DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received preliminarily-amended claims 1-11 and 13-19 in application number 18/554,399. Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant has mis-spelled the word “BACKGROUND” in the title after paragraph [0001]. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant has mis-spelled the word “shelves” twice in [0053]. Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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.
Independent Claims 1, 10 and 11 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 target component" in line 11. Applicant previously recites “a number of target components” in lines 6-7 but does not specify a particular target component that might be the antecedent basis of “the target component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, Dependent Claims 2-9 and 13-19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim. Further, Dependent Claims 2-7, 9 and 14-19 are rejected for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the component storage" in line 7. Applicant previously recites “different component storages” in line 6 but does not specify a particular component storage that might be the antecedent basis of “the component storage”. Claim 5 is dependent on Claim 3 which is dependent on Claim 2 which is dependent on Claim 1. Claims 1-3 all recite “component storages”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under USC 112b for the same reason. Examiner notes that Claim 8 recites “one optimal component storage as the candidate of the warehousing destination among the plurality of component storages” which is correct antecedent basis. Further, Dependent Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Examiner is using the “step” annotation from the flowchart of MPEP 2106 (III), and MPEP 2106.04 and MPEP 2106.05 for clarity.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-9 and Claims 13-19 recite an apparatus (machine) that includes a processor, thereby falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Independent Claim 10 recites a method (process) thereby falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Independent Claim 11 recites medium (manufacture) thereby falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Applicant recites the following elements in Independent Claim 1 (and similarly in Independent Claims 10 and 11):
(Currently Amended) A component warehousing support apparatus that supports warehousing of a component into each of a plurality of component storages in which a warehoused component is stored and from which a component is delivered in response to a request, comprising: processing circuitry configured to acquire a stock quantity indicating a number of target components to be warehoused, which are actually stored in each of the component storages, for each of the plurality of component storages; and calculate warehousing destination candidate information indicating a candidate of a warehousing destination of the target component from among the plurality of component storages, on the basis of the stock quantity of the target component in each of the plurality of component storages.
Examiner has bolded the elements that are part of the abstract idea.
These elements recite acquiring information relating to a quantity of chips to be stored in a storage location and determining which storage location the chips should go to based on how many chips are already stored there. These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions because it is a common commercial practice for a manufacturer to store items and determine space available in a storage area to accommodate newly added items.
Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 10 and 11) thus recites an abstract idea. Dependent Claims 2-9 and Claims 13-19 the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. Accordingly Claims 1-11 and 13-19 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract idea discussed above, Independent Claim 1 also recites the following additional elements:
component storages - an example of a component storage is described in Applicant’s specification at [0053] as a box with shelves (as illustrated in Fig 2). As claimed in Claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed component storage is any general purpose storage capable of storing reels with no special features or technologies.
component - an example of a component is described in Applicant’s specification at [0053] as “chip-like electronic components such as an integrated circuit, a transistor, a capacitor or the like”. As claimed in Claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed component is a general purpose component with no special features or technologies.
processing circuitry/computer – Although Applicant does not use the term “processing circuitry” in the specification, Applicant recites a computer in at least [0049] that appears to perform the same function as the claimed processing circuitry. Examiner notes that Applicant claims a “computer” that performs the same function in Independent Claim 11. Applicant describes a computer in at least [0050] as a general purpose computer with no special features or technologies.
Independent Claim 11 also recites a medium – this element is described in Applicant’s specification in at least [0050] as general purpose computer storage such as a hard disk drive or solid state drive with no special features or technologies.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”.
As discussed, the additional elements component storages, component, processing circuitry/computer and medium are broadly claimed and used in their ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies and, thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Independent Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed above, Applicant claims the abstract idea of acquiring information relating to a quantity of chips to be stored in a storage location and determining which storage location the chips should go to based on how many chips are already stored there. As discussed above, Applicant also recites the additional elements of: component storage, processes circuitry/computer and medium.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed component storage, processes circuitry/computer and medium are hardware recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer systems. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus component storage, processes circuitry/computer and medium are not significantly more. The additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional elements alone or in combination do not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 2-4 further limits the abstract idea by further limiting the location information and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Dependent Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by further limiting the location by performing an additional calculation relating to demand for the components at a production machine and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. Examiner notes that the claimed element of “acquire a plurality of production plans” is data and is abstract. Further, Applicant claims “for producing a predetermined type of component-mounted board by mounting a component on a board”, as currently claimed, is descriptive of the production plan and is intended use.
Dependent Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by further limiting the location by performing an additional calculation relating to demand for the components at a production machine and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. Examiner notes that the claimed element of “acquire details of a setup operation” is data and is abstract. Further the claimed “for setting a component at each of a plurality of component setting positions included in a component supply trolley”, as currently claimed, is descriptive of the setup operation and is intended use. Examiner also notes that the claimed elements of “at each of which the component is settable” and “divides the plurality of component setting positions into a plurality of divisions corresponding to the different component storages”, as currently claimed, are descriptive of the component setting positions and the setup operation and are intended use.
Dependent Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by further limiting the location by performing an additional calculation relating to demand for the components at a production machine and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. Examiner notes that the claimed “on the basis of a plan to store in advance two component holding members in different component storages, the two component holding members being to be replenished to a feeder in response to two-times component shortages expected to occur in succession when a component held by a component holding member holding a component is supplied by each of a plurality of feeders and mounted on a board” further limits the additional calculation and describes information that results from timing relating to components’ use by a feeder and, as currently claimed, is merely descriptive of the data and is intended use.
Dependent Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by further limiting the output and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of its dependency on Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 9 and 13-19 further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the output and contains the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. These claims also recite a display but this element is described in Applicant’s specification as a “display or the like…(such as) a touch panel”. A display is therefore interpreted as a general purpose computer display with no special features or technologies.
The additional elements of (component mounted) board in Claims 5 and 7, (component supply) trolley in Claim 6, (component holding) members in Claim 7, and feeder in Claim 7 are recited outside of the invention of determining a warehouse destination for components and they do not carry patentable weight for this determination. As a result, these elements, as currently claimed, do not further limit the abstract idea under Step 2A, prong 2 and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2B. While (component mounted) board, (component supply) trolley, (component holding) members and feeder are physical components, they are not positively recited and, as currently claimed, merely describe data and do not limit the abstract idea.
For purposes of further discussion with the Applicant, Examiner notes Example 46 “Livestock Management” of Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences and Data Processing Examples in the 2019 PEG. In Example 46, Claim 1 recites a general purpose computer and data. This claim also recites detailed information about the data including the intended use of the data. Claim 1 does not impose any limitations on how the data is obtained or how the calculations are performed. Claim 1 was found to not be patent eligible. Example 46 Claim 2, in contrast, claims special purpose hardware elements that perform specific functions as a direct result of the data gathering and calculations and meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Claim 2 was found to be eligible.
As discussed in the Interview of Feb 11, 2026, (see attached interview summary) Examiner holds that it might be possible for Applicant to positively recite the functional and non-information elements of Claim 6 and roll Claims 1-3 and 6 up into an independent Claim (and do the same to similarly amend Independent Claims 10 and 11) and, depending on the specific amended claim language, this combination could potentially overcome the 101 rejection. Examiner expressed the opinion that alternative embodiments 4, 5 and 7, if rolled up, did not appear to recite functional and non-information elements that could be positively recited to overcome the 101 rejection.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0106121 (Puite) (Paragraph citations are to Provisional 63/088,013 dated 10/6/2020) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0156536 (Alfandary).
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 11:
Puite teaches an Automatic Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS). Puite teaches: (Currently Amended) A component warehousing support apparatus that supports warehousing of a component into each of a plurality of component storages in which a warehoused component is stored and from which a component is delivered in response to a request, comprising: processing circuitry ([0027] “an order-fulfilment facility 12 and includes a sequencing tower 14 and an automatic storage and retrieval system (ASRS) 16, wherein the sequencing tower 14 functions as a hub between one or more pick/decant workstations 18 and several of the various facility subsystems. A computer system 13, such as a warehouse management system, monitors and controls the sequencing tower 14, ASRS 16, and the various subsystems to sequence and optimize the order fulfilment processes within the facility 12”).
configured to acquire a stock quantity indicating a number of target components to be warehoused, which are actually stored in each of the component storages, for each of the plurality of component storages; ([0064] “The program 92 inspects 502 the characteristics of each inbound SKU, such as those received in the receiving subsystem, to determine a target slotting area which is ideal for the size and/or demand for that SKU. The inspection 502 is done in comparison with a SKU master database 94 and the recommended target slotting area is stored in the recommended SKU slotting database. The target slotting area may be a storage location within the ASRS 16”).
and calculate warehousing destination candidate information … on the basis of the stock quantity of the target component in each of the plurality of component storages. ([0060] “Once an inbound container is identified, the program 88 assigns the inbound container to an ASRS aisle based on current inventory distribution in the facility, historical SKU consumption, and inbound container accumulation availability” and [0063] “program 92 that executes a putaway logic algorithm that carries out a method 500 for directing and optimizing the distribution of multiple of the same type of item, e.g. items having the same SKU, to various different locations within an automated warehouse facility, such as to different ASRS aisles, for example. The program 92 allocates instances or quantities of a single SKU over multiple donor totes 34 that may be dispersed throughout the facility 12… For decant operations, method 500 typically distributes the SKUs to empty containers/compartments of containers, however method 500 may be utilized to top off containers/compartments, otherwise referred to as inventory saturation wherein the volume of a donor tote is fully utilized”).
While Puite teaches assignment of inbound stock to “different ASRS aisles” (see at least [0063]), and teaches assigning orders to ASRS systems based on the one with the greatest remaining storage/buffer capability (see at least [0049]), Puite does not specifically teach: indicating a candidate of a warehousing destination of the target component from among the plurality of component storages. Alfandary, also in the inventory management arts, teaches this: ([0056-0057] “A request to store the received stock may be generated and a source and destination determination (SDD) engine can execute the method 400 to identify a location to store the stock… access the primary SDD rules and used them to determine one or more locations that are suitable for storing incoming product” and [0059-0061] “If multiple locations are returned, selection information can be received…The SDD engine may receive and use the selection information to select the location that is "starved" for stock over other locations. In other words, if a location is needs stock, it may be selected over other locations that have enough stock… step 460 can be performed, which determines whether one returned location is favored above other returned locations… Even if more than one location returns selection information, one location still may be favored over other locations. For example, one location may be more "starved" for stock than another location which also needs stock. The amount of stock needed may be transmitted with the selection information 332, and the amount can be used to determine whether one location is favored more than another… step 470, refinement SDD rules are accessed to filter the locations until one location is selected. The SDD engine may contain refinement SDD rules that prioritize locations based on a set of criteria”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) that assigns a destination location to incoming items from a plurality of destination locations, as taught by Puite, could predictably be improved by supplementing the potential destinations determined by forecasting the consumption rate by further prioritizing the list of potential storage destinations by which destination presently has the least amount in a particular location,, as taught by Alfandary, with the predictable benefit of avoiding risk of “starving” a particular location of stock, as suggested by Alfandary.
Regarding Claim 2:
Puite in view of Alfandary teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Puite teaches multiple potential destinations for incoming stock, Puite does not specifically teach: (Original) The component warehousing support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warehousing destination candidate information indicates each of the plurality of component storages as the candidate, with priority calculated on the basis of the stock quantity of the target component in each of the plurality of component storages. Alfandary teaches this: ([0056-0057] “A request to store the received stock may be generated and a source and destination determination (SDD) engine can execute the method 400 to identify a location to store the stock… access the primary SDD rules and used them to determine one or more locations that are suitable for storing incoming product” and [0059-0061] “If multiple locations are returned, selection information can be received…The SDD engine may receive and use the selection information to select the location that is "starved" for stock over other locations. In other words, if a location is needs stock, it may be selected over other locations that have enough stock… step 460 can be performed, which determines whether one returned location is favored above other returned locations… Even if more than one location returns selection information, one location still may be favored over other locations. For example, one location may be more "starved" for stock than another location which also needs stock. The amount of stock needed may be transmitted with the selection information 332, and the amount can be used to determine whether one location is favored more than another… step 470, refinement SDD rules are accessed to filter the locations until one location is selected. The SDD engine may contain refinement SDD rules that prioritize locations based on a set of criteria”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) that assigns a destination location to incoming items from a plurality of destination locations, as taught by Puite, could predictably be improved by supplementing the potential destinations determined by forecasting the consumption rate by further prioritizing the list of potential storage destinations by which destination presently has the least amount in a particular location,, as taught by Alfandary, with the predictable benefit of avoiding risk of “starving” a particular location of stock, as suggested by Alfandary.
Regarding Claim 3:
Puite in view of Alfandary teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Puite teaches multiple potential destinations for incoming stock, Puite does not specifically teach: (Currently Amended) The component warehousing support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the priority on the basis of a result obtained by calculating a difference between an ideal number which is the ideal number of target components stored in the component storages and the stock quantity of the target component, for each of the plurality of component storages. ([0069-0070] “a storage location bin 600 shows replenishment thresholds and filling thresholds. The replenishment thresholds shown are an optimal replenishment level 602 and a critical replenishment level 604… The stock that is physically available in the bin 600 is indicated by a bracket labeled "Current Stock." When the requests for more stock are generated, the requests can take into account the current level of stock and the filling thresholds. For example, the amount of requested stock may be an amount which added to the current level of stock equals the amount specified by the optimum quantity for filling thresholds 608”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) that assigns a destination location to incoming items from a plurality of destination locations, as taught by Puite, could predictably be improved by supplementing the potential destinations determined by forecasting the consumption rate by further prioritizing the list of potential storage destinations by which destination presently has the least amount in a particular location,, as taught by Alfandary, with the predictable benefit of avoiding risk of “starving” a particular location of stock, as suggested by Alfandary.
Regarding Claim 8:
Puite in view of Alfandary teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Puite teaches multiple potential destinations for incoming stock, Puite does not specifically teach: (Original) The component warehousing support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warehousing destination candidate information indicates one optimal component storage as the candidate of the warehousing destination among the plurality of component storages. ([0056-0057] “A request to store the received stock may be generated and a source and destination determination (SDD) engine can execute the method 400 to identify a location to store the stock… access the primary SDD rules and used them to determine one or more locations that are suitable for storing incoming product”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) that assigns a destination location to incoming items from a plurality of destination locations, as taught by Puite, could predictably be improved by supplementing the potential destinations determined by forecasting the consumption rate by further prioritizing the list of potential storage destinations by which destination presently has the least amount in a particular location,, as taught by Alfandary, with the predictable benefit of avoiding risk of “starving” a particular location of stock, as suggested by Alfandary.
Claims 4, 9, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0106121 (Puite) (Paragraph citations are to Provisional 63/088,013 dated 10/6/2020) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0156536 (Alfandary) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0012566 (Cartwright).
Regarding Claim 4:
Puite in view of Alfandary teaches all of the elements of Claims 1 and 3. While Puite teaches multiple potential destinations for incoming stock and Puite further teaches ([0063] “program 92 that executes a putaway logic algorithm that carries out a method 500 for directing and optimizing the distribution of multiple of the same type of item, e.g. items having the same SKU, to various different locations within an automated warehouse facility, such as to different ASRS aisles, for example. The program 92 allocates instances or quantities of a single SKU over multiple donor totes 34 that may be dispersed throughout the facility 12”), Puite does not specifically teach: (Currently Amended) The component warehousing support apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate an average value of the stock quantities of the target component in the plurality of component storages, as the ideal number of the target component which is common to the plurality of component storages. Cartwright teaches a warehouse management and inventory system for spares. Cartwright teaches this: ([0109] “The management module may also or instead perform automatic balancing of inventory levels, such as by initiating the transfer of spares from one spares room to another. Balancing may be driven by or based on "balancing rules," which may include various criteria, properties, rules, or requirements, such as… a requirement to balance the distribution of spares substantially evenly across locations (e.g., so that each location has no less than half the average number and no more than double the average number)”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the averaging technique of balancing inventory quantities among a plurality of inventory locations of the same item in storage, as taught by Cartwright, to improve the “putaway logic algorithm” that “optimiz(es) the distribution of multiple of the same type of item, e.g. items having the same SKU, to various different locations within an automated warehouse facility, such as to different ASRS aisles, for example”, as taught by Puite, to predictably ensure balance between the different locations and improve system flexibility.
Regarding Claims 9, 13-15, and 19:
Puite in view of Alfandary teaches all of the elements of Claims 1, 2, 3 and 8. Puite in view of Alfandary and Cartwright teaches all of the elements of Claim 4. While Puite teaches that the operator can be a human or a robot (see at least [0066]), Puite does not specifically teach: (Currently Amended) The component warehousing support apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display configured to display the candidate of the warehousing destination of the target component, which is indicated by the warehousing destination candidate information, from among the plurality of component storages, to an operator. Cartwright, in related art, teaches this: ([0010] “The system provides fully integrated dashboards and spares control mechanisms that visually displays the status of all spares activity including the ability to set alarms to monitor items to avoid potential supply disruptions” and [0026] “the processor allows a user to share spares information comprising at least one of a physical spare component data, financial data, order and receipt data, enclosure data and deployment data and permit the management, display and analysis of spares information on a single user interface” and see Figs 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 24). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the current location of items and potential location of incoming items to an operator in case of a predictable error or malfunction and the need to troubleshoot or manually move items to the correct location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 16-18, when put into independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, would be allowable over prior art. Examiner notes that these claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 and applicant will need to overcome the 101 rejection in order for these claims to be allowed.
Regarding Claim 5:
(Currently Amended) The component warehousing support apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire a plurality of production plans each for producing a predetermined type of component-mounted board by mounting a component on a board, associates the plurality of production plans with different component storages, respectively, and calculate the ideal number of the target component in the component storage on the basis of the number of target components to be mounted on the boards in the production plan corresponding to the component storage.
Regarding Claim 6:
(Currently Amended) The component warehousing support apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire details of a setup operation for setting a component at each of a plurality of component setting positions included in a component supply trolley, at each of which the component is settable, divides the plurality of component setting positions into a plurality of divisions corresponding to the different component storages, and calculate the ideal number of the target component in the component storage on the basis of the number of target components to be set at the component setting positions belonging to the division corresponding to the component storage.
Regarding Claim 7:
(Currently Amended) The component warehousing support apparatus according to claim 3, wherein processing circuitry is configured to calculate the ideal number of the target component in the component storage on the basis of a result obtained by calculating the number of components to be stored into each of the plurality of component storages on the basis of a plan to store in advance two component holding members in different component storages, the two component holding members being to be replenished to a feeder in response to two-times component shortages expected to occur in succession when a component held by a component holding member holding a component is supplied by each of a plurality of feeders and mounted on a board.
After a diligent search Examiner is not able to find a prior art reference or a combination of references that teach the particular combination of elements claimed in Claims 5, 6 or 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627