DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phraseology of “when performing the shipping the storage body” is grammatically unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0114714 A1 (hereinafter: ‘714).
As per claims 1 and 13, ‘714 discloses a method for managing electronic components (e.g., See ‘714; [0003] and [0009]), the method comprising:
a manufacturer-side process performed in a manufacturer-side facility where a manufacturer manufactures the electronic components (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to a manufacturer that makes the electronic components; See ‘714; [0009] and [0022]); and
a user-side process performed in a user-side facility where a user uses the electronic components manufactured in the manufacturer-side facility (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to the user facility using the components made by the manufacturer; see ‘714; [0022] and [0023]);
wherein the manufacturer-side process includes:
preparing a storage body that stores a plurality of electronic components and includes an RFID tag including a unique number stored therein (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to packing plural components into an RFID tagged carrier with a unique #; See ‘714; [0009] and [0023]);
storing manufacturer-side information in association with the unique number in a manufacturer-side information storage area in an external storage device (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to storing manufacturer information in an external database which is linked to the unique #; See ‘714; [0021], [0023] and [0024]); and
wherein the user-side process includes:
reading the unique number stored in the RFID tag (e.g., See ‘714; [0023]); and
obtaining the manufacturer-side information stored in the manufacturer-side information storage area of the external storage device based on the unique number read (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to retrieving manufacturer information from a database by reading the unique #; See ‘714; [0021], [0023] and [0024]).
It is noted that ‘714 does not explicitly disclose:
shipping the storage body in which the plurality of electronic components are stored or receiving the shipped storage body.
However, since ‘714 is directed to an RFID real-time information system for a semiconductor supply chain in which multiple vendors exchange “logistical information … for tracking” wafer, and since ‘714 expressly identifies carrier location states including a “shipping dock”, and describes carriers that may be a “front-opening shipping box (FSOB), it seems that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the disclosed RFID-tagged carrier/storage body being shipped, and therefore received at a destination, would represent a routine, well known and predictable step in moving the wafers between vendor facilities in the disclosed supply chain.
As per claims 5 and 17, ‘714 further discloses that the user-side process further includes a user causing a first reader at a predetermined location in the user-side facility to read the RFID tag and detect a position of the storage body (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to a worker using a fixed RFID reader at a known position to read the RFID tag to detect the carrier position; See ‘714; [0022] – [0024]).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (‘714) as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, from above, and further in view of U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0200159 A1 (hereinafter: ‘159).
As per claims 2 and 14, although ‘714 adequately discloses that the manufacturer-side process further includes reading the manufacturer-side information based on the unique number (e.g., See ‘714; [0015], [0023] and [0024]), ‘714 does not specifically disclose creating a label based on the manufacturer-side information read, and attaching the label to the storage body.
In analogous art, ‘159 discloses this feature (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to printing a label from stored information and attaching in on the carrier; See ‘159; [0024] and [0028] – [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘159 into ‘714 for the purpose of quickly printing and applying a readable label to each carrier using stored data, so workers can identify and track carriers when RFID reading fails, thereby reducing handling errors and increasing over speed and efficiency of tracking during shipping and receiving operations.
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (‘714) as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, from above, and further in view of Aikawa et al., U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0145817 A1 (hereinafter: ‘817).
As per claims 3 and 15, ‘714 does not specifically disclose that the manufacturer-side process further includes collectively reading unique numbers from RFID tags of a plurality of the storage bodies when performing the shipping the storage body in which the plurality of electronic components are stored.
In analogous art, ‘817 discloses this feature (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to reading plural carriers RFID ID #s together during shipping; See ‘817; [0004]).
Further, as per claims 4 and 16, ‘714 does not specifically disclose that the user-side process further includes collectively reading unique numbers from RFID tags of a plurality of the storage bodies when performing the step of receiving the shipped storage body.
In analogous art, ‘817 discloses this feature (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to reading plural carriers RFID ID #s together during receiving; See ‘817; [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘817 into ‘714 for the purpose of reliably scanning many RFID tagged carriers during shipping and receiving by reducing tag collisions, thereby improving overall speed and accuracy while reducing potential reading and handling errors.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (‘714) as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, from above, and further in view of FLORES et al., U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0088454 A1 (hereinafter: ‘454).
As per claims 6 and 18, ‘714 does not specifically disclose that the user-side process further includes identifying a storage body handler by the RFID tag being read by the storage body handler positioned at a predetermined location in the user-side facility.
In analogous art, ‘454 discloses this feature (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to identifying which worker handled the carrier when it’s scanned at the reader; See ‘454; [0010] – [0011] disclosing the system knowing which items are handled by which person; [0027] – [0028] disclosing user identification reader and RFID reading at define locations; [0057] – [0059] disclosing user identification and RFID interrogation; and [0079] – [0081] disclosing recording operations with user information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘454 into ‘714 for the purpose of tracking who handled each carrier, so that problems can be traced to a specific person, thereby reducing lost or misplaced carriers and improving accountability during shipping and receiving.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (‘714) as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, from above, and further in view of Corriveau et al., U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0277469 A1 (hereinafter: ‘469).
As per claims 7 and 19, ‘714 does not specifically disclose that:
the user-side process further includes a mounting device arranging each of the plurality of electronic components stored in the storage body on an electronic circuit board; and
the mounting device stores a designated unique number, includes a second reader that reads the RFID tag, and is configured to compare a unique number stored in the RFID tag read by the second reader with the designated unique number designated by the mounting device.
In analogous art, ‘469 discloses these features (e.g., the first limitation is interpreted to correspond to a machine mounting electronic parts onto a circuit board; See ‘469; [0051] – [0052]; the second limitation is interpreted to correspond to the machine reading carrier tags and verifying that they match the expected ID; See ‘469; [0054] and [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘469 into ‘714 for the purpose of preventing wrong components from being mounted by automatically checking each carrier’s tag against the expected setup, thereby improving building accuracy, and reducing rework/scrap and speeding line setup and changeovers.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al.’s combined system (‘714 in view of ‘469), as applied to claims 7 and 19, respectively, from above, and further in view of Rodgers, U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0178811 A1 (hereinafter: ‘811).
As per claims 8 and 20, ‘714’s combined system (‘714 in view of ‘469) does not specifically disclose that:
(a) the manufacturer-side process further includes storing quantity information of the plurality of electronic components stored in the storage body, as the manufacturer-side information, in the manufacturer-side information storage area in the external storage device; and
(b) the user-side process further includes determining a consumption amount of the electronic components arranged on the electronic circuit board by the mounting device based on the quantity information obtained based on the unique number, and preparing another received storage body based on the consumption amount.
In analogous art, ‘469 discloses (a) and the consumption calculation of (b). Specifically, ‘469 discloses that a reel/carrier RFID tag may store component information including quantity, or alternatively a serial number that is used to cross-reference component information in a local or global database (e.g., See ‘469; [0054]). ‘469 further discloses that software uses reel identification information and production/consumption information (e.g., # of PCB’s built and component consumption per feeder location) to update the quantity remaining on a reel, i.e., determining consumption based on quantity information associated with the reel (e.g., See ‘469; [0057]).
Further, in analogous art, ‘811 discloses preparing a replacement storage body/reel based on depletion or consumption conditions. Specifically, ‘811 discloses that a production line computer can transmit a message to a supply facility to supply an additional reel of the same type, and a worker locates and delivers the replacement reel (e.g., See ‘811; [0043] – [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘811 into ‘714’s combined system for the purpose of automatically replacing carriers before they run out, thereby avoiding line stoppages, and reducing manual monitoring and mistakes, which keeps the mounting process running more smoothly and optimally.
Claims 11-12 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al.’s (‘714), as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, from above, and further in view of Monette et al., U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0102367 A1 (hereinafter: ‘367).
As per claims 11 and 23, ‘714 does not specifically disclose that:
(a) a manufacturer-side unique number is used as the unique number in the manufacturer-side facility;
(b) a user-side unique number is used as the unique number in the user-side facility; and
(c) either one of the manufacturer-side unique number or the user-side unique number is the same as the unique number, and either one of the manufacturer-side unique number or the user-side unique number is associated with the unique number.
‘367 discloses a component identification data structure for an RFID tagged tray including a manufacturer part number and a customer part number, which corresponds to (a) and (b), respectively, and are stored together (i.e., associated) which satisfies (c) (e.g., See ‘367; [0109] – [0110]).
As per claims 12 and 24, ‘714 does not specifically disclose that:
(a) a manufacturer-side unique number is used as the unique number in the manufacturer-side facility;
(b) a user-side unique number is used as the unique number in the user-side facility; and
(c) the manufacturer-side unique number and the user-side unique number are both associated with the unique number.
‘367 discloses a component identification data structure including both a manufacturer part number and a customer part number, thereby associating both with the same identified component or item (e.g., See [0109] – [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘367 into ‘714 for the purpose of letting different companies use their own part #s while still tracking the same carrier, thereby improving vendor compatibility, reducing part number confusion and preventing ordering and component selection errors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claims 8-9 and 20-21, specifically with respect to dependent claims 8 and 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest, as best understood, a process of steps whereby the user records how much was used, ties it to the carriers unique ID, stores that information and then transmits it back to the manufacturer, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 2005/0004702 A1, which discloses tracking shipments and attaching an RFID tag to a carrier and storing and looking up item information and location during transfer;
(2) US 2011/0068924 A1, which discloses a pallet or material handling device with an RFID reader and write that reads tags on products and communicates inventory information over a network; and
(3) US 6,027,019, which discloses a pick and place system that scans feeder and slot identifiers and compares them to stored configuration data to prevent loading or placement setup errors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 January 3, 2026
/RDH/