DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed February 20, 2026.
Claims 1-19 have been amended.
Claims 20 and 21 are newly added.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of step 1, claims 1-21 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed towards (as represented by claim 7), “A component mounting device analysis method comprising: acquiring work history information from a component mounting device; generating a first file and a second file from the work history information acquired, the first file including an operation event log of the component mounting device, the second file including a manufacturing log of the electronic circuit board; determining maintenance necessity of the work unit based on the first file; and estimating that the work unit is malfunctioning or is going to malfunctioning based on the second file; transmitting a malfunction list to the component mounting device, the malfunction list based on the first file and the second file, the component mounting device being configured to, when attached work units are included in the malfunction list, display information; and determining an inspection for determining necessity of maintenance of the work unit is required when the work unit is malfunctioning or is becoming malfunctioning”. The claims are describing a maintenance system that collects manufacturing information and generates files to determine maintenance necessity and transmits the information based on malfunction or becoming a malfunction. The claims describe limitations that can be performed in the human mind with pen and paper. This further includes the consideration in terms of the system and device elements that transmit the information, receive/acquire the file information, and acquires work history from component mounting devices. The claims additionally provide teps in terms of mentally opining/judging in the form of determining an inspection for the device and displaying control mechanisms to an operator {as described in paragraph [60]}. Mental process consideration provides elements of performing a mental process in a computing environment. As such, the claims are collecting, analyzing, and displaying the information that can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process consideration.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1, 7, and 13 are, “at least one processor configured to (claims 1 and 13); the component mounting device being attached with a work unit that performs a work for manufacturing an electronic circuit board; or control operation so that the work units included in the malfunction list are not used”. The additional elements are describing the computer elements and units to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [30-35] and figure 3. The additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are computer aspects as tools to perform the identified abstract idea and are not directed towards a technical improvement. In terms of the control operations for the malfunction list, the specification describes the control in paragraphs [60]. The specification merely describes the control operation as an idea of a solution. There is no specific control aspect provided beyond merely stating the idea of automatically controlling to not use the malfunction list. As such, the control operation is not directed towards a technical improvement but rather mere instructions to apply. Further, the component mounting device attached to the work unit is describing the field of use for the additional element. This is merely describing the technical environment that the units are within and are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. The additional elements are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of claims 1, 7, and 13 are, “at least one processor configured to (claims 1 and 13); the component mounting device being attached with a work unit that performs a work for manufacturing an electronic circuit board; or control operation so that the work units included in the malfunction list are not used”. The additional elements are describing the computer elements and units to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [30-35] and figure 3. The additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are computer aspects as tools to perform the identified abstract idea and are not directed towards a technical improvement. In terms of the control operations for the malfunction list, the specification describes the control in paragraphs [60]. The specification merely describes the control operation as an idea of a solution. There is no specific control aspect provided beyond merely stating the idea of automatically controlling to not use the malfunction list. As such, the control operation is not directed towards a technical improvement but rather mere instructions to apply. Further, the component mounting device attached to the work unit is describing the field of use for the additional element. This is merely describing the technical environment that the units are within and are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 13-18 are further describing the abstract idea and are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the manufacturing log of the electronic circuit board includes a number of times of mounting mistakes of a component in the component mounting device that mounts the component on the electronic circuit board”, “wherein the manufacturing log of the electronic circuit board includes position deviation information from a normal holding position of the component held by a suction nozzle attached to the component mounting device”, “further acquiring mounting data to be used for the work in the component mounting device; and generating the second file further including a size of the component mounted on the electronic circuit board from the mounting data acquired”, “wherein the second file is generated by performing statistical processing on the manufacturing log of the electronic circuit board”, and “the work history information is acquired while the component mounting device is operating or at predetermined time intervals”. The claims are further describing the abstract idea in terms of providing the information provided for the maintenance work device, analysis steps (statistical processing, number of times, position deviation), and providing time intervals. These elements further describe the collection and analysis of the information that can be performed mentally. The claims are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Claim 19 is further describing the abstract idea and specifying additional elements considered above. The claim is directed towards, “wherein the at least one processor transmits the first file to a maintenance necessity determination device that determines maintenance necessity of the work unit, and transmits the second file to a state estimation device that estimates a state of the work unit”. The claim is further describing the claim 13 additional element of transmitting the information. The transmission is sending the information that further describes the mental process in a technological environment. Information can be collected and sent/transmitted. Further, the transmission elements are describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The transmission is merely sending information for the maintenance system. As such, the claim is not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Dependent claim 20 is further directed towards the abstract idea and not providing additional elements beyond those identified above. The claim is directed towards, “wherein the second file including at least one of: a tendency of an error rate, a tendency of a correction amount, and a variation of the correction amount exceeding a determination reference”. The claims are describing the analysis elements of the identified mental process. This includes error rate, correction amount, ad variation exceeding a reference (threshold). These aspects can be mentally performed because the file includes the information within the high level analysis. The type of data within the analysis is further describing the collection and analysis within the mental process. The claim is not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 is directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claim is directed towards, “wherein the component mounting device automatically performs an interlock to inhibit operation of attached work units when the attached work units are included in the malfunction list”. The inhibition of operation of the work unit is described in paragraph [60] of the originally filed specification. The specification is merely stating the idea of a solution. The claim and specification are not providing a specific description in terms of the operational control beyond inhibiting operation included in the malfunction list. While the specification and claim provide automatically, that does not specifically discuss or describe a technical improvement or interaction. A person would be able to have the malfunction information and prohibit the operation themselves. Automatically just provides the speed at which the inhibition is provided, but is not specific towards a technical improvement or solution. As such, claim 21 is not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed February 20, 2026 on page 7 regarding the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation. Examiner agrees that the amendment to include processor and remove the nonce language unit has rendered the claim interpretation withdrawn.
In response to the arguments filed February 20, 2026 on pages 7-9 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the claimed invention is directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments allege that the claims cannot practically performed in the human mind. The amended claim limitations with respect to the processor provide improvements to technology and render the claim eligible. With respect to the processor, the claim limitation is considered as an additional element. The mental process abstract idea is with respect to the acquiring a work history, generating operations log of the component mounting device, determining maintenance necessity, transmitting the malfunction list and providing inspection and control display operations based on the malfunction. These can be performed in the human mind in terms of collecting, high level analyzing, and displaying the results. In terms of the processor and other additional elements, the specification merely describes the computer elements and processor in terms of being generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The arguments further continue in terms of the volume of data being analyzed and processed to provide the malfunction log and component mounting device operation. The claims are not directed towards limitations that describe an amount of data and the specification does not provide the specific technical details in terms of the volume or data reduction that would be considered a technical improvement. Further, the additional element consideration provides this with respect to 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) considers additional elements as tools with respect to being, “[…] executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. The increased speed (or in this instance efficiency) is merely provided with respect to the generic technology and not providing a specific technical improvement. The arguments further allege that the amended limitations regarding the transmission of the malfunction list and control operation are providing a technical improvement. The consideration is based on the specification merely describing the control operation as an idea of a solution. The claims and specification support [60] does not provide specific technical interactions or discussion in terms of the specific aspects to control the component mounting device. Further, the claims further include merely displaying the information and the control operations to an operator that further provides aspects towards the mental process (a person would mentally opine/judge the control operations of the device). As such, claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-21 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added claim limitations.
In response to the arguments filed February 20, 2026 on pages 9-11 regarding the prior art rejection, specifically that the claimed invention is not taught by the cited prior art. Examiner agrees. The combination of elements are not taught by the cited prior art. Further prior art considered includes Nakajima et al [2019/0025811], Iwase et al [2017/0020041], and Maenishi et al [2015/0173205]. The prior art considered teaches elements of the claimed invention, but the combination of elements, specifically towards the specific combination including the first and second file that transmits and provides control operations for components to not be used is not taught by the combination of prior art elements. As such, claims 1-21 are have been withdrawn from the prior art rejection, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nakajima et al [2019/0025811]; Iwase et al [2017/0020041]; Maenishi et al [2015/0173205];
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 ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights