DETAILED ACTION
The communications dated 9/8/2025 have been entered and fully considered.
Claims 2, 5 and 8-9 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action of 6/27/2025; therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that OHATA lacks a teaching of modifying the feeding speed based on a specific feature stored in the shape data of the electronic component.
The Applicant argues that IISAKA describes shape data does not reduce the feeding speed based on a specific feature in the shape data. Moreover, USUI at most describes components having leads with various geometries. However, no reasonable combination of the cited references teaches a control section configured to, based on the specific feature, reduce the speed so as to be smaller than a speed from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped, where the specific feature is in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations “that the shape data of the electronic component stored in the storage section has the specific feature” is merely an intended use. The Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02, which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that IISAKA discloses a storage section to hold shape data as presently claimed, it is clear that the storage section of IISAKA would be capable of performing the intended use, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, in regards to USUI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA, by having the special feature of the component be the leads, as suggested by USUI, in order to keep components from failing [0050]. In regards to OHATA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA and USUI, by having the stored date of the component be a special feature of the component and accelerate or decelerate based on that data, as suggested by OHATA, in order for the parts to be stably supplied and suppress increase of the user’s workload [0009-0010].
Lastly, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “when an other electronic component” should read “when another electronic component” in line 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “when an other electronic component” should read “when another electronic component” in line 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IISAKA et al. (WO 2018/150578 A1), hereinafter IISAKA.
Regarding claim 1, IISAKA teaches: A component mounting system (IISAKA teaches a component mounting system [Abstract]) comprising: a tape-type component supply feeder detachably attached to a component mounting machine for mounting an electronic component on a board (IISAKA teaches a feeder setting table (22) is provided on the side of the conveyor (13) on the base stand (11), and the plurality of tape feeders (23) detachably set in the Y direction on the feeder setting table (22) [0022; Fig. 1]), having a component feeding mechanism feeding out the electronic component to be accommodated in a tape to a supply position (IISAKA teaches each tape feeder (23) is set with a reel (25) around which a component supply tape (24) is wound, and the leading component (26) of the component supply tape (24) pulled out from the reel (25) is set to be located at a component suction position [0022]), and configured to supply the electronic component fed to the supply position to the component mounting machine (IISAKA teaches the tape feeder (23) performs a pitch feed operation in which the component supply tape (24) is fed in the direction (Y direction) of the component suction position while peeling the cover tape from the upper surface of the component supply tape (24) before the component suction position, and the component (26) in the component accommodation recess (29) stopped at the component suction position is sucked by the suction nozzle (27) and mounted on the circuit board (12) for each pitch feed completion [0023]); a storage section configured to store shape data of the electronic component (IISAKA teaches s storage device (43) for storing a component stop stability determination program and image processing component shape data [0026]), the shape data including a specific feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape; and a control section configured to determine a speed from a time when the electronic component is fed to the supply position to a time when the electronic component is stopped by the component feeding mechanism, based on the shape data of the electronic component (IISAKA teaches an input device for storing a component stop stability determination program and image processing component shape data that are connected to the control device (41) [0026]. IISAKA teaches the control unit determines a speed from a time when the electronic component is fed to the supply position to a time when the component is sopped by the component feeding mechanism (nozzle) based on the shape data [0026; 0029-0033]. In regards to acceleration, IISAKA also teaches the control unit is used to change the pitch feed rate as well as the pitch speed and the speed is increased or decreased [0029; 0044]), and based on the specific feature, reduce the speed so as to be smaller than a speed from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped.
The Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations “the shape data including a specific feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape” and “based on the shape data of the electronic component, and based on the specific feature, reduce the speed so as to be smaller than a speed from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped” is merely an intended use. The Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02, which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that IISAKA discloses a storage section to hold shape data as presently claimed, it is clear that the storage section of IISAKA would be capable of performing the intended use, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, IISAKA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: further comprising a nozzle configured to pick up the electronic component at the supply position (IISAKA teaches the component (26) is sucked by the suction nozzle (27) [0022]), wherein the control section determines, when a suction rate of the nozzle picking up a same type of electronic component multiple times is lower than a predetermined value (IISAKA teaches the control device (41) functions as a monitoring unit that monitors the occurrence of a component suction failure of the suction nozzle during operation of the component mounting machine and performs pitch feed operation of the tape feeder (23) to determine the component stop stability when occurrence frequency or the continuous occurrence frequency of the component suction failure of the suction nozzle (27) becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value [0033]), but IISAKA is silent as to: that the shape data of the electronic component stored in the storage section has the specific feature.
The Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations “that the shape data of the electronic component stored in the storage section has the specific feature” is merely an intended use. The Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02, which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that IISAKA discloses a storage section to hold shape data as presently claimed, it is clear that the storage section of IISAKA would be capable of performing the intended use, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, IISAKA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the specific feature further includes a feature in which a thickness of the electronic component is equal to or less than a predetermined thickness. The Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations “wherein the specific feature further includes a feature in which a thickness of the electronic component is equal to or less than a predetermined thickness” is merely an intended use. The Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02, which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that IISAKA discloses a storage section to hold shape data as presently claimed, it is clear that the storage section of IISAKA would be capable of performing the intended use, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, IISAKA teaches: A component mounting system (IISAKA teaches a component mounting system [Abstract]) comprising: a tape-type component supply feeder detachably attached to a component mounting machine for mounting an electronic component on a board (IISAKA teaches a feeder setting table (22) is provided on the side of the conveyor (13) on the base stand (11), and the plurality of tape feeders (23) detachably set in the Y direction on the feeder setting table (22) [0022; Fig. 1]), having a component feeding mechanism feeding out the electronic component to be accommodated in a tape to a supply position (IISAKA teaches each tape feeder (23) is set with a reel (25) around which a component supply tape (24) is wound, and the leading component (26) of the component supply tape (24) pulled out from the reel (25) is set to be located at a component suction position [0022]), and configured to supply the electronic component fed to the supply position to the component mounting machine (IISAKA teaches the tape feeder (23) performs a pitch feed operation in which the component supply tape (24) is fed in the direction (Y direction) of the component suction position while peeling the cover tape from the upper surface of the component supply tape (24) before the component suction position, and the component (26) in the component accommodation recess (29) stopped at the component suction position is sucked by the suction nozzle (27) and mounted on the circuit board (12) for each pitch feed completion [0023]); a storage section configured to store shape data of the electronic component (IISAKA teaches s storage device (43) for storing a component stop stability determination program and image processing component shape data [0026]), the shape data including a specific feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape; and a control section configured to determine an acceleration from a time when the electronic component is fed to the supply position to a time when the electronic component is stopped by the component feeding mechanism, based on the shape data of the electronic component (IISAKA teaches an input device for storing a component stop stability determination program and image processing component shape data that are connected to the control device (41) [0026]. IISAKA teaches the control unit determines a speed from a time when the electronic component is fed to the supply position to a time when the component is stopped by the component feeding mechanism (nozzle) based on the shape data [0026; 0029-0033]. In regards to acceleration, IISAKA also teaches the control unit is used to change the pitch feed rate as well as the pitch speed and the speed is increased or decreased [0029; 0044]), and based on the specific feature, reduce the acceleration so as to be smaller than an acceleration from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped.
The Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations “the shape data including a specific feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape” and “based on the specific feature, reduce the acceleration so as to be smaller than an acceleration from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped” is merely an intended use. The Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02, which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that IISAKA discloses a storage section to hold shape data as presently claimed, it is clear that the storage section of IISAKA would be capable of performing the intended use, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IISAKA et al. (WO 2018/150578 A1), hereinafter IISAKA, in view of Ohata (JP 2019096664 A, original and translation provided in the IDS of 1/24/2023), hereinafter OHATA.
Regarding claim 3, IISAKA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, component mounting, OHATA teaches: whether the shape data of the electronic component stored in the storage section has the specific feature (OHATA teaches the shape data of the electronic component is stored in the storage section and stores a characteristic of the component [0015-0016]. OHATA teaches the imaging unit can be used as a characteristic measurement unit for mearing the characteristics of the component, so the number of components can be increased or suppressed [0014]. OHATA teaches the suction rate can be determined based on the characteristics of the component [0034-0035; 0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA, by having a characteristics of the component determine parameters of the operation, as suggested by OHATA, in order to suppress that the adsorption/suction precision of components degrades [0011; 0013].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IISAKA et al. (WO 2018/150578 A1), hereinafter IISAKA, in view of Parker et al. (U.S. 5,193,962), hereinafter PARKER.
Regarding claim 4, IISAKA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: further comprising a notification section configured to notify that the control section determines to reduce the speed. In the same field of endeavor, notification system and tapes, PARKER teaches the concept of getting a notification when the tape is fed at a slow speed [Col. 18, lines 63-68 – Col. 19, lines 1-2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA, by having a notification system, as suggested by PARKER, in order to determine if a tape speed is too high [Col. 18, lines 60-64].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IISAKA et al. (WO 2018/150578 A1), hereinafter IISAKA, in view of Usui et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0093896), hereinafter USUI.
Regarding claim 6, IISAKA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, component mounting, USUI teaches: wherein the specific feature is a feature in which a thickness of the electronic component is equal to or less than a predetermined thickness (USUI teaches when a thickness of the electronic component detected by a sensor and the data on the thickness stored in the RAM is within the tolerance, a CPU judges that the component is in a normal posture and executes a normal processing control [Abstract; 0008; 0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA, by having the special feature of the component be the thickness, as suggested by USUI, in order to detect abnormal suction of the component [0007].
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IISAKA et al. (WO 2018/150578 A1), hereinafter IISAKA, in view of Usui et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0093896), hereinafter USUI and Ohata (JP 2019096664 A, original and translation provided in the IDS of 1/24/2023), hereinafter OHATA.
Regarding claim 1, IISAKA teaches: A component mounting system (IISAKA teaches a component mounting system [Abstract]) comprising: a tape-type component supply feeder detachably attached to a component mounting machine for mounting an electronic component on a board (IISAKA teaches a feeder setting table (22) is provided on the side of the conveyor (13) on the base stand (11), and the plurality of tape feeders (23) detachably set in the Y direction on the feeder setting table (22) [0022; Fig. 1]), having a component feeding mechanism feeding out the electronic component to be accommodated in a tape to a supply position (IISAKA teaches each tape feeder (23) is set with a reel (25) around which a component supply tape (24) is wound, and the leading component (26) of the component supply tape (24) pulled out from the reel (25) is set to be located at a component suction position [0022]), and configured to supply the electronic component fed to the supply position to the component mounting machine (IISAKA teaches the tape feeder (23) performs a pitch feed operation in which the component supply tape (24) is fed in the direction (Y direction) of the component suction position while peeling the cover tape from the upper surface of the component supply tape (24) before the component suction position, and the component (26) in the component accommodation recess (29) stopped at the component suction position is sucked by the suction nozzle (27) and mounted on the circuit board (12) for each pitch feed completion [0023]); a storage section configured to store shape data of the electronic component (IISAKA teaches s storage device (43) for storing a component stop stability determination program and image processing component shape data [0026]), the shape data including a specific feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape; and a control section configured to determine a speed from a time when the electronic component is fed to the supply position to a time when the electronic component is stopped by the component feeding mechanism, based on the shape data of the electronic component (IISAKA teaches an input device for storing a component stop stability determination program and image processing component shape data that are connected to the control device (41) [0026]. IISAKA teaches the control unit determines a speed from a time when the electronic component is fed to the supply position to a time when the component is sopped by the component feeding mechanism (nozzle) based on the shape data [0026; 0029-0033]. In regards to acceleration, IISAKA also teaches the control unit is used to change the pitch feed rate as well as the pitch speed and the speed is increased or decreased [0029; 0044]), and based on the specific feature, reduce the speed so as to be smaller than a speed from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped.
The Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations “the shape data including a specific feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape” and “based on the shape data of the electronic component, and based on the specific feature, reduce the speed so as to be smaller than a speed from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped” is merely an intended use. The Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02, which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that IISAKA discloses a storage section to hold shape data as presently claimed, it is clear that the storage section of IISAKA would be capable of performing the intended use, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
In the alternative, if the Applicant remains unconvinced, in the same field of endeavor, component mounting, USUI teaches: wherein the specific feature is a feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape (USUI teaches the component is judged due to the lead shape [0048] and dashed lines represent geometry of leads conforming to the specification, while solid lines show geometry of leads to be explained in here [0048; 0050]. USUI shows the component is horizontal, indicating the leads would be horizontal and in an x-direction [Fig. 8].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA, by having the special feature of the component be the leads, as suggested by USUI, in order to keep components from failing [0050].
In regards to the limitation: based on the shape data of the electronic component, and based on the specific feature, reduce the speed so as to be smaller than a speed from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped, in the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, component mounting, OHATA teaches a control unit that determines parameters related to the tape feeding operation based on the characteristics of the component or tape [0007-0008]. OHATA teaches the speed at which the tape is fed, the acceleration of the tape, or the tape may be set as a parameter in consideration of the degree of movement of the part stored in the tape based on the characteristics of the part and the stop position can be optimized [0009]. OHATA teaches it is possible for setting the parameters for rapidly feeding the tape based on a parts characteristics (for example, accelerating or decelerating quickly) [0008]. OHATA teaches based on the components feature, it is possible to suppress movement of the component by setting the parameter [0011].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA and USUI, by having the stored date of the component be a special feature of the component and accelerate or decelerate based on that data, as suggested by OHATA, in order for the parts to be stably supplied and suppress increase of the user’s workload [0009-0010].
Regarding claim 3, IISAKA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: further comprising a nozzle configured to pick up the electronic component at the supply position (IISAKA teaches the component (26) is sucked by the suction nozzle (27) [0022]), wherein the control section determines, when a suction rate when the nozzle picks up the same type of electronic component multiple times is lower than a predetermined value (IISAKA teaches the control device (41) functions as a monitoring unit that monitors the occurrence of a component suction failure of the suction nozzle during operation of the component mounting machine and performs pitch feed operation of the tape feeder (23) to determine the component stop stability when occurrence frequency or the continuous occurrence frequency of the component suction failure of the suction nozzle (27) becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value [0033]), but IISAKA is silent as to: whether the shape data of the electronic component stored in the storage section has the specific feature. In the same field of endeavor, component mounting, OHATA teaches: whether the shape data of the electronic component stored in the storage section has the specific feature (OHATA teaches the shape data of the electronic component is stored in the storage section and stores a characteristic of the component [0015-0016]. OHATA teaches the imaging unit can be used as a characteristic measurement unit for mearing the characteristics of the component, so the number of components can be increased or suppressed [0014]. OHATA teaches the suction rate can be determined based on the characteristics of the component [0034-0035; 0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA, by having a characteristics of the component determine parameters of the operation, as suggested by OHATA, in order to suppress that the adsorption/suction precision of components degrades [0011; 0013].
Regarding claim 6, IISAKA teaches the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the specific feature is a feature in which a thickness of the electronic component is equal to or less than a predetermined thickness. In the same field of endeavor, component mounting, USUI teaches: wherein the specific feature is a feature in which a thickness of the electronic component is equal to or less than a predetermined thickness (USUI teaches when a thickness of the electronic component detected by a sensor and the data on the thickness stored in the RAM is within the tolerance, a CPU judges that the component is in a normal posture and executes a normal processing control [Abstract; 0008; 0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA and OHATA, by having the special feature of the component be the thickness, as suggested by USUI, in order to detect abnormal suction of the component [0007].
Regarding claim 7, IISAKA teaches: A component mounting system (IISAKA teaches a component mounting system [Abstract]) comprising: a tape-type component supply feeder detachably attached to a component mounting machine for mounting an electronic component on a board (IISAKA teaches a feeder setting table (22) is provided on the side of the conveyor (13) on the base stand (11), and the plurality of tape feeders (23) detachably set in the Y direction on the feeder setting table (22) [0022; Fig. 1]), having a component feeding mechanism feeding out the electronic component to be accommodated in a tape to a supply position (IISAKA teaches each tape feeder (23) is set with a reel (25) around which a component supply tape (24) is wound, and the leading component (26) of the component supply tape (24) pulled out from the reel (25) is set to be located at a component suction position [0022]), and configured to supply the electronic component fed to the supply position to the component mounting machine (IISAKA teaches the tape feeder (23) performs a pitch feed operation in which the component supply tape (24) is fed in the direction (Y direction) of the component suction position while peeling the cover tape from the upper surface of the component supply tape (24) before the component suction position, and the component (26) in the component accommodation recess (29) stopped at the component suction position is sucked by the suction nozzle (27) and mounted on the circuit board (12) for each pitch feed completion [0023]); a storage section configured to store shape data of the electronic component (IISAKA teaches s storage device (43) for storing a component stop stability determination program and image processing component shape data [0026]), the shape data including a specific feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape; and a control section configured to determine an acceleration from a time when the electronic component is fed to the supply position to a time when the electronic component is stopped by the component feeding mechanism, based on the shape data of the electronic component (IISAKA teaches an input device for storing a component stop stability determination program and image processing component shape data that are connected to the control device (41) [0026]. IISAKA teaches the control unit determines a speed from a time when the electronic component is fed to the supply position to a time when the component is stopped by the component feeding mechanism (nozzle) based on the shape data [0026; 0029-0033]. In regards to acceleration, IISAKA also teaches the control unit is used to change the pitch feed rate as well as the pitch speed and the speed is increased or decreased [0029; 0044]), and based on the specific feature, reduce the acceleration so as to be smaller than an acceleration from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped.
The Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations “the shape data including a specific feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape” and “based on the specific feature, reduce the acceleration so as to be smaller than an acceleration from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped” is merely an intended use. The Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02, which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that IISAKA discloses a storage section to hold shape data as presently claimed, it is clear that the storage section of IISAKA would be capable of performing the intended use, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
In the alternative, if the Applicant remains unconvinced, in the same field of endeavor, component mounting, USUI teaches: wherein the specific feature is a feature in which the electronic component includes a lead extending from a main body of the electronic component orthogonal to and horizontal to a feeding direction of the tape (USUI teaches the component is judged due to the lead shape [0048] and dashed lines represent geometry of leads conforming to the specification, while solid lines show geometry of leads to be explained in here [0048; 0050]. USUI shows the component is horizontal, indicating the leads would be horizontal and in an x-direction [Fig. 8].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA, by having the special feature of the component be the leads, as suggested by USUI, in order to keep components from failing [0050].
In regards to the limitation: based on the shape data of the electronic component, and based on the specific feature, reduce the speed so as to be smaller than a speed from a time when an other electronic component not having the specific feature is fed to the supply position to a time when the other electronic component is stopped, in the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, component mounting, OHATA teaches a control unit that determines parameters related to the tape feeding operation based on the characteristics of the component or tape [0007-0008]. OHATA teaches the speed at which the tape is fed, the acceleration of the tape, or the tape may be set as a parameter in consideration of the degree of movement of the part stored in the tape based on the characteristics of the part and the stop position can be optimized [0009]. OHATA teaches it is possible for setting the parameters for rapidly feeding the tape based on a parts characteristics (for example, accelerating or decelerating quickly) [0008]. OHATA teaches based on the components feature, it is possible to suppress movement of the component by setting the parameter [0011].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA and USUI, by having the stored date of the component be a special feature of the component and accelerate or decelerate based on that data, as suggested by OHATA, in order for the parts to be stably supplied and suppress increase of the user’s workload [0009-0010].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IISAKA et al. (WO 2018/150578 A1), hereinafter IISAKA, in view of Usui et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0093896), hereinafter USUI and Ohata (JP 2019096664 A, original and translation provided in the IDS of 1/24/2023), hereinafter OHATA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker et al. (U.S. 5,193,962), hereinafter PARKER.
Regarding claim 4, IISAKA, USUI and OHATA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a notification section configured to notify that the control section determines to reduce the speed. In the same field of endeavor, notification system and tapes, PARKER teaches the concept of getting a notification when the tape is fed at a slow speed [Col. 18, lines 63-68 – Col. 19, lines 1-2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify IISAKA, USUI and OHATA, by having a notification system, as suggested by PARKER, in order to determine if a tape speed is too high [Col. 18, lines 60-64].
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748