DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on May 2, 2023.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/251,475 filed July 23, 2026 [herein “App. 475”] in view of US 2021/0059086 A1 Matsushita, Yoichi et al. [herein “Matsushita”].
Claims 4-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of App. 475 and Matsushita as applied to claim 1, and in further view of US 2017/0308963 A1 Takehara, Hirokazu et al.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0308963 A1 Takehara, Hirokazu et al. in view of US 2021/0059086 A1 Matsushita, Yoichi et al.
This action is made non-Final.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on May 2, 2023; February 21, 2024, and January 28, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 9 does not have a legend to describe what the solid line and dashed line represent in the figure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term “Siemens Corporation”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with no previous recitations. For example, claim 1, “the product substrates” in Ln. 7-8, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the product substrates”. For the purpose of examination, “the product substrates” will be interpreted as “the product substrates”. Similarly, the following are objected under similar rationale:
Claim 1, “the same screen” in Ln. 15 should be “a same screen”.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “(d) a step of changing, when the second result is delayed with respect to the first result in the step (c), the number of the automated facilities and/or the number of the workers so that the delay of the second result is canceled and executing the step (b) and step (c) again using the changed number; number; and (e) a step of repeating the step (d) until the delay of the second result with respect to the first result falls within an allowable range in the step (c)”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how the method performs step (e) which repeats step (d) so that the delay is in a range when the method has already canceled the delay in the first iteration of step (d). Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “canceled” in this limitation to be “reduced” so the method can perform further iterations of step (d) [step (e)] until the delay reaches a certain range. The examiner recommends that Applicant amend the claim language, as supported by the specification, to what is being referred to and defining the scope of the claim.
Claim 3 recites the term “allowable”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “allowable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (See MPEP § 2173.05(b)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/251,475 filed July 23, 2026 [herein “App. 475”] in view of US 2021/0059086 A1 Matsushita, Yoichi et al. [herein “Matsushita”]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As per claim 1, App. 475 teaches “A substrate production simulation method of simulating production of a product substrate on which mounting of a component supplied from a component supply device is completed using a substrate production line including a mounting line in which multiple component mounters for mounting the component on a substrate are arranged along a conveyance direction of the substrate”. (Claim 1, A substrate production simulation method of simulating production of a product substrate on which mounting of a component supplied from a component supply device is completed using a substrate production line including a mounting line in which multiple component mounters for mounting the component on a substrate are arranged along a conveyance direction of the substrate.)
App. 475 teaches “the substrate production simulation method comprising: (a) a step of obtaining a first result by simulating production of multiple types of the product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay”. (Claim 1, the substrate production simulation method comprising: (a) a step of obtaining a first result by simulating production of multiple types of the product substrate by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay.)
App. 475 teaches “(b) a step of obtaining a second result by simulating the production of the multiple types of product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and/or collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line is performed by an automated facility and/or a worker”. (Claim 1, (b) a step of obtaining a second result by simulating the production of the multiple types of the product substrates by the substrate production line based on the first result on an assumption that provision and/or collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line is performed by an automated facility and/or a worker.)
App. 475 teaches “(c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen”. (Claim 1, (c) a step of outputting a production delay related display in which a production delay of the second result with respect to the first result is displayed in association with the product substrate, and a parameter related display ill which a parameter to be a factor of the production delay included in the second result is displayed in association with the product substrate on the same screen.)
App. 475 teaches does not teach “(c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards, Matsushita teaches “(c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time.” (Para. 0102, “FIG. 12 shows an example in which the component mounting substrate of a first substrate type is produced in a first production period TWO1, and then the substrate type is switched and the component mounting substrate of a second substrate type is produced in a second production period TWO2” [first result]. “Further, FIG. 12 shows an example in which, in the first production period TWO1, the component is supplied from three AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3, two tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2, and one stick feeder 246A1 among the plurality of component supply devices provided in each of the component mounters 2 of the component mounting line 2L to produce the component mounting substrate. The component replenishment work that the operator OP is to perform according to the production of the component mounting substrate includes the component replenishment work for replenishing each of the AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3 with a new reel for replenishment, the component replenishment work for replenishing each of the tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2 with a new pallet for replenishment, and the component replenishment work for replenishing the stick feeder 246A1 with a new stick for replenishment. The AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3, the tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2, and the stick feeder 246A1 may be collectively referred to as the “component supply devices 241, 245, and 246”, and a reel, a pallet, and a stick may be collectively referred to as the “component storage members” [the second result]. Further Fig. 12 shows both examples for the substrate production for TW01 and TW02 with and without replenishment, i.e., (c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time. Further see Para. 0097-0122. The examiner has interpreted that providing a figure of finished component-mounted substrates that has both the example of producing a substrate having components being mounted to it in a first production period and switching substrate types to produce a second type with components mounted to it in a second production period as well as the example where a substrate has components mounted to it from feeders that need to be replenished over multiple replenishment periods as (c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time.)
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 add “(c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Matsushita, into that of App. 475 because this modification of having both the results on the same graph with respect to time for the advantageous purpose of improving the efficiency of the component mounting system (Matsushita, Para. 0201). Further motivation to combine is that App. 475 and Matsushita are analogous art to the current claim as directed at analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards.
As per claim 2, App. 475 teaches does not teach “wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates.”
However, Matsushita teaches “wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates.” (Para. 0102, “FIG. 12 shows an example in which the component mounting substrate of a first substrate type is produced in a first production period TWO1, and then the substrate type is switched and the component mounting substrate of a second substrate type is produced in a second production period TWO2” [first result]. “Further, FIG. 12 shows an example in which, in the first production period TWO1, the component is supplied from three AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3, two tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2, and one stick feeder 246A1 among the plurality of component supply devices provided in each of the component mounters 2 of the component mounting line 2L to produce the component mounting substrate. The component replenishment work that the operator OP is to perform according to the production of the component mounting substrate includes the component replenishment work for replenishing each of the AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3 with a new reel for replenishment, the component replenishment work for replenishing each of the tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2 with a new pallet for replenishment, and the component replenishment work for replenishing the stick feeder 246A1 with a new stick for replenishment. The AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3, the tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2, and the stick feeder 246A1 may be collectively referred to as the “component supply devices 241, 245, and 246”, and a reel, a pallet, and a stick may be collectively referred to as the “component storage members” [the second result]. Further Fig. 12 shows both examples for the substrate production for TW01 with and without replenishment having substrate production on the vertical axis and time on the horizonal axis, i.e., wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates. Further see Para. 0097-0122. The examiner has interpreted that providing a figure of finished component-mounted substrates verses time that has both the example of producing a substrate having components being mounted to it in a first production period and switching substrate types to produce a second type with components mounted to it as well as the example where a substrate has components mounted to it from feeders that need to be replenished over multiple replenishment periods as wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates.)
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 add “wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Matsushita, into that of App. 475 because this modification of having both the results on the same graph with respect to time and production for the advantageous purpose of improving the efficiency of the component mounting system (Matsushita, Para. 0201). Further motivation to combine is that App. 475 and Matsushita are analogous art to the current claim as directed at analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards.
As per claim 3, App. 475 teaches “(d) a step of changing, when the second result is delayed with respect to the first result in the step (c), the number of the automated facilities and/or the number of the workers so that the delay of the second result is canceled and executing the step (b) and step (c) again using the changed number”. (Claim 1, (d) a step of changing:, when the second result is delayed with respect to the first result in the step (c), a number of automated facilities and/or a number of workers so that the delay of the second result is canceled and executing the step (b) and the step (c) again using the changed number.)
App. 475 teaches “(e) a step of repeating the step (d) until the delay of the second result with respect to the first result falls within an allowable range in the step (c).” (Claim 1, (e) a step of repeating the step (d) until the delay of the second result with respect to the first result falls within a predetermined range in the step (c).)
Claims 4-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of App. 475 and Matsushita as applied to claim 1, and in further view of US 2017/0308963 A1 Takehara, Hirokazu et al. [herein “Takehara”]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As per claim 4, App. 475 and Matsushita do not specifically teach “wherein the provision and/or collection of the component supply device includes at least one of an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter, an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line, and an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards, Takehara teaches “wherein the provision and/or collection of the component supply device includes at least one of an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter, an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line, and an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line.” (Para. 0029, “In component mounters M6 to M9, two conveyors extending in the board transport direction are placed on the front side and the rear side in parallel, and two component suppliers are placed on the outside (on the front side and the rear side) of two conveyors placed in parallel” [an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line]. Para, 0030, “The component supplier includes a plurality of tape feeders that feeds components D by feeding a carrier tape that holds components D and a tray feeder that feeds components D while replacing trays that hold plural components D” [an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter]. Para. 0031, “In the set-up changing of changing assembly boards to be produced, a replacement work of the tape feeder, a replacement work of the tray, a replacement work of the suction nozzle, or an disposition changing work of lower receiving pins for supporting boards 6A and 6B from below at the time of mounting the components is performed by operator OP in component mounters M6 to M9” [an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line]. Further see 0020-0035. The examiner has interpreted that having component suppliers that included with tape and tray feeders that hold components and that are placed with conveyers in the component mounting line for the components mounters where an operator will perform the replacing of the tape and tray feeders for different assembly boards to be produced as wherein the provision and/or collection of the component supply device includes at least one of an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter, an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line, and an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line.)
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 add “wherein the provision and/or collection of the component supply device includes at least one of an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter, an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line, and an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Takehara, into that of App. 475 and Matsushita because this modification of acquiring the components for the supply device and inserting and removing the supply device from the production line for the advantageous purpose of estimating the production of the full component mounting system (Takehara, Para. 0024-0031). Further motivation to combine is that App. 475, Matsushita, and Takehara are analogous art to the current claim as directed to analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards.
As per claim 5, App. 475 and Matsushita do not specifically teach “wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line”, “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay”, and “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker”.
Takehara teaches “wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line”. (Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1” [wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted], “board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed]. Fig. 2 shows the board supply device M1 upstream from the component mounters M6 to M9 as well as the board collection device M14 downstream from the component mounters M6 to M9, i.e., wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line. Further see Para. 0020-0035. The examiner has interpreted that having a computing mount line with a board supply device, component mounters, and a board collection devices coupled toward the downstream from the upstream in the transport direction as wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line.)
Takehara teaches “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay”. (Para. 0060, “In FIG. 3, target production capacity 31g is a target value of production capacity Cm represented by the production number of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day, the production number of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time, or a time necessary to produce a predetermined production number of assembly boards B. Target production capacity 31g is determined based on past production performance and manager's experience, and is also estimated by production-capacity estimator 32 to be described below (is estimated in a production capacity estimation stage). Production capacity Cm obtained by multiplying maximum production capacity Cm produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 by a predetermined coefficient, such as 0.9 (90%), which is equal to or less than 1, is used” [maximum production with 100% efficiency, i.e., with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay]. Para. 0083, “FIG. 10A shows a result acquired by performing the production capacity estimation process of estimating maximum production numbers 91a, 92a, and 93a of assembly boards B capable of being produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 without limiting operator numbers 91b, 92b, and 93b in order to minimize the stoppage of the component-mounting-related devices due to the component shortage” [i.e., in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that acquiring a result of estimating the maximum production of assembly boards capable of being produced in the component mounting lines to minimize the component shortage and to achieve a target production capacity as in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay.)
Takehara teaches “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker”. (Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1, board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility]. Para. 0066-0067, “Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates a time necessary for the operator to arrive in the target device by adding the movement time to the remaining time of the work in progress. Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates work time Tw necessary to perform the recovery work from the content of the occurred event and the work ability of operator OP, and predicts a device stoppage time when the component-mounting-related device is stopped in consideration with the time necessary for operator OP to arrive in the target device. Production-capacity estimator 32 adds the device stoppage time predicted as stated above to device takt time Tt necessary to perform the component-mounting-related work of each component mounter, and estimates a time (production capacity Cm) necessary to produce as many assembly boards B as the production number determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimates the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day (a time obtained by subtracting a time during which component mounting lines L1 to L3 are stopped due to the shift and rest of operator OP and maintenance of the device from 24 hours), which is determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimate the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time (for example, eight hours which are a watch time)” [in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that estimating the time required to produce the required amount of assembly boards when device stoppage occurs while the performing component mounting in a component mount line as in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker.)
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 add “wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line”, “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay”, and “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Takehara, into that of App. 475 and Matsushita because this modification of supplying boards to have components mounted and estimating the operations with and without day for the advantageous purpose of estimating the production of the full component mounting system (Takehara, Para. 0024-0031). Further motivation to combine is that App. 475, Matsushita, and Takehara are analogous art to the current claim as directed to analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards.
As per claim 6, App. 475 and Matsushita do not specifically teach “wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line”, “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay”, and “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker.”
However, Takehara teaches “wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line”. (Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1, board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line]. Fig. 2 shows the solder printing device M3 upstream from the component mounters M6 to M9, i.e., wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line. Further see Para. 0020-0035. The examiner has interpreted that having a computing mount line with a solder printing device coupled toward the downstream from the upstream in the transport direction in front of the component mounters as wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line.)
Takehara teaches “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay”. (Para. 0060, “In FIG. 3, target production capacity 31g is a target value of production capacity Cm represented by the production number of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day, the production number of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time, or a time necessary to produce a predetermined production number of assembly boards B. Target production capacity 31g is determined based on past production performance and manager's experience, and is also estimated by production-capacity estimator 32 to be described below (is estimated in a production capacity estimation stage). Production capacity Cm obtained by multiplying maximum production capacity Cm produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 by a predetermined coefficient, such as 0.9 (90%), which is equal to or less than 1, is used” [maximum production with 100% efficiency, i.e., with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay]. Para. 0083, “FIG. 10A shows a result acquired by performing the production capacity estimation process of estimating maximum production numbers 91a, 92a, and 93a of assembly boards B capable of being produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 without limiting operator numbers 91b, 92b, and 93b in order to minimize the stoppage of the component-mounting-related devices due to the component shortage” [i.e., in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that acquiring a result of estimating the maximum production of assembly boards capable of being produced in the component mounting lines to minimize the component shortage and to achieve a target production capacity as in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay.)
Takehara teaches “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker.” (Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1, board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility]. Para. 0066-0067, “Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates a time necessary for the operator to arrive in the target device by adding the movement time to the remaining time of the work in progress. Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates work time Tw necessary to perform the recovery work from the content of the occurred event and the work ability of operator OP, and predicts a device stoppage time when the component-mounting-related device is stopped in consideration with the time necessary for operator OP to arrive in the target device. Production-capacity estimator 32 adds the device stoppage time predicted as stated above to device takt time Tt necessary to perform the component-mounting-related work of each component mounter, and estimates a time (production capacity Cm) necessary to produce as many assembly boards B as the production number determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimates the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day (a time obtained by subtracting a time during which component mounting lines L1 to L3 are stopped due to the shift and rest of operator OP and maintenance of the device from 24 hours), which is determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimate the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time (for example, eight hours which are a watch time)” [in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that estimating the time required to produce the required amount of assembly boards when device stoppage occurs while the performing component mounting in a component mount line as in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility.)
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 add “wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line”, “ in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay”, and “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Takehara, into that of App. 475 and Matsushita because this modification of adding solder to boards to have components mounted and estimating the operations with and without day for the advantageous purpose of estimating the production of the full component mounting system (Takehara, Para. 0024-0031). Further motivation to combine is that App. 475, Matsushita, and Takehara are analogous art to the current claim as directed to analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of:
“(a) a step of obtaining a first result by simulating production of multiple types of the product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay”,
“(b) a step of obtaining a second result by simulating the production of the multiple types of product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and/or collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line is performed by an automated facility and/or a worker”, and
“(c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitation can be performed as the following:
a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper determine the amount of time required to complete a certain number of different printed circuit boards of each step in a printed circuit board process from gathering components, adding solder to a wafer, and mounting the components to the wafer for each circuit board where each step is done concurrently and there is no delay between each step,
a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper determine the amount of time required to complete a certain number of different printed circuit boards of each step in a printed circuit board process from gathering components, adding solder to a wafer, and mounting the components to the wafer for each circuit board where each step is done concurrently and there is a delay between certain steps such as the time required for a worker to swap out different components for the different printed circuit boards, and
a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper draw a plot of the production vs time for both the time required to complete the production process for the different printed circuit board with and without delay.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions. The claim has been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “(c) a step of outputting on the same screen” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and/or merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), with the broadest reasonable interpretation which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) recites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); … ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. MPEP § 2106.05(g) recites “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting…Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (emphasis added)).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper draw a graph of the production vs time for both the time required to complete the production process for the different printed circuit board with and without delay.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 3, it recites additional limitations of “(d) a step of changing, when the second result is delayed with respect to the first result in the step (c), the number of the automated facilities and/or the number of the workers so that the delay of the second result is canceled and executing the step (b) and step (c) again using the changed number” and “(e) a step of repeating the step (d) until the delay of the second result with respect to the first result falls within an allowable range in the step (c)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper from the graph of the production vs time for both the time required to complete the production process for the different printed circuit board with and without delay that the delay is too high and re-determine the amount of time required to complete a certain number of different printed circuit boards of each step in a printed circuit board process with delay but an additional production line in an additional facility to increase the production process time and reduce the delay, and a person can repeat this step until the delay falls into an acceptable range.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 4, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the provision and/or collection of the component supply device includes at least one of an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter, an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line, and an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper determine the amount of time required to complete a certain number of different printed circuit boards of each step in a printed circuit board process from gathering components into a supplier, adding the supplier to the mounter, adding solder to a wafer, and removing the supplier from the mounter for the mounting the components to the wafer for each circuit board where each step is done concurrently and there is a delay between certain steps such as the time required for a worker to swap out different components for the different printed circuit boards.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 5, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line”, “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay”, and “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper determine the amount of time required to complete a certain number of different printed circuit boards of each step in a printed circuit board process from gathering components into a supplier, adding the supplier to the mounter, adding solder to a wafer, and removing the supplier from the mounter for the mounting the components to the wafer for each circuit board where each step is done concurrently with no delay and as for when there is a delay between certain steps such as the time required for a worker to swap out different components for the different printed circuit boards and remove the finished boards.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 6, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line”, “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay”, and “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with a pen and paper determine the amount of time required to complete a certain number of different printed circuit boards of each step in a printed circuit board process from gathering components into a supplier, adding the supplier to the mounter, adding solder to a wafer, and removing the supplier from the mounter for the mounting the components to the wafer for each circuit board where each step is done concurrently with no delay and as for when there is a delay between certain steps such as the time required for a worker to add solder to the wafer.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-6 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-6 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0308963 A1 Takehara, Hirokazu et al. in view of US 2021/0059086 A1 Matsushita, Yoichi et al.
As per claim 1, Takehara teaches “A substrate production simulation method of simulating production of a product substrate on which mounting of a component supplied from a component supply device is completed using a substrate production line including a mounting line in which multiple component mounters for mounting the component on a substrate are arranged along a conveyance direction of the substrate”. (Para. 0064, “production-capacity estimator 32 performs a production capacity estimation process of estimating production capacity Cm of component mounting lines L1 to L3 in a case where assembly boards B are produced according to the production plan” [A substrate production simulation method of simulating production of a product substrate on which mounting of a component is completed using a substrate production line including a mounting line]. Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1, board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [mounting line in which multiple component mounters for mounting the component on a substrate are arranged along a conveyance direction of the substrate]. Para. 0029, “In component mounters M6 to M9, two conveyors extending in the board transport direction are placed on the front side and the rear side in parallel, and two component suppliers are placed on the outside (on the front side and the rear side) of two conveyors placed in parallel” [a component supplied from a component supply device]. Further see Para. 0022-0031 and 0060-0068. The examiner has interpreted that estimating the production capacity of component mounting lines to produce assembly boards that have component mounters with component suppliers coupled toward the downstream side in the board transport direction as a substrate production simulation method of simulating production of a product substrate on which mounting of a component supplied from a component supply device is completed using a substrate production line including a mounting line in which multiple component mounters for mounting the component on a substrate are arranged along a conveyance direction of the substrate.)
Takehara teaches “the substrate production simulation method comprising: (a) a step of obtaining a first result by simulating production of multiple types of the product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay”. (Para. 0060, “In FIG. 3, target production capacity 31g is a target value of production capacity Cm represented by the production number of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day, the production number of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time, or a time necessary to produce a predetermined production number of assembly boards B. Target production capacity 31g is determined based on past production performance and manager's experience, and is also estimated by production-capacity estimator 32 to be described below (is estimated in a production capacity estimation stage). Production capacity Cm obtained by multiplying maximum production capacity Cm produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 by a predetermined coefficient, such as 0.9 (90%), which is equal to or less than 1, is used” [maximum production with 100% efficiency, i.e., with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay]. Para. 0030, “The carrier tape or the tray that holds predetermined components D are set onto (components D are disposed on) the tape feeder and the tray feeder of the component supplier at the time of the set-up changing such that predetermined components D are supplied depending on the types of assembly boards to be produced” [multiple types of the product substrates]. Para. 0083, “FIG. 10A shows a result acquired by performing the production capacity estimation process of estimating maximum production numbers 91a, 92a, and 93a of assembly boards B capable of being produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 without limiting operator numbers 91b, 92b, and 93b in order to minimize the stoppage of the component-mounting-related devices due to the component shortage” [i.e., the substrate production simulation method comprising: (a) a step of obtaining a first result by simulating production of multiple types of the product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that acquiring a result of estimating the maximum production of assembly boards capable of being produced in the component mounting lines to minimize the component shortage and to achieve a target production capacity using the components supplied depending on the type of the assembly boards being produced as the substrate production simulation method comprising: (a) a step of obtaining a first result by simulating production of multiple types of the product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay.)
Takehara teaches “(b) a step of obtaining a second result by simulating the production of the multiple types of product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and/or collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line is performed by an automated facility and/or a worker”. (Para. 0031, “In component mounters M6 to M9, if components D held by component supplier are consumed for a period during which the component mounting work is repeated and continued and the number of components is less than a predetermined remaining number (if a component shortage warning occurs) or if components D are used up (if component shortage occurs), a replenishment work of components D (replenishment of the carrier tape or replacement of the tray) is performed by operator OP” [an assumption that provision and/or collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line is performed by a worker]. Para. 0066-0067, “Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates a time necessary for the operator to arrive in the target device by adding the movement time to the remaining time of the work in progress. Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates work time Tw necessary to perform the recovery work from the content of the occurred event and the work ability of operator OP, and predicts a device stoppage time when the component-mounting-related device is stopped in consideration with the time necessary for operator OP to arrive in the target device. Production-capacity estimator 32 adds the device stoppage time predicted as stated above to device takt time Tt necessary to perform the component-mounting-related work of each component mounter, and estimates a time (production capacity Cm) necessary to produce as many assembly boards B as the production number determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimates the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day (a time obtained by subtracting a time during which component mounting lines L1 to L3 are stopped due to the shift and rest of operator OP and maintenance of the device from 24 hours), which is determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimate the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time (for example, eight hours which are a watch time)” [(b) a step of obtaining a second result by simulating the production of the multiple types of product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and/or collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line is performed by a worker]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that estimating the time required to produce the required amount of assembly boards when device stoppage time occurs as a result of an operator performing the replenishment of the carrier tape when the components are used up in the component mounters as (b) a step of obtaining a second result by simulating the production of the multiple types of product substrates by the substrate production line on an assumption that provision and/or collection of the component supply device with respect to the substrate production line is performed by a worker.)
Takehara does not specifically teach “(c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards, Matsushita teaches “(c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time.” (Para. 0102, “FIG. 12 shows an example in which the component mounting substrate of a first substrate type is produced in a first production period TWO1, and then the substrate type is switched and the component mounting substrate of a second substrate type is produced in a second production period TWO2” [first result]. “Further, FIG. 12 shows an example in which, in the first production period TWO1, the component is supplied from three AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3, two tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2, and one stick feeder 246A1 among the plurality of component supply devices provided in each of the component mounters 2 of the component mounting line 2L to produce the component mounting substrate. The component replenishment work that the operator OP is to perform according to the production of the component mounting substrate includes the component replenishment work for replenishing each of the AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3 with a new reel for replenishment, the component replenishment work for replenishing each of the tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2 with a new pallet for replenishment, and the component replenishment work for replenishing the stick feeder 246A1 with a new stick for replenishment. The AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3, the tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2, and the stick feeder 246A1 may be collectively referred to as the “component supply devices 241, 245, and 246”, and a reel, a pallet, and a stick may be collectively referred to as the “component storage members” [the second result]. Further Fig. 12 shows both examples for the substrate production for TW01 and TW02 with and without replenishment, i.e., (c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time. Further see Para. 0097-0122. The examiner has interpreted that providing a figure of finished component-mounted substrates that has both the example of producing a substrate having components being mounted to it in a first production period and switching substrate types to produce a second type with components mounted to it in a second production period as well as the example where a substrate has components mounted to it from feeders that need to be replenished over multiple replenishment periods as (c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time.)
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 add “(c) a step of outputting the first result and the second result on the same screen in a form indicating a transition of a production number of product substrates with respect to time” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Matsushita, into that of Takehara because this modification of having both the results on the same graph for the advantageous purpose of improving the efficiency of the component mounting system (Matsushita, Para. 0201). Further motivation to combine is that Takehara and Matsushita are analogous art to the current claim as directed to analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards.
As per claim 2, Takehara does not specifically teach “wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates.”
However, Matsushita teaches “wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates.” (Para. 0102, “FIG. 12 shows an example in which the component mounting substrate of a first substrate type is produced in a first production period TWO1, and then the substrate type is switched and the component mounting substrate of a second substrate type is produced in a second production period TWO2” [first result]. “Further, FIG. 12 shows an example in which, in the first production period TWO1, the component is supplied from three AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3, two tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2, and one stick feeder 246A1 among the plurality of component supply devices provided in each of the component mounters 2 of the component mounting line 2L to produce the component mounting substrate. The component replenishment work that the operator OP is to perform according to the production of the component mounting substrate includes the component replenishment work for replenishing each of the AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3 with a new reel for replenishment, the component replenishment work for replenishing each of the tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2 with a new pallet for replenishment, and the component replenishment work for replenishing the stick feeder 246A1 with a new stick for replenishment. The AFs 241A1, 241A2, and 241A3, the tray feeders 245A1 and 245A2, and the stick feeder 246A1 may be collectively referred to as the “component supply devices 241, 245, and 246”, and a reel, a pallet, and a stick may be collectively referred to as the “component storage members” [the second result]. Further Fig. 12 shows both examples for the substrate production for TW01 with and without replenishment having substrate production on the vertical axis and time on the horizonal axis, i.e., wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates. Further see Para. 0097-0122. The examiner has interpreted that providing a figure of finished component-mounted substrates verses time that has both the example of producing a substrate having components being mounted to it in a first production period and switching substrate types to produce a second type with components mounted to it as well as the example where a substrate has components mounted to it from feeders that need to be replenished over multiple replenishment periods as wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates.)
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 add “wherein in the step (c), the first result and the second result are output as a graph in which a production start time is matched on a coordinate having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of the production number of the product substrates” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Matsushita, into that of Takehara because this modification of having both the results on the same graph for the advantageous purpose of improving the efficiency of the component mounting system (Matsushita, Para. 0201). Further motivation to combine is that Takehara and Matsushita are analogous art to the current claim as directed to analyzing delays in mounting components for producing printed circuit boards.
As per claim 3, Takehara teaches “(d) a step of changing, when the second result is delayed with respect to the first result in the step (c), the number of the automated facilities and/or the number of the workers so that the delay of the second result is canceled and executing the step (b) and step (c) again using the changed number; and (e) a step of repeating the step (d) until the delay of the second result with respect to the first result falls within an allowable range in the step (c).” (Para. 0090-0091, “In FIG. 11, if it is judged that re-estimated production capacity Cm is less than target production capacity 31g (No in ST11), production-capacity estimator 32 increases the number of estimated operators OP by one person (ST14)” [(d) a step of changing, when the second result is delayed with respect to the first result in the step (c), the number of the workers so that the delay of the second result is canceled], and re-estimates production capacity Cm by performing the same process as the production capacity estimation stage (ST2) (ST15)” [executing the step (b) and step (c) again using the changed number]. “Subsequently, judging unit 33 judges whether or not re-estimated production capacity Cm is equal to or greater than target production capacity 31g stored in management memory 31 (ST16: second judging stage). For a period of time during which it is judged that re-estimated production capacity Cm is less than target production capacity 31g (No in ST16), production-capacity estimator 32 re-estimates production capacity Cm (ST15) while increasing the number of operators OP one by one (ST14). In a case where it is judged that re-estimated production capacity Cm is equal to or greater than target production capacity 31g (Yes in ST16), determiner 34 determines operators OP to be assigned to the component-mounting-related devices of component mounting lines L1 to L3 (ST17: second determination stage)” [(e) a step of repeating the step (d) until the delay of the second result with respect to the first result falls within an allowable range in the step (c)]. Further see Para. 0090-0094. The examiner has interpreted that increasing the number of operators when the estimated production is less that the target production and re-estimating the production with the increase in operators in order to have the estimated production to be equal to the target as (d) a step of changing, when the second result is delayed with respect to the first result in the step (c), the number of the automated facilities and/or the number of the workers so that the delay of the second result is canceled and executing the step (b) and step (c) again using the changed number; and (e) a step of repeating the step (d) until the delay of the second result with respect to the first result falls within an allowable range in the step (c).)
As per claim 4, Takehara teaches “wherein the provision and/or collection of the component supply device includes at least one of an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter, an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line, and an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line.” (Para. 0029, “In component mounters M6 to M9, two conveyors extending in the board transport direction are placed on the front side and the rear side in parallel, and two component suppliers are placed on the outside (on the front side and the rear side) of two conveyors placed in parallel” [an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line]. Para, 0030, “The component supplier includes a plurality of tape feeders that feeds components D by feeding a carrier tape that holds components D and a tray feeder that feeds components D while replacing trays that hold plural components D” [an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter]. Para. 0031, “In the set-up changing of changing assembly boards to be produced, a replacement work of the tape feeder, a replacement work of the tray, a replacement work of the suction nozzle, or an disposition changing work of lower receiving pins for supporting boards 6A and 6B from below at the time of mounting the components is performed by operator OP in component mounters M6 to M9” [an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line]. Further see 0020-0035. The examiner has interpreted that having component suppliers that included with tape and tray feeders that hold components and that are placed with conveyers in the component mounting line for the components mounters where an operator will perform the replacing of the tape and tray feeders for different assembly boards to be produced as wherein the provision and/or collection of the component supply device includes at least one of an operation for taking out the component necessary for the substrate production from a warehouse, an operation for setting the component in the component supply device used in the component mounter, an operation for transporting the component supply device in which the component is set to the substrate production line, and an operation for collecting the component supply device which becomes unnecessary from the substrate production line.)
As per claim 5, Takehara teaches “wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line”. (Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1” [wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted], “board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed]. Fig. 2 shows the board supply device M1 upstream from the component mounters M6 to M9 as well as the board collection device M14 downstream from the component mounters M6 to M9, i.e., wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line. Further see Para. 0020-0035. The examiner has interpreted that having a computing mount line with a board supply device, component mounters, and a board collection devices coupled toward the downstream from the upstream in the transport direction as wherein the substrate production line includes a substrate supplying device for supplying an unmounted substrate on which the component is not mounted to an upstream side of the mounting line and/or a substrate accommodating device for accommodating the substrate on which the mounting of the component is completed from a downstream side of the mounting line.)
Takehara teaches “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay”. (Para. 0060, “In FIG. 3, target production capacity 31g is a target value of production capacity Cm represented by the production number of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day, the production number of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time, or a time necessary to produce a predetermined production number of assembly boards B. Target production capacity 31g is determined based on past production performance and manager's experience, and is also estimated by production-capacity estimator 32 to be described below (is estimated in a production capacity estimation stage). Production capacity Cm obtained by multiplying maximum production capacity Cm produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 by a predetermined coefficient, such as 0.9 (90%), which is equal to or less than 1, is used” [maximum production with 100% efficiency, i.e., with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay]. Para. 0083, “FIG. 10A shows a result acquired by performing the production capacity estimation process of estimating maximum production numbers 91a, 92a, and 93a of assembly boards B capable of being produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 without limiting operator numbers 91b, 92b, and 93b in order to minimize the stoppage of the component-mounting-related devices due to the component shortage” [i.e., in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that acquiring a result of estimating the maximum production of assembly boards capable of being produced in the component mounting lines to minimize the component shortage and to achieve a target production capacity as in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a mounting operation for mounting the unmounted substrate on the substrate supplying device and/or a taking-out operation for taking out the product substrate from the substrate accommodating device is performed without delay.)
Takehara teaches “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker”. (Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1, board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility]. Para. 0066-0067, “Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates a time necessary for the operator to arrive in the target device by adding the movement time to the remaining time of the work in progress. Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates work time Tw necessary to perform the recovery work from the content of the occurred event and the work ability of operator OP, and predicts a device stoppage time when the component-mounting-related device is stopped in consideration with the time necessary for operator OP to arrive in the target device. Production-capacity estimator 32 adds the device stoppage time predicted as stated above to device takt time Tt necessary to perform the component-mounting-related work of each component mounter, and estimates a time (production capacity Cm) necessary to produce as many assembly boards B as the production number determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimates the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day (a time obtained by subtracting a time during which component mounting lines L1 to L3 are stopped due to the shift and rest of operator OP and maintenance of the device from 24 hours), which is determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimate the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time (for example, eight hours which are a watch time)” [in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that estimating the time required to produce the required amount of assembly boards when device stoppage occurs while the performing component mounting in a component mount line as in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the mounting operation and/or the taking-out operation is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker.)
As per claim 6, Takehara teaches “wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line”. (Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1, board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line]. Fig. 2 shows the solder printing device M3 upstream from the component mounters M6 to M9, i.e., wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line. Further see Para. 0020-0035. The examiner has interpreted that having a computing mount line with a solder printing device coupled toward the downstream from the upstream in the transport direction in front of the component mounters as wherein the substrate production line includes a printing device for printing a solder paste on the substrate on an upstream side of the mounting line.)
Takehara teaches “in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay”. (Para. 0060, “In FIG. 3, target production capacity 31g is a target value of production capacity Cm represented by the production number of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day, the production number of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time, or a time necessary to produce a predetermined production number of assembly boards B. Target production capacity 31g is determined based on past production performance and manager's experience, and is also estimated by production-capacity estimator 32 to be described below (is estimated in a production capacity estimation stage). Production capacity Cm obtained by multiplying maximum production capacity Cm produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 by a predetermined coefficient, such as 0.9 (90%), which is equal to or less than 1, is used” [maximum production with 100% efficiency, i.e., with respect to the substrate production line are performed without delay]. Para. 0083, “FIG. 10A shows a result acquired by performing the production capacity estimation process of estimating maximum production numbers 91a, 92a, and 93a of assembly boards B capable of being produced in component mounting lines L1 to L3 without limiting operator numbers 91b, 92b, and 93b in order to minimize the stoppage of the component-mounting-related devices due to the component shortage” [i.e., in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that acquiring a result of estimating the maximum production of assembly boards capable of being produced in the component mounting lines to minimize the component shortage and to achieve a target production capacity as in the step (a), simulation is performed on an assumption that a preparation operation of the printing device is performed without delay.)
Takehara teaches “in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility and/or the worker.” (Para. 0024, “Component mounting line L1 is configured such that board supply device M1, board distribution device M2, solder printing device M3, printing inspection device M4, board distribution device M5, component mounters M6 to M9, board distribution device M10, mounting inspection device M11, reflow device M12, board distribution device M13, and board collection device M14 are coupled in series toward the downstream side from the upstream side in the board transport direction” [the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility]. Para. 0066-0067, “Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates a time necessary for the operator to arrive in the target device by adding the movement time to the remaining time of the work in progress. Subsequently, production-capacity estimator 32 calculates work time Tw necessary to perform the recovery work from the content of the occurred event and the work ability of operator OP, and predicts a device stoppage time when the component-mounting-related device is stopped in consideration with the time necessary for operator OP to arrive in the target device. Production-capacity estimator 32 adds the device stoppage time predicted as stated above to device takt time Tt necessary to perform the component-mounting-related work of each component mounter, and estimates a time (production capacity Cm) necessary to produce as many assembly boards B as the production number determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimates the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B produced for a running time per day (a time obtained by subtracting a time during which component mounting lines L1 to L3 are stopped due to the shift and rest of operator OP and maintenance of the device from 24 hours), which is determined by the production plan. Production-capacity estimator 32 estimate the production number (production capacity Cm) of assembly boards B for a predetermined running time (for example, eight hours which are a watch time)” [in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility]. Further see Para. 0022-0031, 0060-0068, and 0074-0087. The examiner has interpreted that estimating the time required to produce the required amount of assembly boards when device stoppage occurs while the performing component mounting in a component mount line as in the step (b), simulation is performed on an assumption that the preparation operation of the printing device is performed by the automated facility.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2009/0062951 Awata, Yoshiaki teaches a method for determining the shortest production schedule to produce various types of boards based on which part feeders are utilized.
US 2003/0023418 A1 Kikuchi, Akihiko et al. teaches a method for calculating the total number of assembly boards manufactured in time by a component mounting device with a feeder to achieve the greatest efficiency.
US 2022/0374566 A1 Ishikawa, Kohei et al. teaches a simulation device to determine production stop time of machine that produces board products using articles supplied by workers.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
