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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 1, it recites, in the preamble, “simulating production of a product substrate” (singular). Step (a) then recites “simulating production of multiple types of the product substrates” (plural), and step (c) recites a display “in association with the product substrate” (singular). The plural “the product substrates” in step (a) would be better as “the product substrate” because the preamble introduced only a singular “the product substrate”. Further, it is unclear what the limitation step (c) reverts to the singular “the product substrate,” leaving it unclear whether the display is associated with the single substrate of the preamble or with one of the “multiple types” introduced in steps (a)–(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 6is 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.
As per Claim 6, it recites the limitation “an allowable range” in the step (e) which is vague and indefinite since "allowable" does not set a range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and 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) The claim 1-6 recite steps or acts including outputting a production delay; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claim 1 recites:
(a) a step of obtaining a first result (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering) by simulating production of multiple types of the product substrates (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) 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 (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it” and/or field of use);
(b) a step of obtaining a second result (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering) by simulating the production of the multiple types of product substrates (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) 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 (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it” and/or field of use); and
(c) a step of outputting a production delay related display (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting) 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 in 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 (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “screen” (Claim 1) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further the additional elements 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” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Further Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)):
“(a) a step of obtaining a first result (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering) …;
(b) a step of obtaining a second result (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering) …”
Further the claims recite the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself , is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)):
“(a)…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 (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it” and/or field of use);
(b)…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 (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it” and/or field of use);
(c) a step of outputting a production delay related display (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting) 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 in 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 (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use)”
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements 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 of “screen” (Claim 1) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further the additional elements 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” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Further as discussed above Claim 1 recites the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. 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); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93):
“(a) a step of obtaining a first result (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering) …;
(b) a step of obtaining a second result (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering) …;
(c) a step of outputting a production delay related display (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting) 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 in 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 (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use)”
Also the claim recites the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself , is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)):
““(a)…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 (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it” and/or field of use);
(b)…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 (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it” and/or field of use);”
Further dependent claims 2-6 recite:
2. The substrate production simulation method according to claim 1,
wherein in the step (c), the production delay related display is a line graph or a mark indicating occurrence of the production delay, and the parameter related display is a bar graph (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
3. The substrate production simulation method according to claim 1,
wherein in the step (c), the parameter to be the factor of the production delay is a load factor of an operation relating to the provision and/or collection of the component supply device (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
4. The substrate production simulation method according to claim 1,
wherein in the step (c), the parameter to be the factor of the production delay is an operating ratio of the mounting line included in the second result (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
5. The substrate production simulation method according to claim 1,
wherein in the step (c), the parameter to be the factor of the production delay is a load distribution of an operation of the worker included in the second result (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting and/or field of use).
6. The substrate production simulation method according to claim 1, further comprising:
(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 (mental process) so that the delay of the second result is canceled and executing the step (b) and step (c) again using the changed number (insignificant extra-solution activity – “apply it” or field of use); 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) (insignificant extra-solution activity – repeating “apply it” or field of use).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehara (US 10984357 B2) in view of Kikuchi (US 7127382 B2) and further in view of Fukuda (US 11580481 B2).
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 (Takehara, col. 1 lines 33-40 “a production-capacity estimation apparatus estimates a production capacity of a component mounting line for producing boards, the component mounting line including component-mounting-relevant devices coupled to one another placed on a floor”; col. 4 lines 65-67, col. 5 lines 1-3 “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, and supplies components D up to a pick-up position of the mounting head”) 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 (Fig. 1-2 and the description Col. 3 lines 43-55 “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”; col. 4 lines 35-64 “Component mounters M6 to M9 are component-mounting-related devices that perform a component mounting work (component-mounting-related work) for placing components D on board 6A and board 6B by a component mounting work unit (work unit) including two conveyors on the front side and the rear side, two component suppliers, and two mounting heads.”; col. 15 lines 14-15 “a plurality of component-mounting-related devices including component mounters”), 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 (col. 2 lines 56-62 “an estimated production capacity refers to capacity in an ideal state in which the component mounting line runs without being stopped due to the component shortage or the device trouble, and there may be an error between actual production performance and the estimated production capacity of the component mounting line.”; col. 5 lines 10-13 “components D are supplied depending on the types of assembly boards to be produced”; col. 15 lines 17-25 “acquire estimated production capacity”: Takehara computes (i.e., “simulates” as claimed) an estimated production capacity for an idealized baseline in which the line is not stopped by component supply);
(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 (col. 1 lines 46-54 “the event information relates to an event indicating that a work of an operator is necessary for the component-mounting-relevant devices and an occurrence frequency indicating the number of occurrences of the event”; col. 5 lines 14-49 “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 6 A and 6 B from below at the time of mounting the components is performed by operator OP in component mounters M 6 to M 9”: Takehara estimates production capacity from events requiring an operator (i.e., the “worker” as claimed) and the frequency of those events where that operator work includes replacing the feeder that supplies the components); and
(c) a step of outputting a production delay (col. 2 lines 56-62 “there may be an error between actual production performance and the estimated production capacity of the component mounting line.”: an error between the idealized first result and the actual second result corresponds to the “production delay” as claimed).
However, Takehara fails to teach explicitly (c) a step of outputting … 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 in 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.
Kikuchi teaches (c) a step of outputting … 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 (col. 1 lines 60-65 “The production simulator simulates a production based on the production data and the production command data to calculate a total number of the assembly boards manufactured with time by the component-mounting apparatus. The display unit displays a result of the simulation.”; col. 6 lines 39-49 “the result of the production simulation is graphically displayed on the display unit 11 (ST16).”; col. 7 lines 36-43 “the production simulation apparatus of the embodiment allows the production simulation to be implemented under different conditions predetermined, and allows the result of the simulation to be displayed as a graphic diagram on the screen of the display unit”). In particular, Kikuchi teaches outputting a display of the simulated production result calculated over time under different predetermined conditions on the screen of the display unit.
Takehara and Kikuchi are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, production simulation and estimation system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Kikuchi into Takehara’s invention in order to output the simulated production result on a display, because Kikuchi shows that displaying the result of a mounting-line production simulation over time was a routine presentation.
However, Takehara in view of Kikuchi fails to teach explicitly a parameter related display in 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.
On the other hand, Fukuda teaches a parameter related display in 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 (Col. 5 lines 50-59 “the loss factor management UI 165 displays a state time series (a time series of the state of each of 4 Ms) based on the time series data group, and a loss factor time series (a time series of the loss factor) based on the result of the loss factor determination according to the same time axis”). In particular, Fukuda teaches displaying the production loss and a factor of that loss on a single screen sharing one axis.
Takehara, Kikuchi, and Fukuda are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, production simulation and estimation system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to further modify Fukuda into Takehara in view of Kikuchi’s invention in order to present the production loss and the factor responsible for it together on one screen, so that an operator can identify which factor caused the loss at the time it occurred and to improve accuracy in determination of the occurrence of a loss and the factor of the loss (Fukuda: col. 2 lines 5-7). Doing so predictably enables an operator to read both the production delay and its causal parameter from a single screen and thereby estimate and address the factor of the delay, a benefit contemplated by Takehara’s error-aware capacity estimation and by Fukuda’s loss-factor visualization.
As per Claim 3, Takehara teaches wherein in the step (c), the parameter to be the factor of the production delay is a load factor of an operation relating to the provision and/or collection of the component supply device (col. 1 lines 46-54 “the event information relates to an event indicating that a work of an operator is necessary for the component-mounting-relevant devices and an occurrence frequency indicating the number of occurrences of the event”; col. 5 lines 14-49 “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 6 A and 6 B from below at the time of mounting the components is performed by operator OP in component mounters M 6 to M 9”: the operation relating to supplying components is operator work whose occurrence is counted - amount and occurrence frequency the production-capacity estimation treats as the load that reduces capacity).
As per Claim 5, Takehara teaches wherein in the step (c), the parameter to be the factor of the production delay is a load distribution of an operation of the worker included in the second result (col. 1 lines 46-54 “the event information relates to an event indicating that a work of an operator is necessary for the component-mounting-relevant devices and an occurrence frequency indicating the number of occurrences of the event”; col. 5 lines 14-49 “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 6 A and 6 B from below at the time of mounting the components is performed by operator OP in component mounters M 6 to M 9”; col. 15 lines 65-67 “a first management method of optimizing the assignment of operators OP who do the work for producing assembly boards B in component mounting lines L1 to L3”: optimizes the assignment of the operators who perform the production work across the mounting lines, i.e. “distribution of an operation of the worker” where the operation relating to supplying components is operator work whose occurrence is counted).
As per Claim 6, Takehara teaches further comprising:
(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 (Fig. 11, col. 16 lines 65-67, col. 17 lines 1-8 “production-capacity estimator 32 increases the number of estimated operators OP by one person (ST 14), and re-estimates production capacity Cm by performing the same process as the production capacity estimation stage (ST 2 ) (ST 15)”; col. 19 lines 9-23 “production capacity Cm is estimated by updating occurrence frequency Fe of the event such as the component shortage or the device error or the device stoppage time by using the production performance of assembly boards B, it is possible to improve estimation precision of production capacity Cm, and it is possible to optimize the assignment of operators OP such that an error from the production plan of assembly boards B becomes small”: re-estimation routine where Takehara changes the number and assignment of operators when the production deviates from the plan and re-executes the estimation 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) (Co. 17 lines 9-47 “determiner 34 determines operators OP to be assigned to the component-mounting-related devices of component mounting lines L 1 to L 3 such that re-estimated production capacity Cm is equal to or greater than target production capacity 31 g and the number of operators is minimized; col. 19 lines 9-23 “production capacity Cm is estimated by updating occurrence frequency Fe of the event such as the component shortage or the device error or the device stoppage time by using the production performance of assembly boards B, it is possible to improve estimation precision of production capacity Cm, and it is possible to optimize the assignment of operators OP such that an error from the production plan of assembly boards B becomes small”: Takehara repeats the adjustment until the re-estimated result satisfies the target capacity so that the error from the production plan is progressively reduced).
6. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehara (US 10984357 B2) in view of Kikuchi (US 7127382 B2) and Fukuda (US 11580481 B2), and further in view of Yasui (US 10671049 B2).
Takehara as modified by Kikuchi and Fukuda teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 above.
As per Claim 2, Takehara as modified by Kikuchi and Fukuda teaches wherein in the step (c), the production delay related display is a line graph or a mark indicating occurrence of the production delay (Takehara: col. 2 lines 56-62 “there may be an error between actual production performance and the estimated production capacity of the component mounting line.”; Fukuda: Col. 4 lines 50-59 “the display section 166 displays the loss factor based on the result of the loss factor determination in chronological order”).
However, Takehara as modified by Kikuchi and Fukuda fails to teach explicitly the parameter related display is a bar graph.
Yasui teaches presenting the parameter related display is a bar graph (Yasui: col.10 lines 58-63 “the balance efficiency display section 834 displays the line balance efficiency LBE together with the bar graph of the cycle times tc”; col. 11 lines 56-59 “the cycle times tc are illustrated by white bar graphs”).
Takehara, Kikuchi, Fukuda, Yasui are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, production simulation and estimation system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to further modify Yasui into Takehara in view of Kikuchi and Fukuda’s invention in order to provide a system where an operator can identify which factor caused the loss at the time it occurred and to improve accuracy in determination of the occurrence of a loss and the factor of the loss (Fukuda: col. 2 lines 5-7) for a routine presentation for displaying the result of production simulation and in order to render the causal parameter as a bar graph alongside the time-series delay display, a conventional and readily readable presentation for line metrics or each component mounting machine of the line to display an operation efficiency reflecting how closely the machine’s cycle time approaches its shortest cycle time (Yasui: col. 11 lines 44-50, col. 14 lines 44-62).
As per Claim 4, Takehara as modified by Kikuchi and Fukuda teaches wherein in the step (c), the parameter to be the factor of the production delay is … included in the second result (Takehara: col. 2 lines 56-62 “there may be an error between actual production performance and the estimated production capacity of the component mounting line.”; Fukuda: col. 4 lines 33-59 “the time series data group includes, for each of 4 Ms (Man, Machine, Material, and Method), data on a time series of a state of an element belonging to the M”).
Takehara as modified by Kikuchi and Fukuda fails to teach explicitly the parameter… an operating ratio of the mounting line (col. 11 lines 44-50, col. 14 lines 44-62 “the operation efficiency calculating section 843 calculates the operation efficiency M indicating the degree to which the cycle time tc approaches the shortest cycle time tmin for each of the component mounting machines”: Functions of the Operation Efficiency Processing Section 84 - an operation efficiency of the mounting machines corresponds the claimed limitation “operating ratio of the mounting line”).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishida (US 11086307 B2) discloses component mounting line control system that adjusts manufacturing processing time in response to operator-location and board-storage-capacity information.
Iwata et al. (US 10466685 B2) discloses production management of substrates in a component mounting system.
Takagi et al. (US 11116118 B2) discloses tape feeder set-up system with automated feeder logistics.
IISAKA (US 20200128710 A1) discloses production system and production system control method.
JP 6153320 B2 discloses component mounting simulation apparatus for a component mounting line.
Li, J., N. Nagarur, and K. Srihari, “modeling pcb assembly lines in EMS Provider's Environment: Integrating Product Design into Simulation Models,” Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 2341–2350 (2011) discloses discrete-event simulation of PCB assembly lines predicting production cycle time and displaying resource utilization, including operator utilization, as bar charts.
Seppanen MS. Operator-paced assembly line simulation. InProceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005. 2005 Dec 4 (pp. 7-pp). IEEE discloses modeling operator pacing and interference in assembly-line simulation.
Jadhav PD, Smith JS. Analyzing printed circuit board assembly lines using a PCB assembly template. InProceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005. 2005 Dec 4 (pp. 8-pp). IEEE – discloses discrete-event simulation of PCB assembly lines in which throughput depends on simultaneous availability of machines, material, and operators, including replenishment-time variability.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 at (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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights