DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is responsive to the communication filed on 12/15/2025.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-9, the applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the claim limitations with respect to independent claim 1 below. Dependent claims 2-9 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art describe the claim limitations as briefly outlined below and as described in the rejection of claim 1 below.
an additional operation instruction acceptor that accepts an additional operation instruction for additionally giving an instruction to perform an operation on the production facility in addition to the operation instruction.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to Mori not teaching or suggesting an operation instruction and an additional operation instruction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mori illustrates the work performed/not performed data for two different faults in figure 5 and that work instructions S104 are provided for each fault S102 as illustrated in figure 4. Mori further describes receiving an input as to whether the work instruction is performed so multiple work instructions are displayed and inputted in Mori. In other words, Mori describes displaying data and accepting data for a plurality of faults so a plurality of work instructions is described. If Applicant intends for operation instruction and additional operation instruction to have particular meanings, Examiner recommends amending the claims to state the same.
Mori: see the fault monitoring S102 and work instruction S104 as illustrated in figure 4; see the plurality of faults along with the work performed/not performed for each fault as illustrated in figure 5; see the input of work instruction as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraph 0045; “Next, the work instruction control portion 39 confirms whether work is performed (S24). The work instruction and achievement managing portion 51 receives an input from the keyboard/mouse 53 on whether the work instruction is performed.” Paragraph 0045; see the work performed/not performed data (i.e., display of the operation instruction) as illustrated in figure 5
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since the cited prior art describe the limitations in these claims.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims
Limitations
Interpretation
1, 6, 7
“an additional operation instruction acceptor that . . .”
as illustrated in figures 3, 4 and as described in paragraphs 0064, 0067
5
“a history information designator that . . .”
as described in paragraph 0015
8, 9
“an operation instruction state information obtainer that . . .”
as illustrated in figure 4 and as described in paragraph 0074
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0228307 (Mori) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a quality improvement support apparatus that supports improvement in quality of a product produced by a production facility, the quality improvement support apparatus comprising: (Mori: “In view of the above problems, the present invention has been developed, and it is an object of the present invention to provide a quality improvement system that can utilize an FMEA table sufficiently.” Paragraph 0008; “FIG. 1 shows the constitution of the surroundings of a quality improvement system that uses FMEA according to the present embodiment in a case where when quality improvement system is applied to an electronic component mounting apparatus.” Paragraph 0018)
a display that displays production condition information in which identification information, operation instruction state information, and a condition evaluation index are associated with each other for each operation instruction, (Mori: see the display portion 52 as illustrated in figure 1; see the lines of data for generated faults including the lot ID data (i.e., identification information), the work performed/not performed data (i.e., operation instruction state information), and the classification result data (i.e., condition evaluation index) for each generated fault as illustrated in figure 5; “Next, a developmental-time measure instruction is displayed (S15). If the effect detection portion 37 detects any one of the effects 66 in the FMEA table, the work instruction control portion 39 references a developmental-time measure instruction associated with that effect 66 in the FMEA table and controls the work instructing apparatus 50 to display the contents of that instruction in the work instruction table database 35 storing the work instruction table. The work instruction and achievement managing portion 51 displays the contents on the display portion 52.” Paragraph 0038)
the identification information identifying an improvement target that is a production member or a component included in the production facility and that is to be improved to improve quality of the product, (Mori: see the lot ID data as illustrated in figure 5)
the operation instruction state information indicating a state of an operation instruction to perform an operation on the production facility in relation to the improvement target, (Mori: see the work performed/not performed data on multiple generated faults as illustrated in figure 5)
the condition evaluation index being an index for evaluating conditions of the production facility relating to the quality of the product; and (Mori: see the classification data as illustrated in figure 5; “a classification result for each generated fault. It is to be noted that the results are classified into four groups of group 1 of uncovered failure modes, group 2 of presence of failure modes not coped with, group 3 of difficult measures, and group 4 of improper measures.” Paragraph 0058)
an additional operation instruction acceptor that accepts an additional operation instruction for additionally giving an instruction to perform an operation on the production facility in addition to the operation instruction. (Mori: see the fault monitoring S102 and work instruction S104 as illustrated in figure 4; see the plurality of faults along with the work performed/not performed for each fault as illustrated in figure 5; see the input of work instruction as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraph 0045; “Next, the work instruction control portion 39 confirms whether work is performed (S24). The work instruction and achievement managing portion 51 receives an input from the keyboard/mouse 53 on whether the work instruction is performed.” Paragraph 0045; see the work performed/not performed data (i.e., display of the operation instruction) as illustrated in figure 5)
Claim 2:
The cited prior art describes the quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction state information includes whether or not the operation instructed with the operation instruction has been performed. (Mori: see the work performed/not performed data as illustrated in figure 5)
Claim 3:
The cited prior art describes the quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the production condition information includes chronological condition information showing the condition evaluation index and the operation instruction state information in a predetermined period in time series. (Mori: see the display portion 52 as illustrated in figure 1; see the lines of data for generated faults including the lot ID data (i.e., identification information), the work performed/not performed data (i.e., operation instruction state information), and the classification result data (i.e., condition evaluation index) for each generated fault as outlined with production date/time (i.e., time series) as illustrated in figure 5)
Claim 8:
The cited prior art describes a quality improvement support system comprising: (Mori: “In view of the above problems, the present invention has been developed, and it is an object of the present invention to provide a quality improvement system that can utilize an FMEA table sufficiently.” Paragraph 0008; “FIG. 1 shows the constitution of the surroundings of a quality improvement system that uses FMEA according to the present embodiment in a case where when quality improvement system is applied to an electronic component mounting apparatus.” Paragraph 0018)
the quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1; and (Mori: “In view of the above problems, the present invention has been developed, and it is an object of the present invention to provide a quality improvement system that can utilize an FMEA table sufficiently.” Paragraph 0008; “FIG. 1 shows the constitution of the surroundings of a quality improvement system that uses FMEA according to the present embodiment in a case where when quality improvement system is applied to an electronic component mounting apparatus.” Paragraph 0018)
an operation instruction receiver that receives the operation instruction including the additional operation instruction and includes: an operation instruction state information obtainer that obtains the operation instruction state information regarding the operation instruction; and an operation instruction state information transmitter unit that transmits the obtained operation instruction state information, (Mori: see the work performed/not performed data as illustrated in figure 5; “The manufacturing and inspection information collecting apparatus 20 includes a manufacturing and inspection information collecting portion 21 that collects manufacturing and inspection data from the electronic component mounting apparatus 10 and a manufacturing and inspection information database 22 that stores data collected by the manufacturing and inspection collecting portion 21.” Paragraph 0019; “The thus edited FMEA table is used to monitor an effect by using the effect detection portion 37 (S12). The manufacturing and inspection information collecting apparatus 21 collects manufacturing and inspection information from each of apparatuses 11-16 in the electronic component mounting apparatus 10 and registers the result into the manufacturing and inspection information database 22. The effect detection portion 37 collects the information of a failure mode and a defect from the manufacturing and inspection information database 22 in conjunction with production and monitors the occurrence of such failure modes 64 and effects 66 in the FMEA table as to be able to be detected using the manufacturing and inspection information database 22.” Paragraph 0035)
wherein the operation instruction state information displayed in the display unit of the quality improvement support apparatus is updated based on the operation instruction state information obtained by the operation instruction state information obtainer. (Mori: see the display portion 52 as illustrated in figure 1; see the lines of data for generated faults including the lot ID data (i.e., identification information), the work performed/not performed data (i.e., operation instruction state information), and the classification result data (i.e., condition evaluation index) for each generated fault as illustrated in figure 5; “Next, a developmental-time measure instruction is displayed (S15). If the effect detection portion 37 detects any one of the effects 66 in the FMEA table, the work instruction control portion 39 references a developmental-time measure instruction associated with that effect 66 in the FMEA table and controls the work instructing apparatus 50 to display the contents of that instruction in the work instruction table database 35 storing the work instruction table. The work instruction and achievement managing portion 51 displays the contents on the display portion 52.” Paragraph 0038)
Claim 9:
The cited prior art describes the quality improvement support system according to claim 8,
wherein the operation instruction receiver further includes an instruction content display unit that displays content of the received operation instruction, and (Mori: see the display portion 52 as illustrated in figure 1; “Next, a developmental-time measure instruction is displayed (S15). If the effect detection portion 37 detects any one of the effects 66 in the FMEA table, the work instruction control portion 39 references a developmental-time measure instruction associated with that effect 66 in the FMEA table and controls the work instructing apparatus 50 to display the contents of that instruction in the work instruction table database 35 storing the work instruction table. The work instruction and achievement managing portion 51 displays the contents on the display portion 52.” Paragraph 0038)
the operation instruction state information obtainer accepts input of the operation instruction state information from a user of the operation instruction receiver. (Mori: see the keyboard/mouse 53 as illustrated in figure 1; “Next, the work instruction control portion 39 confirms whether work is performed (S24). The work instruction and achievement managing portion 51 receives an input from the keyboard/mouse 53 on whether the work instruction is performed.” Paragraph 0045)
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0228307 (Mori) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0288321 (Dillon).
Claim 4:
Mori does not explicitly describe history information as described below. However, Dillon teaches the history information as described below.
The cited prior art describes the quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display displays history information indicating the operation instruction issued in the past in relation to the improvement target identified by the identification information included in the production condition information. (Dillon: see the maintenance data populated from historical data as illustrated in figures 5A, 5B; “In any event, the scheduler may schedule the maintenance order based off of current status information, actual data on maintenance items (e.g., lists of available materials), and historical data on past, completed maintenance items (e.g., past maintenance tasks need to complete similar maintenance orders).” Paragraph 0014; “Furthermore, this general information may be automatically populated from previously stored data. In addition to this general information, the display panel 370 illustrates a scheduling information section 374 in which automatically generated estimated time data is displayed to the user. That estimated time data includes both an estimated start (lead) time 376 and an estimated completion time 378 developed by the asset management system 50 based on available labor, materials and average time or historical time for maintenance data, in accordance with techniques as described herein. The display panel 370 also has dialog boxes 380 and 382 for entering actual start and completion times, respectively, which can be used later as historical time information data regarding this type of maintenance order.” Paragraph 0064)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mori, namely, a quality improvement system for an electronic component mounting apparatus, with the known techniques of Dillon, namely, automatic maintenance estimation for a process plant, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Mori determine and display quality data about a process system with the teachings of Dillon to determine and display maintenance data about a process system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved quality management system (i.e., the combination of the references provides for a quality management system to display various types of data about the system based on the combination of the teachings of determining and displaying quality information in Mori and the teachings of determining and displaying maintenance information with respect to historical information in Dillon).
Claim 5:
Mori does not explicitly describe history information as described below. However, Dillon teaches the history information as described below.
The cited prior art describes the quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising a history information designator that accepts designation of any of a plurality of pieces of the production condition information displayed in the display unit and causes the display to display the history information relating to an improvement target identified by the identification information included in the designated production condition information. (Dillon: see the tasks for a work order as illustrated in figure 5B; see the maintenance data populated from historical data as illustrated in figures 5A, 5B; “In any event, the scheduler may schedule the maintenance order based off of current status information, actual data on maintenance items (e.g., lists of available materials), and historical data on past, completed maintenance items (e.g., past maintenance tasks need to complete similar maintenance orders).” Paragraph 0014; “Furthermore, this general information may be automatically populated from previously stored data. In addition to this general information, the display panel 370 illustrates a scheduling information section 374 in which automatically generated estimated time data is displayed to the user. That estimated time data includes both an estimated start (lead) time 376 and an estimated completion time 378 developed by the asset management system 50 based on available labor, materials and average time or historical time for maintenance data, in accordance with techniques as described herein. The display panel 370 also has dialog boxes 380 and 382 for entering actual start and completion times, respectively, which can be used later as historical time information data regarding this type of maintenance order.” Paragraph 0064)
Mori and Dillon are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 6:
Mori does not explicitly describe history information as described below. However, Dillon teaches the history information as described below.
The cited prior art describes the quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the additional operation instruction acceptor accepts the same operation instruction as the operation instruction issued in the past and included in the history information. (Dillon: see the approved tasks and plan for the work order as illustrated in figure 5; “For example, in some systems, the system may only submit a "work request" and a subsequent action must be taken to "approve/assign" the request, which then makes the request a work order. In any event, the term "maintenance order" as used herein may include any such order or request.” Paragraph 0067)
Mori and Dillon are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 7:
Mori does not explicitly describe history information as described below. However, Dillon teaches the history information as described below.
The cited prior art describes the quality improvement support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the additional operation instruction acceptor accepts an operation instruction that is different from the operation instruction issued in the past and included in the history information. (Dillon: “Because, as explained in further detail below, changes to certain maintenance orders may alter the estimated times and costs associated with other scheduled maintenance orders, a section of the data information element 700 is reserved for cross references to other maintenance orders, each of which may be identified by a fixed maintenance order identifier name, stored at region 716.” Paragraph 0096; “It may be determined, for example, that the optimum execution of a maintenance schedule may involve delaying the entire schedule in response to a delay in the execution of a particular maintenance event, instead of re-scheduling maintenance orders to avoid downtime completely. By storing cross-reference information, different maintenance orders may be linked together for contiguous execution.” Paragraph 0097; “As discussed above, the EAM 440 may update the stored maintenance schedule in real time in response to changes that occur during execution of a maintenance order. For example, if maintenance personnel encounter a problem during execution of a maintenance order, such as equipment failure, alarm requests for newly identified maintenance orders, unexpected availability issues, then the EAM 440 may be programmed to re-schedule the queued maintenance orders in light of the changed circumstances.” Paragraph 0100)
Mori and Dillon are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0364687 describes a mounting board manufacturing system.
U.S. Patent No. 6,633,782 describes a diagnostic expert in a process control system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0082736 describes a quality management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117