DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant s election of the invention of Group I, Claims 1 through 11, in the reply filed on September 15, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 12 and 13 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 15, 2025. Drawings New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because at least some of the structure that is claimed (i.e. Claim 1) would be beneficial to understanding the invention. In this case, Claim 1 recites “means of an industrial robot” or “means for gripping and transporting a component” . These features, either structurally, or diagrammatically, shown in a drawing, would be helpful in understanding the invention. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In Claim 1, “means of an industrial robot” (line 2); and “means for gripping and transporting a component” (lines 2-3) . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 1, “PCB” (line 1) should be changed to –printed circuit board (PCB)--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1 through 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In Claim 1, the following phrases each lack positive antecedent basis: “the Z-axis” (line 7); “the surface of the board” (line 7); “the direction” (line 8); “the board surface” (line 8); “the industrial robot” (line 11); “the movement of the component” (line 17); and “the component movement” (line 21). Moreover, the following phrases also raise a great deal of confusion for the following reasons. It is unclear what “the board” (line 7) is referring to. Is this referring to the “PCB” (line 1) previously recited ? It is unclear what is meant by the phrase of “means for gripping and transporting of the industrial robot” (1st occurrence on lines 10-11, 2 nd occurrence at lines 12-13). It appears that this phrase is referring previously to “means for gripping and transporting a component” (lines 2-3) and the interpretation will be made as such for examination purposes. Also, it is unclear what the phrases of “the movement of the component” (line 17) and “the component movement” (line 21) are referring to. For example, the previous steps of a, b, d, g and h and i, each have movement of the component. Which one of these previous steps is being referred to? In Claim 3, what is the difference between “regulator parameters” (line 9) and the previous recitation of “regulator with determined parameters” (line 9 of Claim 1). Is this referencing the same regulator, and the same parameters? Even further confusion is raised with “determined parameters” (line 10) as to whether this is referring to “parameters” (line 9 of Claim 3) or “determined parameters” (line 9 of Claim 1). Also, “the present percent value” (line 16) lacks positive antecedent basis. It appears that this phrase is referring to “preset percent value” (line 14). In Claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by “step u4” (line 1) and “steps m-u are repeated” (lines 2-3). Claim 4 depends from Claim 1 and Claim 1 recites no such previous steps of u4 or m-u. In Claim 7, the phrase of “preferably” (line 2) is analogous to “such as”, where the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In Claim 8, “the rigidity of the board” (line 2) and “the element insertion length” (lines 2-3) each lack positive antecedent basis. In Claim 11, what is the difference between “an opening edge” (lines 1-2) and the previous occurrence of “an opening edge” (line 1 of Claim 10). Are these the same opening edges? Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim appears to be an omnibus type claim. For example, U.S. Patent 5,229,699 to Chu et al, disclose a Ziegler/Nichols oscillation method (e.g. col. 3, lines 45+). Chu discloses that there are any number of steps involved with the Ziegler/Nichols oscillation method. Which one of these would be encompassed by Claim 6? 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, 4, 5 and 8 through 11 , as best understood , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,964,211 to Arao et al (hereinafter “Arao”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,705,081 to Birk et al (hereinafter “Birk”). Claim 1 : Arao discloses a m ethod for mounting, suitable for positioning reeved component A on a printed circuit board (PCB)(B, Fig. 7) , by a component mounter (e.g. Figs. 1, 2) that comprises a force and/or moment sensor (e.g. 3) and a means for gripping and transporting a component (e.g. 2) , comprising: a. drawing a component (from a parts supply section, ST1, Fig. 6) , b. transporting the component to a predetermined starting position (e.g. ST3, Fig. 6) , c. taring the force and/or moment sensor (e.g. ascertaining or detecting force with sensor 3, col. 3, lines 55-60) , d. transporting the component in a Z-axis, defined as a height over a surface of the PCB , in the direction of the PCB , until the component contacts the board surface (e.g. Figs. 7 to 8) , e. actuating a regulator [stroke adjusting means] with determined parameters (of force) , f. transmitting from the regulator, when output data are stabilized, of a signal to means for gripping and transporting of the component as Z-axis offset (e.g. Am, Figs. 11, 12a, regulating/adjusting of forces, col. 6, lines 20-36) , g. releasing the component from the means for gripping and transporting of the component (e.g. ST8) , if the Z-axis offset is greater than or equal to a preset parameter (e.g. F3, Fig. 12b) , and establishing the current position of the component as a starting point (e.g. col. 6, lines 9-11) , h. moving the component, if the Z-axis offset is less than a preset parameter (e.g. F3) , along a predetermined path, beginning from the current position point (e.g. ST10, Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 11-19) , i. arresting movement of the component, when the force sensor and/or the moment sensor detect an opening edge (e.g. b1, b2, b3, etc.) in the PCB (e.g. ST4, col. 4, lines 38-44) , j. moving the component away from the opening edge based on data from the force and/or moment sensor (e.g. ST10, Fig. 6, col. 5, lines 15-36) , k. repeating steps g-j, while a change in a component movement is executed [for another or the next component to be mounted] . Claim 2 : Arao discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein step k is carried out if a predetermined maximum duration time (e.g. T1 to T5, Figs. 9 and 10) is not exceeded. Claim 4 : As best understood, Arao discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein of changing a component movement direction is carried out if a predetermined maximum duration time (e.g. T1 to T5, Figs. 9 and 10) is not exceeded, and anyone of the steps can be repeated for a next component . Claim 5 : Arao discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the regulator parameters are proportional, integrating and differentiating portions setups (of forces, e.g. F1 to F4, col. 6, lines 20-36) . Claim 8 : Arao discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a depth at which the component is embedded within the PCB is calculated based on a rigidity of the PCB (e.g. shape of PCB shown in Figs. 7 and 8) and an element insertion length (of a1 to a6, in Figs. 7 and 8) . Claim 9 : Arao discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the component is placed in a greater number of openings (e.g. b1 to b6, Fig. 7) . Claims 10 and 11 : Arao discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the moment when an opening edge (e.g. b1, b2, etc.) is detected occurs as appearance of a value of a force (e.g. Fz, in Fig. 12b) resultant from Fx and Fy forces above a preset maximum horizontal force (e.g. F3); wherein at the moment when the opening edge is detected the component is moved away (e.g. ST10, Fig. 6) according to a direction of a force resultant from Fx and Fy (e.g. Fx and time) forces to bring the value of the force resultant from Fx and Fy forces to a value (e.g. Fa) between a preset minimum horizontal force value (e.g. zero and F3, in Fig. 12b) . Arao does not mention a means of an industrial robot and where drawing a component occurs from. Birk teaches a means of an industrial robot (e.g. 22, in Fig. 1) that includes a means for gripping and transporting a component (e.g. 24, 26). The means for gripping and transporting a component transport s a component (e.g. 28) to a predetermined starting position over a PCB until the component is in contact with the PCB surface (e.g. col. 4, lines 1+). The component is drawn from a feeder (e.g. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Arao by including a means of an industrial robot and feeder, as taught by Birk, to provide an overall system that allows for drawing, transporting and movement of a component to accurately place or contact the component on the surface of the PCB. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. With respect to Claim 3, neither Arao nor Birk teach activating an opening search algorithm that includes steps u, u1 to u3. With respect to Claims 6 and 7, neither Arao nor Birk teach any oscillation method or that movement of the component is in a shape of a spiral . Moreover, it would not be obvious to modify Arao to include the above features because to do so would destroy the manufacturing process of Arao. Accordingly, Claims 3, 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. a) Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2020-0196075, discloses a method for mounting a component on a PCB by a means for gripping and transporting component (Fig. 3, see SOLUTION). b) Non-Patent Literature IEEE Publication to Liebes et al, entitled, "FLAIR-robotic printed circuit board assembly workcell", discloses a means of an industrial robot (Fig. 2) for mounting a component on a PCB (see entire document) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4570 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JESSICA HAN can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2078 . 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. /A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2896