DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-7 (filed 06/21/2026) have been considered in this action. Claims 1 and 4-7 have been amended. Claim 3 has been filed in the same format as previously filed. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, in regards to what is shown by Kojitani (US 20100188417) in Fig. 15 of Kojitani, applicant has stated “[page 5] Applicants submit that Kojitani merely shows an individual display of trends for a specific, single cassette”. To assist in readability, a reproduction of Kojitani’s Figure 15 is produced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
738
1090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the applicant’s interpretation mischaracterizes what is shown in Figure 15, as Kojitani clearly explains “[0124] FIG. 15 shows an example where similar information is generated with respect to not only the above-described solder print process but also the component mounting process and the reflow process and the generated information is arranged in one screen”, these relate to the three different and distinct production machines (solder print, component mounting, reflow) as previously established by Kojitani “[0048] The substrate production line L includes three types of manufacturing apparatuses 2A, 2B, 2C and inspection apparatuses 3A, 3B, 3C respectively arranged at subsequent stages to the manufacturing apparatuses 2A, 2B, 2C. In the manufacturing apparatuses, the manufacturing apparatus 2A is a solder printer, the manufacturing apparatus 2B is a component mounting machine, and the manufacturing apparatus 2C is a reflow oven.”. Clearly, Kojitani is showing a plurality of production members (i.e. production machines) in that all of a solder printer, component mounting machine, and reflow oven are devices that perform production process on the products, including various products in production lots 1-4 as shown in Fig. 15. Additionally, Fig. 15 shows bar graphs 14A, 14B and 14C for each of the three different production members.
Applicant further argues that “Kojitani does not teach or suggest the unique displayed grid UI structure as recited b amended claim 1 in which i) a plurality of production members, and ii) the error information of the same unit product being arranged at the same position in the time series (i.e. production order). This specific displayed grid UI structure required by amended claim 1 beneficially allows a user to visually align and compare the behavioral trends across multiple production members for each produced substrate”. However, the claims recite no reference to a “grid UI structure” or “error information”, nor to “visually align and compare behavioral trends across multiple production members” and the examiner does not find these as claimed features that must be shown through prior art. In fact, the claims do not even require the quality information of a plurality of production members to be displayed in the same time series as the claim makes no explicit recitation of such a feature. The inclusion of “plurality of the production members” in the claim, based upon the BRI, only requires that a plurality of production members operate or relate to the unit product, however there is no explicit or even implied inference that “the quality of the same unit product” requires quality information from the plurality of production members (i.e. production members that are different from the production member) as the claim establishes that “display production condition information in which quality information regarding the quality occurring or detected in a production steps performed by the production facility is arranged in time series in association with a production member included in the production facility”. In other words, based upon the BRI, all that is required by the inclusion of a plurality of production members is that a plurality of production members relate to the unit product, which Kojitani does through the above recitation from paragraph [0048] and Fig. 15 that shows that at least three different production machines and three different inspection apparatus operate as a whole as a production line that operates on products and product lots (i.e. unit product).
Even when considering the applicant’s preferred interpretation relating to unclaimed features that quality information from different production members are aligned at the same position in time series (i.e. production order), Figure 15 of Kojitani shows such alignment in the same position as the vertical position of the information that corresponds to lot 4 (unit product) from the different types of production machines are at the same vertical position as denoted by bounding-box MG as shown in Fig. 15. Fig. 15 shows that color maps 10A, 10B, and 10C and graphs 14A, 14B and 15C (which correspond to machines 2A, 2B and 2C respectively, and each have a respective color map as Fig. 16A, 16B and 16C respectively) each have lot 4 shown as bounding box MG. In other words, when the “same position” refers to the same vertical position as denoted by MG of Kojitani’s Fig. 15, there is alignment across the lot #4 of products (unit product) which are displayed in a time series production order (i.e. lot 1 is first, followed by lot 2, lot 3, lot 4 horizontally across the maps). There is no other referred to “position” in the claim and thus when referring to the “same position” the examiner considers under the BRI that the same vertical position is in line with what is claimed. PHOSITA would understand that the production lots of products are produced in a numerical order, for example in the order lot 1, lot 2, lot 3, lot 4 and thus all of Kojitani’s figures that show the quality information of different lots in production order can be considered to display “arranged in an order in which the products are produced”.
In other words, the examiner does not find the applicant’s arguments convincing, as they relate to features that are both not required by the claim language (i.e. grid UI structure, error information, etc.) and each and every limitation from claim 1 is taught or suggested in view of Kojitani when considering the language under the BRI in view of the presented arguments.
The examiner maintains their previous rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) in view of Kojitani.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same unit product" and “the same position” in the final limitation of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which “unit product” is in reference to “the same unit product” as there is no previously established “same unit product”. Likewise, there is no previously established position, so it is unclear what “the same position” is in reference to.
Claims 3-7 are dependent upon claim 1, and thus inherit the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kojitani et al. (US 20100188417, hereinafter Kojitani).
In regards to Claim 1, Kojitani teaches “A quality improvement support apparatus that supports improvement in quality of products produced by a production facility, the quality improvement support apparatus comprising: at least one processor connected to at least one memory, the at least one processor being configured to:” (server 1 and terminal apparatus 5 are computers which inherently have processors and memory [0013] A system according to the present invention is for displaying information for quality control of a component-mounted substrate that is produced in a production line, at least one process performed in the production line of the component-mounted substrate is adopted as a targeted process, and the system uses measured data obtained in an inspection performed after the targeted process; [0051] The substrate quality control system M is made as a computer system including the server 1 and terminal apparatuses 5 used by workers of each division (in the drawings, three terminal apparatuses 5A, 5B, 5C are shown. But the number of apparatuses is not limited thereto.). In the computer system, the server 1 and the terminal apparatuses are connected with each other via an intranet.) “displays production condition information in which quality information regarding the quality occurring or detected in a production step performed by the production facility is arranged in time series in association with a production member or a component included in the production facility” (Fig. 2, 5-7, 11-16 show displays [0026] According to another preferable aspect, a plurality of processes included in the production line are adopted as target processes, the map image generation unit generates two-dimensional map images respectively for the target processes, the first axes of the two-dimensional map images being identical, and the display control unit displays, at a time, the two-dimensional map images of the targeted processes generated by the map image generation unit. [0052] Every time production of one substrate is finished, the manufacturing apparatuses 2A to 2C transmit, to the server 1, information representing conditions under which the process is performed on the substrate (hereinafter referred to as "production conditions") based on an operational definition set in advance. Every time inspection of one substrate is finished, the inspection apparatuses 3A to 3C transmit, to the server 1, the inspection result and measured data obtained through the measuring process executed for this inspection. Any information transmitted from any of the apparatuses is attached with identification information of a corresponding substrate (hereinafter referred to as "substrate ID"). [0097] The display data output unit 110 transmits, to the terminal apparatus 5, various kinds of information generated by the display data generation unit 100. The terminal apparatus 5 uses the transmitted information to activate, on a monitor apparatus of the terminal apparatus 5, a screen as shown in the examples of FIG. 2 or FIG. 11 and subsequent drawings; wherein the terminal apparatus is a display unit [0133] the color map is generated with respect to the already-processed substrates whose production condition and measured data are stored in the server 1. However, the present invention is not limited thereto. Every time a process of one substrate is finished, data generated with respect to the substrate may be incorporated, and a color map may be displayed line by line. In this case, only the constituent elements of the substrate to be displayed may be specified, so that the measured data can be displayed with respect to the substrates processed in a predetermined period of time in the past) “wherein the production member includes at least one of a nozzle, a feeder, or a head” ([0020] The information input by the attribute input unit as the attributes of the substrates represents production conditions of the substrates such as a time period in which the process is performed, a lot number, identification information of jigs used in the targeted process (such as squeegees of a solder printer and a component feeder of a component mounting machine). [0048] In the manufacturing apparatuses, the manufacturing apparatus 2A is a solder printer, the manufacturing apparatus 2B is a component mounting machine, and the manufacturing apparatus 2C is a reflow oven. [0127] More specifically, an identification number (either 1 or 2) of a component cassette used to mount a component to be displayed (transistor) is set to subordinate of the lots 1, 2, 3, 4 in the horizontal axis of the color map 10B. The hierarchical structure data is not set in the horizontal axis of the color map C. Only the lots 1, 2, 3, 4 are associated with the horizontal axis of the color map C. [0128] Instead of the volumes of solders, colors converted from the amounts of vertical positional displacements with respect to the pads are set to the cells in the color map 10B. The amount of positional displacement is given a plus or minus sign representing the direction of positional displacement; wherein a component cassette is considered a feeder) “wherein, in the production condition information, the quality information of each unit product constituted by one or a plurality of the products is arranged in an order in which the products are produced” (Fig. 2, 5-7, 11-16 show displays in a production order lots 1->4 and [0030] the measured data of the measurement target sections of the substrates are represented in colors or shades in the two-dimensional area made with the first axis and the second axis, so that the measured data in the non-preferable numerical range can be easily recognized. The first axis arranged with the hierarchical structure made by various kinds of constituent elements of the substrate, and the second axis arranged with information representing the production conditions of the substrates associated with the order of the process of the substrates. [0060] In the example of FIG. 2, in order to simplify the illustration, the number of substrates within each lot is assumed to be 10, and numbers 1, 2, 3, . . . are attached to the substrates as substrate IDs in the order of process. Further, numbers 1, 2, 3, . . . are attached to the measurement target section (pads) specified as display targets (hereinafter these are referred to as "pad IDs")) “and wherein, with respect to a plurality of the production members or the components relating to the unit product, the quality information of the same unit product is arranged at the same position in the time series” (Fig. 15 and 16A-C shows a map with a grid that is vertically aligned in the same position according to unit product/substrate ID and shows quality information for different production members 10A-10C and 14A-14C aligned vertically for Lot 4 [0018] The map image generation unit generates a two-dimensional map image representing a distribution of the measured data upon setting a two-dimensional area and setting the color or shade to corresponding positions on the two-dimensional area. The two-dimensional area includes a first axis and a second axis. The identification information of the constituent elements stored in the attribute storage unit are arranged into a hierarchical structure based on relationship between the constituent elements, and the first axis is arranged with the measurement target sections associated with this arrangement. The substrates to be displayed are arranged into an order of the substrates subjected to the targeted process. The second axis is arranged with the identification information of the production conditions corresponding to the substrates in accordance with this order. The color or shade is obtained by applying the display information to the measured data that are input for each of the measurement target sections of the substrates. The display control unit displays, on a monitor apparatus, the generated two-dimensional map image. [0019] In the above system, the attributes of the measurement target sections stored in the attribute storage unit represents how the measurement target sections are related to a configuration of a completed substrate. For example, when substrate electrodes (pads) are measured, the attribute storage unit can store, for each pad, a combination of identification information of a type of component connected to the pad, the component, and electrodes in the component; [0116] When the above specification is made, the specified range in each axis direction of the color map 10 is indicated by frame marks MY and MG in predetermined colors. Also in each of the Xbar-R management graph 14 and the substrate map 15, the frame marks MG1 and MY1 are set to the range corresponding to the specified range. Regarding these frame images, the frame marks MG and MG1 corresponding to the specified production conditions are displayed in green, and the frame marks MY and MY1 corresponding to the specified design condition are displayed in yellow colors. [0124] FIG. 15 shows an example where similar information is generated with respect to not only the above-described solder print process but also the component mounting process and the reflow process and the generated information is arranged in one screen. The reference signs in the drawing are based on those in FIGS. 11 to 13. However, suffixes A, B, C are attached to reference signs of the same content so as to distinguish them from each other.).
In regards to Claim 3, Kojitani teaches the quality improvement support apparatus as incorporated by claim 1 above. Kojitani further teaches “The quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the quality information includes a plurality of types of quality information, and the respective types of quality information are displayed in different display manners” (Fig 16A-C show three different types of quality information, solder, mounting alignment, reflow; [0016] The display information storage unit stores display information, in which numerical values included in the measured data are classified into a preferable numerical range and a non-preferable numerical range and the non-preferable numerical range is displayed in a color or shade different from that of the preferable numerical range. [0049] The inspection apparatus 3A performs three-dimensional measuring process using a stereo camera on a substrate having been subjected to the solder print process performed by the solder printer 2A, thus measuring the volume of solder printed on each pad on a substrate. Then, the inspection apparatus 3A compares each measured value with reference values registered in advance, so as to determine, for each pad, whether the amount of solder on the pad is appropriate, too much, or too little. [0050] The inspection apparatuses 3B, 3C use a two-dimensional camera to taken an image and inspect external appearance through image processing. The inspection apparatus 3B determines whether each mounted component is correct or not and whether there is any positional displacement with respect to the substrate having been subjected to component mounting process performed by the component mounting machine 2B. The inspection apparatus 3C inspects a surface state of a solder fillet formed between a substrate-side pad and an electrode of each mounted component on the substrate having been subjected to reflow process performed by the reflow oven 2C. [0058] In this input field 12, "quality characteristic" means the type of the displayed measured data, and "type of machine" means a manufacturing apparatus to be displayed; wherein the different inspection apparatus have different types of quality information because they inherently produce different types of information by performing different analysis).
In regards to Claim 5, Kojitani teaches the quality improvement support apparatus as incorporated by claim 1 above. Kojitani further teaches “The quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein marks each representing the unit product are arranged in the order in a time axis direction defined for each production member relating to the quality information, and the quality information is displayed in association with the marks” (Fig. 2 and 11 and 15 show marks in the form of color/shaded squares and Bar graphs [0018] The map image generation unit generates a two-dimensional map image representing a distribution of the measured data upon setting a two-dimensional area and setting the color or shade to corresponding positions on the two-dimensional area… The substrates to be displayed are arranged into an order of the substrates subjected to the targeted process. [0107] The Xbar-R management graph 14 is generated by obtaining, for each substrate, an average value Xbar of the measured data and a difference R between the maximum value and the minimum value, and showing them as a time-series graph. The data of this graph is generated by the statistic processing unit 112 of FIG. 8, and the scale of the horizontal axis is arranged to correspond to the color map 10; wherein the alignment between the horizontal axis of the time-series graph to the color map shows how the marks in the map are in order in a time axis direction).
In regards to Claim 6, Kojitani teaches the quality improvement support apparatus as incorporated by claim 1 above. Kojitani further teaches “The quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the production condition information includes chronological quality information regarding the quality occurring or detected in relation to the production member, the chronological quality information being arranged in time series showing passage of time in a predetermined period” (Fig. 2 and 11 and 15 show time-series relationship alignment between time axis and each lot 1-4 that are in chronological/production order and[0018] The substrates to be displayed are arranged into an order of the substrates subjected to the targeted process. [0020] The information input by the attribute input unit as the attributes of the substrates represents production conditions of the substrates such as a time period in which the process is performed, a lot number, identification information of jigs used in the targeted process (such as squeegees of a solder printer and a component feeder of a component mounting machine). Any information that changes according to processed substrates and according to the elapse of time can be employed as this information. [0107] The Xbar-R management graph 14 is generated by obtaining, for each substrate, an average value Xbar of the measured data and a difference R between the maximum value and the minimum value, and showing them as a time-series graph. The data of this graph is generated by the statistic processing unit 112 of FIG. 8, and the scale of the horizontal axis is arranged to correspond to the color map 10; [0133] the color map is generated with respect to the already-processed substrates whose production condition and measured data are stored in the server 1. However, the present invention is not limited thereto. Every time a process of one substrate is finished, data generated with respect to the substrate may be incorporated, and a color map may be displayed line by line. In this case, only the constituent elements of the substrate to be displayed may be specified, so that the measured data can be displayed with respect to the substrates processed in a predetermined period of time in the past).
In regards to Claim 7, Kojitani teaches the quality improvement support apparatus as incorporated by claim 1 above. Kojitani further teaches “The quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 6, wherein a plurality of pieces of the chronological quality information corresponding to a plurality of the production members or the components are arranged vertically, the chronological quality information showing the passage of time in the predetermined period along a horizontal axis” (Fig. 11 shows plurality of components arranged vertically, and chronological quality information horizontally for each substrate ID and Lot in chronological time; [0060] In the example of FIG. 2, in order to simplify the illustration, the number of substrates within each lot is assumed to be 10, and numbers 1, 2, 3, . . . are attached to the substrates as substrate IDs in the order of process. Further, numbers 1, 2, 3, . . . are attached to the measurement target section (pads) specified as display targets (hereinafter these are referred to as "pad IDs"). [0107] The Xbar-R management graph 14 is generated by obtaining, for each substrate, an average value Xbar of the measured data and a difference R between the maximum value and the minimum value, and showing them as a time-series graph. The data of this graph is generated by the statistic processing unit 112 of FIG. 8, and the scale of the horizontal axis is arranged to correspond to the color map 10).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojitani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McRaven et al. (US 10902654, hereinafter McRaven).
In regards to Claim 4, Kojitani teaches the quality improvement support apparatus as incorporated by claim 1 above.
Kojitani fails to teach “The quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein event information indicating an event occurring or executed in relation to the production member is arranged in time series together with the quality information in accordance with a temporal order between a timing of the occurrence or execution of the event and the quality information occurring or detected in relation to the production member”.
McRaven teaches “The quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein event information indicating an event occurring or executed in relation to the production member is arranged in time series together with the quality information in accordance with a temporal order between a timing of the occurrence or execution of the event and the quality information occurring or detected in relation to the production member” (Fig. 6A and 8B shows fault/event embedded into time-series quality data as stored data and a graphical display and [col 13 line 41] In terms of comparison, one or more predetermined conditions may form part of the analysis system 130 enabling computer-implemented detection of an event, such as a fault. For example, if the sensor data 141 for batch 1 varies significantly (e.g. greater than a percentage difference, as specified by a user, or by default) from the sensor data 143 for batch 2, at a corresponding time, then this may be flagged as a fault rather than something more benign; [col 24 line 48] the time series information 600 relates to one or more batches 105, sensor data 110 which includes data from multiple sensors, determined data (or information) 115, quality data 120, and events 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, and 658. The batches 105 include a batch identifier 606, a start time 607, and an end time 608. As illustrated in FIG. 6A, time series data is collected for batch 105A for a duration of time A between the start time 607A and the end time 608A. [col 34 line 37] FIG. 8B shows another example of the user interface 810, similar to that shown in FIG. 8A, in which the analysis system identifies a variation between plots 813 and 814, at a time indicated by reference numeral 817, that meets a predetermined alert condition, e.g. because the variation between the plot values at a corresponding time is greater than a certain predetermined threshold. In response to this, a prompt 819 may be displayed alerting the user via the user interface 810 and enabling the user to turn-off the sensor, or in some cases, the underlying system, for example, during a subsequent operation of the system).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the system which displays quality information in a time series of production order for components as taught by Kojitani to incorporate the features of McRaven in which an event is stored and displayed within the time series of data because it would gain the obvious benefit of having both quality information and event information in the same display area, thus improving a user’s understanding of the data presented, without having to navigate to a different display. It can also be considered that Kojitani and McRaven are in related fields, as both are concerned with a user interface and display of quality information as it relates to a production process. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known features of McRaven in which event data is stored and arranged for display in time series with quality data, and incorporating them into the displays and stored data of Kojitani in a known way that achieves predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-3:30.
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, Ken Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights