusions on the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and functions carry over and do not add significantly more or provide any "inventive concept".
In summary, claims 1 and 13 are not eligible. Claims 2, 5 and 9-10 depend on claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong One
The following claims recite additional elements that are mentally performable.
Claim 2 recites mounting-related data including pickup position, mounting position, mounting order, a device, and a use condition. One can mentally observe or evaluate to determine mounting-related data.
Claim 5 recites component-related data including component shape, package information, and inspection reference information. One can mentally observe or evaluate to determine component-related data.
Claim 9 recites making a change in display color, marker, and icon. One can mentally to evaluate or judge to change display-related properties.
Claim 10 recites displaying data differences caused by changing component or device. One can mentally observe or evaluate to determine differences caused by a changing component or device.
Step 2A Prong Two
Claims 9-10 recite additional elements “display device” and “display method”, which are high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions.
In summary, these dependent claims do not add any additional elements sufficient to make the claims non-abstract. Therefore, they are not eligible accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata. US patent application 2014/0290055 [herein “Kurata”], in view of Wright. US patent application 2002/0183881 [herein “Wright”], and further in view of Deutsch et al. US patent 11,379,525 [herein “Deutsch”].
Claim 1 recites “A data management device comprising: a storage device including memory configured to store a set of data used in a mounting process of mounting a component on a substrate which is defined as a data group, in which one of multiple data groups is defined as a reference data group,”
Kurata teaches a mounting process for each substrate type to mount electronic components on a substrate of the type [0006]. Kurata stores component set history information (i.e., data group) including identification (i.e., character) information on the components supplied by part feeders, loading positions of part feeders, and timing at which components are set in part feeders [0007].
Claim 1 further recites “a display device configured to display an image, the display device including a touch panel configured to serve as an input device; and”.
Kurata uses a component recognition camera to image and recognize electronic components retained by a traveling mounting head. A substrate recognition camera travels above the substrate positioned by the substrate transport mechanism, and images and recognizes the substrate (i.e., first/second substrate images). A mounting position correction is conducted taking into account (i.e., indicating) the recognition results (i.e., states) of the components and the substrate [0033]. An input unit is an input device such as a touch panel switch set in a keyboard (i.e., buttons) or a display panel (i.e., display device) [0057].
Kurata does not disclose “the data group managed in association with the reference data group is defined as an association data group, and one of the association data groups that includes difference data, which is correspondence data corresponding to the data of the reference data group that differs from the data of the reference data group, is defined as a derivative data group;”
However, Wright places a set (i.e., multiple types) of product assembly specifications (i.e., reference data groups) and product performance test protocols (i.e., association data groups) in a central data repository for use during product manufacture (Wright: [0037]-[0038]), together with previous versions (i.e., difference data) of specifications (i.e., derivative data groups) (Wright: [0047]).
Kurata does not disclose “a processor configured to determine whether the derivative data group is associated with each of multiple types of the reference data groups, output, on the display device, a first image including identification information identifying a specific reference data group, which is the reference data group with which the derivative data group is associated, the first image being a substrate image of the specific reference data group schematically indicating a state in which multiple components are mounted on the substrate and including character information identifying the specific reference data group, and a second image including identification information identifying a normal reference data group, which is the reference data group with which the derivative data group is not associated, based on a determination result, the second image being a substrate image of the normal reference data group schematically indicating a state in which the multiple components are mounted on the substrate and including character information identifying the normal reference data group, the first image being distinguishable from the second image,”
However, the diagnostic tool of Wright reports back (i.e., outputs) a unique identity code (i.e., identification information) corresponding to (i.e., identifying) the specifications being used to assemble (i.e., mount) the product (i.e., specific reference data group), which is then included in the product tracking data history (Wright: [0021]). Any changes (i.e., derivative data group) to (i.e., associated with) specifications can be made (i.e., determined) with certainty (i.e., distinguishable) as to which version (i.e., type: specific vs. normal) is being used (Wright: [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wright to Kurata. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to track and manage relationships and dependencies between versions of various manufacturing datasets, including reference and derivative datasets, as in Wright during the manufacturing process of Kurata.
Kurata does not disclose “determine an enablement of update processing for updating at least one piece of data that corresponds to the specific reference data group with which the derivative data group is associated, the enablement being determined by using the difference data of the derivative data group and being enabled by selecting the difference data of the derivative data group using the touch panel of the display device and by selecting an update button on the display device, and”.
However, Deutsch teaches a data pipeline system comprising a directed acyclic graph of raw datasets (i.e., reference data groups) and derived datasets (i.e., derivative data groups) (Deutsch: 3:49-50). Deutsch continuously monitors each dataset depended on by the final derived dataset defined in the pipeline. Whenever a transaction is detected that changes (i.e., updates) a given dataset (i.e., specific reference data group), all downstream datasets derived from the changed dataset (i.e., derivative data groups) are rebuilt (i.e., selected to update) (Deutsch: 3:55-63).
Kurata does not disclose “prohibit updating of the data for a difference in the data caused by an individual difference of the component or an individual difference of a device used in the mounting process by not selecting the difference data or by selecting a return button on the display device.”
However, Deutsch allows users to define desired update frequencies on particular datasets, thus minimizing (but not eliminating) unnecessary builds (Deutsch: 3:39-44). For example, propagation of hourly updates from source dataset A via intermediate dataset B to final dataset AB in the data pipeline can be throttled to daily frequency by skipping (i.e., prohibiting to select) midday updates of B, if B is costly to compute and contains non-critical updates (i.e., individual difference) (Deutsch: 11:12-25). In other words, hourly updates to AB could be derived from the last-hour version of A and the last-day version of B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Deutsch to Kurata and Wright. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to incorporate the data pipeline of Deutsch to facilitate tracking and management of relationships and dependencies between versions of various manufacturing datasets in Kurata and Wright.
Claim 13 is analogous to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites “The data management device according to claim 1, wherein the data group is mounting-related data including the data in which mounting-related information that is information about at least one of a pickup position of the component to be used in the mounting process, a mounting position of the component, a mounting order of the component, a device to be used in the mounting process, and a use condition of the device is stored.”
Kurata teaches a mounting process for each substrate type to mount electronic components on a substrate of the type, in which a plurality of component mounting devices are coupled to each other [0006]. Kurata stores component set history information (i.e., mounting-related data) including identification information on the components supplied by part feeders, loading positions (i.e., mounting position) of part feeders, and timing at which components are set in part feeders [0007].
Claim 9 recites “The data management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor changes a display method of the display device according to at least one of a difference in display color, presence or absence of a marker, and a difference in an icon.”
Kurata, Wright and Deutsch teach claim 1, where Deutsch teaches a data pipeline system comprising a directed acyclic graph of raw datasets (i.e., reference data groups) and derived datasets (i.e., derivative data groups) (Deutsch: 3:49-50). The Throttled Datasets region in a GUI (i.e., display device) comprises zero or more rows, each comprising a dataset identifier and an owner identifier. A row can be configured (i.e., changed) with a dataset selection widget (i.e., different display color), a frequency selection widget, and an edit icon (Deutsch: 16:31-42).
Claim 10 recites “The data management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor changes a display method of the display device in accordance with a difference in the data caused by an individual difference of the component or an individual difference of a device used in the mounting process, and a difference in the data caused by a factor other than the individual difference.”
Kurata, Wright and Deutsch teach claim 1, where Deutsch teaches a data pipeline system comprising a directed acyclic graph of raw datasets (i.e., reference data groups) and derived datasets (i.e., derivative data groups) (Deutsch: 3:49-50). The Throttled Datasets region in a GUI (i.e., display device) comprises zero or more rows, each comprising a dataset identifier and an owner identifier. A row can be configured with a dataset selection widget (e.g., different display color for change in component or device), a frequency selection widget to indicate for example criticality of updates (i.e., factor other than individual difference), and an edit icon (Deutsch: 16:31-42).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wright and Deutsch, and further in view of Sobue et al. US patent application 2017/0001371 [herein “Sobue”].
Claim 5 recites “The data management device according to claim 1, wherein the data group is component-related data including the data in which component-related information that is information about at least one of shape-related information including at least information about a shape of the component, package information about a supply method of the component, and inspection reference information used when inspecting a mounting state of the component is stored.”
Kurata teaches a mounting process for each substrate type to mount electronic components on a substrate of the type, in which a plurality of component mounting devices are coupled to each other [0006]. Kurata stores component set history information (i.e., component-related data) including identification information on the components supplied by part feeders, loading positions (i.e., mounting state) of part feeders, and timing at which components are set in part feeders (i.e., package information) [0007].
Kurata and Wright teach claim 1, but does not disclose claim element “shape”; however, Sobue teaches a shaping system that fabricates a shaping object (i.e., shape of component) by forming a material layer based on slice data and stacking the material layer (Sobue: [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sobue to Kurata and Wright. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to incorporate shaping objects of Sobue as component features in product assembly specifications of Wright to be managed as reference data in Kurata.
Conclusion
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 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLY X. QIAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT.
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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this 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 for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHELLY X QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154