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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 regarding 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 9, “The Office Action asserts that the claims encompass mental processes that could be performed by a person viewing a work facility. That position is no longer applicable to the amended claims. The amended independent claims require calculating distances between a worker and each of multiple production facilities from captured images and determining a work status based on a smallest calculated distance, followed by determining whether that work status is maintained across multiple points in time or periods. These operations involve computational processing of image data tied to the physical layout of the production line and cannot be practically performed in the human mind, particularly where multiple facilities are simultaneously present and work status is evaluated consistently over a production period.”
The human mind is capable of calculating distances, recognizing a shortest distance, and tracking this over time. This can be done by a person viewing multiple facilities over time. There is no limitation argued by the applicant above that could not be done by the human mind.
Applicant further argues on Pages 9-10, “The amended claims are integrated into a practical application because they are directed to resolving, in an automated manner, which production facility a worker is working on in a component mounting line and validating that determination based on temporal continuity. This integration improves the ability to evaluate work status in a manufacturing environment where workers move between multiple production facilities, and where transient proximity would otherwise result in inaccurate determinations. The claimed image processing is thus tied to the operation and management of a physical production system and imposes meaningful limits on the manner in which work status is determined and displayed.”
The amended claims fail to overcome a present challenge in the technical field of production facility monitoring. Tracking worker status over time is routinely performed, and doing such in an automated, image-based manner is not new to the field. This is further exemplified in the prior art rejections below.
Applicant further argues on Page 10, “In addition, even if the Office Action were to maintain that the claims recite a judicial exception, the amended claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than any such exception. The calculation of distances to multiple production facilities, the determination based on a smallest calculated distance, and the determination of whether the resulting work status is maintained over time collectively define a specific technical process for analyzing image data in a component mounting line. These elements are not generic data gathering or result presentation, but rather constitute a concrete sequence of operations that address inaccuracies inherent in manual or momentary observation of workers in a production line.”
Based on the above argument, it is unclear which additional element is present in the claims that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps recited above amount to mental processes (calculating distance, comparing distances, tracking over time) based on image data. While these are specific technical processes, they are performable in the human mind and fail to incorporate any additional elements that are non-generic.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 10-12 that the previously cited references fail to disclose amended claim 1, in particular “wherein the image processing includes calculating a distance between the worker and each of the multiple production facilities when the multiple production facilities are imaged in a vicinity of the worker, determining the work status based on a production facility of the multiple production facilities having a smallest calculated distance, and determining whether the work status of the worker with respect to the production facility having the smallest calculated distance is maintained over the plurality of points in time or the plurality of periods." Specifically, Applicant argues on Pages 11-12 that Nonoyama fails to disclose the above claim limitations when used in combination with Yuki and Masaka: “In rejecting claim 8, the Office Action acknowledges that Yuki and Masaka do not disclose calculating a distance between the worker and the production facility. Applicant respectfully submits that Yuki and Masaka likewise fail to disclose or suggest "calculating a distance between the worker and each of the multiple production facilities when the multiple production facilities are imaged in a vicinity of the worker, determining the work status based on a production facility of the multiple production facilities having a smallest calculated distance, and determining whether the work status of the worker with respect to the production facility having the smallest calculated distance is maintained over the plurality of points in time or the plurality of periods," as now recited in amended independent claims 1 and 11-14. Nonoyama fails to make up for the deficiencies of Yuki and Masaka. Specifically, Nonoyama discloses determining, from among multiple workers, an operator who is instructed to perform predetermined work based on a shortest distance between a current position of the operator and an accommodation position of a work unit associated with a work target. See Nonoyama, paragraphs [0012]-[0013]. Nonoyama thus addresses selecting a worker to whom work should be assigned, based on distance, in response to acquired work information and a required work period. Nonoyama, however, fails to disclose or suggest image processing that determines a work status of a worker with respect to a production facility based on calculated distances between the worker and each of multiple production facilities that are imaged in a vicinity of the worker, and further fails to disclose or suggest determining whether that work status is maintained over a plurality of points in time or periods during a production period. Rather, Nonoyama acquires position information for workers and determines which worker should be instructed to perform work, without evaluating, validating, or maintaining a work status of a worker relative to a production facility across time based on spatial relationships derived from images. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Nonoyama fails to disclose or suggest at least the aforementioned features recited in amended independent claims 1 and 11-14, and thus fails to make up for the deficiencies of Yuki and Masaka.”
Yuki in view of Masaka, as explained in the Non-Final rejection, fully disclose the determination of worker status at a particular production facility over a plurality of points in time. In particular, see Pages 14 of the Non-Final rejection in which Masaka describes a time chart diagram showing operating state of the equipment and position and orientation of the worker over a period of time. Yuki also describes in Paragraph 50 displayed results showing “worker status” and “operating time” (see Page 13 of the Non-Final Rejection). While worker position determination is generally taught by Masaka as described above, Yuki in view of Masaka do not expressly disclose determining the worker status based on worker proximity (a smallest distance) to a particular piece of equipment, as explained with reference to (now cancelled) claim 8 on Page 26 of the Non-Final Rejection. However, Nonoyama is described on Pages 26-27 of the Non-Final Office Action as teaching a calculation of a smallest distance from a worker to a piece of equipment for worker status determination. While Nonoyama does this to determine which worker should be instructed to perform work, as argued by the applicant, the combination of these three references fully discloses the specified limitations of amended claim 1. Yuki in view of Masaka already determine the worker status over time and worker positional information (see above), but do not expressly disclose how it is determined that a particular worker is at a particular machine. Nonoyama performs a factory monitoring based on worker proximity to a machine. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to determine the worker status of Yuki and Masaka using the proximity analysis of Nonoyama to keep track of which machine is being operated by which worker. This information would be useful for factory monitoring of worker productivity and safety.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. These claims recite (or depend on claims that recite) the following elements: imaging circuitry, display circuitry, operation status acquisition circuitry, determination circuitry, image input circuitry, image processing circuitry, first designation circuitry, second designation circuitry, and input circuitry. The only mentions of circuitry in the Specification are with respect to the circuit board being produced through the claimed invention (see Paragraph 18, for example), and the communication circuits 12a to 28a, which are described in Paragraph 20 as an example of a “state output section”. None of the above limitations are described as being embodied in circuitry.
Claims 9-10 are rejected as dependent on the above claims.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of monitoring an assembly line and worker status based on distances, without significantly more.
The claim recites: “A component mounting system comprising: multiple production facilities installed in a component mounting line for mounting a component on a board;
imaging circuitry installed in the component mounting line and configured to image the multiple production facilities and one or multiple workers disposed in the component mounting line; and
display circuitry configured to perform image processing on an image captured by the imaging circuitry in a predetermined production period in which a product is produced in the component mounting line, to visualize and display, for at least one of the one or multiple workers, a work status of the worker for at least one of the multiple production facilities in each of a plurality of points in time or a plurality of periods set in advance in the production period,
wherein the image processing includes calculating a distance between the worker and each of the multiple production facilities when the multiple production facilities are imaged in a vicinity of the worker, determining the work status based on a production facility of the multiple production facilities having a smallest calculated distance, and determining whether the work status of the worker with respect to the production facility having the smallest calculated distance is maintained over the plurality of points in time or the plurality of periods.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can analyze images or directly view a work facility during a particular period of time, and determine a work status of a worker at multiple production facilities during the period of time. A person can further display the work status, for example, as a graph or chart. A person can also determine distances between workers and production facilities, identify a smallest distance to determine work status, and track work status over time. The obtaining of the images of the facilities and workers amounts to mere data gathering (extra-solution activity).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of multiple production facilities installed in a component mounting line for mounting a component on a board, an imaging circuitry, and a display circuitry. The facilities installed in a component mounting line are recited generically such that it amounts to generic stations of an assembly line. The imaging and display circuits are recited at a level of generality such that they amount to a generic camera and image display screen. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of acquiring and displaying machine operating status, without significantly more. A person can visually determine if and how a machine is operating over time, and display the status using, for example, a graph or chart. This claim amounts to a mental process and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining operating status using image analysis, without significantly more. A person can visually determine if and how a machine is operating based on analyzing images. This claim amounts to a mental process and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining operating status based on a state output. The state output is recited generically and amounts to, for example, green/yellow/red signal on the machine. A person can visually look at a machine to determine operating status based on the output. This claim amounts to a mental process and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining work delays based on changes in operation status and work status, which amounts to a mental process. This claim amounts to a mental process and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of identifying a target for obtaining operation status, and displaying the operation status, which amounts to a mental process. This claim amounts to a mental process and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of identifying a target worker for obtaining worker status, and displaying the work status, which amounts to a mental process. This claim amounts to a mental process and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of, when a worker is performing work, identifying a time that work is being performed and comparing the time to a threshold to either discard or maintain the determination that the worker performs the work, which amounts to a mental process. This claim amounts to a mental process and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of identifying content of work performed based on operation status after determining the worker performs work for a specific facility. This claim amounts to a mental process and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to image processing device and system analogous to the abstract idea recited in claim 1. The recited input circuitry and image processing circuitry amount to generic computer components which do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a method analogous to the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for the performance of the abstract idea of claim 1, without significantly more. The claim is 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki (JP2020095296 (A)) in view of Masaka (JP2019191748 (A)) further in view of Nonoyama (US 20170061365 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Yuki teaches “A component mounting system comprising: multiple production facilities installed in a component mounting line for mounting a component on a board;” (Yuki, Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 11, “First, the configuration of the component mounting system 1 will be explained with reference to FIG. The component mounting system 1 has a configuration in which three component mounting lines L1 to L3 arranged on a floor F are connected by a wired or wireless communication network 2 and are managed by a line management computer 3. Each of the component mounting lines L1 to L3 is configured by connecting a plurality of production facilities including component mounting devices, as will be described later, and has a function of producing a mounted board in which components are mounted on a board. Note that the component mounting system 1 does not need to have two component mounting lines, and may have one, two, or four or more lines.”)
While Yuki teaches “imaging circuitry installed in the component mounting line and configured to image the multiple production facilities” (Yuki, Paragraph 19, “The inspection devices M10 and M16 use built-in cameras to observe the state of components soldered to the board and inspect whether or not they meet predetermined standards.”), Yuki does not disclose that the cameras are configured to image one or multiple workers.
Masaka teaches cameras configured to image one or multiple workers (Masaka, Figure 1 and Paragraph 34, “The camera 20 is installed at a position to photograph the photographing area 40 including the equipment 50. This photographing area 40 is also referred to as a working area. Then, the position and orientation of the worker are detected from the image taken by the camera 20.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to monitor workers, as taught by Masaka, using the cameras of Yuki.
The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure proper machine operation and worker safety. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki with the above teaching of Masaka to fully disclose “imaging circuitry installed in the component mounting line and configured to image the multiple production facilities and one or multiple workers disposed in the component mounting line”.
While Yuki in view of Masaka disclose the imaging circuitry (see above) and displaying analysis results (Yuki, Paragraph 50, “The result display area 43 includes a "number of workers" column 44a, a "number of pieces produced" column 44b, an "end time" column 45, an "operating time" column 46, an "equipment stop" column 47, a "worker status" column 48, It includes a "work (details)" column 48a and a "wait for completion" column 49. 591 The "number of workers" column 44a displays the number of workers W1 to W4 (number of workers) in charge of the component mounting line L1. The "production quantity" column 44b displays the number of mounting boards produced on the component mounting line L1 on September 3, 2018 (production quantity”). The "end time" column 45 displays the estimated production end time (the time when the operation of the component mounting line L1 ends). The target end time (17:10) is also displayed for reference.), they do not expressly disclose that the display circuitry is “configured to perform image processing on an image captured by the imaging circuitry in a predetermined production period in which a product is produced in the component mounting line, to visualize and display, for at least one of the one or multiple workers, a work status of the worker for at least one of the multiple production facilities in each of a plurality of points in time or a plurality of periods set in advance in the production period.”
Masaka further discloses “and a display circuitry configured to perform image processing on an image captured by the imaging circuitry in a predetermined production period in which a product is produced in the component mounting line, to visualize and display, for at least one of the one or multiple workers, a work status of the worker for at least one of the multiple production facilities in each of a plurality of points in time or a plurality of periods set in advance in the production period.” (Masaka, Figure 5 and Paragraphs 65, 72, and 83, “The notification of inappropriateness from the notification unit 14 is sent to the terminals 31 and 32. The terminal 31 is an information terminal such as a smartphone or a tablet that can be carried by the workers 30a and 30b, and is preferably a terminal that can display images. The terminal 32 is also a terminal capable of displaying images, and for example, like the terminal 31, it may be a smartphone or tablet, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, another console type computer, a process control device, etc. It is a terminal that can be operated. Here, the workers 30a and 30b are, for example, workers who go back and forth to the site where the equipment 50 is located, and the worker 30c is, for example, a worker (manager) who performs process management work.”; “The operating state of the equipment 50, the position and orientation of the worker, and the determination result of the determination unit 13 are easier to understand by displaying them in chronological order. FIG. 5 is a time chart diagram showing an example of a time chart in which the operating state of the equipment 50, the position and orientation of the worker, and the determination result of the determination unit 13 are arranged in chronological order. The horizontal axis of this time chart is time.”; “By outputting such a time chart from the record output unit 15 to the terminals 31 and 32 via the notification unit 14, it becomes easier to analyze not only the operating time of the equipment 50 but also the arrangement and orientation of the workers.”; Accordingly, the terminal displays the time chart which shows worker status at a production facility at time points during a set operating time of the equipment.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to incorporate the display terminal showing worker status at one or more production facilities over time points in the preset time periods further taught by Masaki into the monitoring of Yuki in view of Masaki.
The motivation for doing so would have been to track production progress and ensure worker presence and attention to the mounting line operations, and/or track a lack of worker presence during a time where the mounting line operations are working properly (i.e. no worker is needed at that facility). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki with the additional teaching of Masaka to fully disclose “and a display circuitry configured to perform image processing on an image captured by the imaging circuitry in a predetermined production period in which a product is produced in the component mounting line, to visualize and display, for at least one of the one or multiple workers, a work status of the worker for at least one of the multiple production facilities in each of a plurality of points in time or a plurality of periods set in advance in the production period.”
While Yuki in view of Masaka teach positional determinations of workers while imaging multiple production facilities in a vicinity of a worker (Masaka, Figure 1 and Paragraph 34, “The camera 20 is installed at a position to photograph the photographing area 40 including the equipment 50. This photographing area 40 is also referred to as a working area. Then, the position and orientation of the worker are detected from the image taken by the camera 20.” Note that this was incorporated with rationale and motivation above) and work status determination (see Yuki, Paragraph 50, recited above), Yuki in view of Masaka to not expressly disclose calculating a distance from a worker to each machine and determining work status of the worker based on the smallest distance.
Nonoyama discloses calculating a distance from a worker to each machine and determining a work status based on the smallest distance, (Nonoyama, Paragraphs 12, “A gist of a second management device according to the invention is that the device manages work to be performed by an operator using a work unit accommodated at a predetermined accommodation position for multiple board processing machines which perform a predetermined process on a circuit board, and the management device includes a work information acquisition means for acquiring at least a work target from the multiple board processing machines or a work period by which time the predetermined work is required for the work target, as work information, a position acquisition means for acquiring a current position for each of multiple operators, an operator determination means for determining, from the multiple workers, the operator who can perform the predetermined work before elapse of the work period corresponding to the work target relating to the acquired work information and for which a distance from the current position acquired by the position acquisition means to the accommodation position is shortest as the operator who performs the predetermined work, in a case where the work information acquisition means acquires the work information, and a work instruction means for instructing the determined worker to perform the predetermined work. Accordingly, the worker with the shortest distance to the facility position is identified as the operator who performs the work.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to incorporate the shortest distance calculation to determine which facility the worker performs the work for, taught by Nonoyama, into the worker status determination for mounting line management of Yuki in view of Masaka.
The motivation for doing so would have been to identify which machine is being operated by which worker for safety and production tracking. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki with the additional teaching of Nonoyama to fully disclose, “wherein the image processing includes calculating a distance between the worker and each of the multiple production facilities when the multiple production facilities are imaged in a vicinity of the worker, determining the work status based on a production facility of the multiple production facilities having a smallest calculated distance”.
Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama further disclose, “and determining whether the work status of the worker with respect to the production facility having the smallest calculated distance is maintained over the plurality of points in time or the plurality of periods.” (As Yuki, Masaka, and Nonoyama are combined, worker status is determined, in part, by the smallest distance from the worker to a production facility (see teaching of Nonoyama incorporated above), and work status is tracked over a plurality of points in time (see Masaka, Figure 5 and Paragraph 72, incorporated above). Accordingly, the combination of Yuki, Masaka, and Nonoyama teach the tracking of the production facility having the smallest calculated distance over the points in time, as described in the claim limitation above.)
Regarding claim 2, Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama teach “The component mounting system according to claim 1,”
“further comprising: operation status acquisition circuitry configured to acquire an operation status of the at least one of the multiple production facilities in each of the plurality of points in time or the plurality of periods, wherein the display circuitry is configured to display the acquired operation status of the production facility in association with the work status.” (Masaka, Paragraph 72, “The operating state of the equipment 50, the position and orientation of the worker, and the determination result of the determination unit 13 are easier to understand by displaying them in chronological order. FIG. 5 is a time chart diagram showing an example of a time chart in which the operating state of the equipment 50, the position and orientation of the worker, and the determination result of the determination unit 13 are arranged in chronological order. The horizontal axis of this time chart is time.” Note that this teaching was incorporated with rationale and motivation in the rejection of claim 1. Yuki also describes an operation status acquisition in Paragraph 12, “The status of each production facility during production work is sequentially transmitted to the line management computer 3, and the line management computer 3 can know the status of each production facility.”)
Regarding claim 3, Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama teach “The component mounting system according to claim 2,”
Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama do not expressly disclose, “wherein the operation status acquisition circuitry is further configured to acquire the operation status by the image processing.”
Masaka further discloses “wherein the operation status acquisition circuitry is further configured to acquire the operation status by the image processing.” (Masaka, Paragraph 31, “The operating state of the equipment 50 can also be obtained from the video of the camera 20. The laminated signal light 51 is placed in the photographing area of the camera 20. Then, the emitted light color of the laminated signal lamp 51 is detected from the image of the camera 20. Thereby, the operating status of the equipment 50 can be acquired without connecting the equipment 50 and the server 10. In this case, the camera 20 serves as a part of the function of the acquisition unit 11 that acquires the operating state of the equipment 50.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to use the camera of Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama to monitor the operation status, as further taught by Masaki.
The motivation for doing so would have been to not require each piece of equipment to be connected to a server (as explained above), and better leverage the cameras that are already stationed at the mounting line. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama with the additional teaching of Masaka to fully disclose the invention of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama teach “The component mounting system according to claim 2,”
Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama do not expressly disclose “wherein the at least one of the multiple production facilities includes state output circuitry configured to output own state of the production facility, and the operation status acquisition circuitry is further configured to acquire the operation status from the state output from the state output circuitry.”
Masaka further discloses “wherein the at least one of the multiple production facilities includes state output circuitry configured to output own state of the production facility, and the operation status acquisition circuitry is further configured to acquire the operation status from the state output from the state output circuitry.” (Masaka, Paragraph 31, “The operating state of the equipment 50 can also be obtained from the video of the camera 20. The laminated signal light 51 is placed in the photographing area of the camera 20. Then, the emitted light color of the laminated signal lamp 51 is detected from the image of the camera 20. Thereby, the operating status of the equipment 50 can be acquired without connecting the equipment 50 and the server 10. In this case, the camera 20 serves as a part of the function of the acquisition unit 11 that acquires the operating state of the equipment 50.” The signal lamp is mapped to the state output section, and the color (operation status) is acquired by the monitoring system.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to incorporate the state output and acquisition of operation status by the acquisition section further taught by Masaki into the monitoring system of Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama.
The motivation for doing so would have been track equipment operation without requiring each piece of equipment to be connected to a server (as explained above). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama with the additional teaching of Masaka to fully disclose the invention of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama teach “The component mounting system according to claim 2,”
Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama do not expressly disclose “further comprising: determination circuitry configured to determine whether there is delay in work of the worker based on a change of the operation status of the production facility and a change of the work status of the worker.”
Masaka further discloses, “further comprising: determination circuitry configured to determine whether there is delay in work of the worker based on a change of the operation status of the production facility and a change of the work status of the worker.” (Masaka, Paragraph 54, “"Red" indicates that the equipment 50 has stopped abnormally and is out of operation (stopped), and is a case where some abnormality has occurred in the equipment 50. 473 For example, automatic processing machines may unexpectedly run out of raw materials, have insufficient cooling (or insufficient heating), breakage of tools, cut off power for processing, or other malfunctions. In such a case, it is necessary to repair the equipment 50. Therefore, it is necessary for the operator to respond to the equipment 50. In order to respond to repairs, workers often work while facing the equipment 50, but they are not always facing the equipment 50, such as when they go to pick up tools and parts necessary for repairs. Therefore, when the light is "red", there is a possibility that the worker will temporarily leave the equipment. However, if the worker is not near the equipment 50 for a long time, there is a possibility that the equipment 50 will not be repaired. Therefore, in the case of "red", if there is no worker facing the direction of the equipment 50, it may be inappropriate.” Accordingly, changes in operation status (green to red) and changes in worker status (facing the machine, not facing the machine, not near the equipment) are tracked for inappropriate situation (delay).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to incorporate the inappropriate delay determination based on change in operation status and worker status further taught by Masaki into the mounting line surveillance of Yaki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama.
The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain operation of the mounting line. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama with the additional teaching of Masaka to fully disclose the invention of claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama teach “The component mounting system according to claim 2,”
Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama do not expressly disclose “wherein, in the image processing, in a case where it is determined that the worker performs work for a specific production facility, a content of the work performed on the production facility by the worker is specified based on an operation status of the specific production facility.”
Masaka further teaches “wherein, in the image processing, in a case where it is determined that the worker performs work for a specific production facility, a content of the work performed on the production facility by the worker is specified based on an operation status of the specific production facility. (Masaka, Paragraphs 54 and 31, “For example, automatic processing machines may unexpectedly run out of raw materials, have insufficient cooling (or insufficient heating), breakage of tools, cut off power for processing, or other malfunctions. In such a case, it is necessary to repair the equipment 50. Therefore, it is necessary for the operator to respond to the equipment 50. In order to respond to repairs, workers often work while facing the equipment 50, but they are not always facing the equipment 50, such as when they go to pick up tools and parts necessary for repairs. Therefore, when the light is "red", there is a possibility that the worker will temporarily leave the equipment. However, if the worker is not near the equipment 50 for a long time, there is a possibility that the equipment 50 will not be repaired. Therefore, in the case of "red", if there is no worker facing the direction of the equipment 50, it may be inappropriate.”; “The laminated signal light 51 is placed in the photographing area of the camera 20. Then, the emitted light color of the laminated signal lamp 51 is detected from the image of the camera 20. Thereby, the operating status of the equipment 50 can be acquired without connecting the equipment 50 and the server 10. In this case, the camera 20 serves as a part of the function of the acquisition unit 11 that acquires the operating state of the equipment 50.” Accordingly, worker association with a particular facility is observed, and a change in color is determined for the particular facility to acquire operating status.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to incorporate the determination of worker performing work for a particular facility and monitoring of work content based on operation status further taught by Masaka into the worker and operation status acquisition of Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama.
The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that workers respond to errors in equipment, and workers are then successful in performing repairs. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama with the additional teaching of Masaka to fully disclose the invention of claim 10.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, these claims recite a device and system with elements corresponding to the system recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of these claims are mapped to the analogous elements in the corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Yuki, Masaka, and Nonoyama references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to these claims. Note that the input circuitry is mapped to the camera which inputs images for processing steps. Additionally, the image processing circuitry are mapped to the determination unit.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the analogous elements in the corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Yuki, Masaka, and Nonoyama references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the analogous elements in the corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Yuki, Masaka, and Nonoyama references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
However, Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama do not expressly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for the performance of the steps of claim 1.
Masaka further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (Masaka, Paragraph 87, “Each function is realized by the CPU 101 executing a program stored in the HDD 104 for achieving each of the above functions.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to incorporate the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions further taught by Masaki for the operational monitoring of Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama.
The motivation for doing so would have been to store the instructions of claim 1. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama with the additional teaching of Masaka to fully disclose the invention of claim 13.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama further in view of Woodward (WO 2008042322 A2).
Regarding claim 6, Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama teach “The component mounting system according to claim 2,”
While Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama disclose acquiring an operation status (see rejection of claim 2), they do not expressly disclose designating a production facility that is an analysis target and obtaining the operation status of that particular target.
Woodward discloses designating a production facility that is an analysis target (Woodward, Paragraph 29-31, “Within the line view, the user can either use the scanner 22 or the graphic display to arbitrarily select a station location, table, or track within the line. The line view form executes a workflow, which uses the task settings for the task type combined with the appropriate packaging workflow. The packaging workflow is determined by the component. If the component does not have a selected workflow, the default packaging workflow is used. The software guides the user as defined by the task type and workflow through the line. The line view visually displays the position in the line and table for the user to recognize where they are supposed to be. The workflow continues advancing automatically unless the user overrides the default flow by scanning or graphically selecting another station location, table, or track than the software has targeted.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to incorporate the facility selection of Woodward into the acquiring of operation status taught by Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama.
The motivation for doing so would have been to surveil a particular instrument in the mounting line that is more likely to break of have an error. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama with the additional teaching of Woodward to fully disclose, “further comprising: first designation circuitry configured to designate a production facility that is an analysis target from among the multiple production facilities, wherein the operation status acquisition circuitry is further configured to acquire an operation status of the production facility designated by the first designation circuitry.”
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama further in view of Maunder (US 20200409383 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama teach “The component mounting system according to claim 2,”
While Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama disclose acquiring an worker status (Yuki, Paragraph 50, “The result display area 43 includes a "number of workers" column 44a, a "number of pieces produced" column 44b, an "end time" column 45, an "operating time" column 46, an "equipment stop" column 47, a "worker status" column 48, It includes a "work (details)" column 48a and a "wait for completion" column 49. The "number of workers" column 44a displays the number of workers W1 to W4 (number of workers) in charge of the component mounting line L1. The "production quantity" column 44b displays the number of mounting boards produced on the component mounting line L1 on September 3, 2018 (production quantity). The "end time" column 45 displays the estimated production end time (the time when the operation of the component mounting line L1 ends). The target end time (17:10) is also displayed for reference.), they do not expressly disclose designating a worker that is an analysis target and obtaining the worker status of that particular target.
Maunder discloses designating a worker as an analysis target and obtaining the worker status of that particular target (Maunder, Paragraph FIG. 7 is a depiction of a video still 700 annotated with objects of interest in an assembly line environment, according to an embodiment of the invention. In an embodiment, the video still 700 depicts an assembly line 702 having workers 704a-c. In addition, objects 706 travel along the assembly line 702 from worker 704a towards worker 704c. The user 105 has selected to track the workers 704 by placing rectangles R6a-c around each worker 704a-c, respectively. The user 105 has also selected to track the objects 706 by placing rectangles R6 around each object 706. In addition, the user 105 has selected to track drop zone 708 by placing rectangle R7 around the drop zone 708. And Figure 7, “FIG. 7 is a depiction of a video still 700 annotated with objects of interest in an assembly line environment, according to an embodiment of the invention. In an embodiment, the video still 700 depicts an assembly line 702 having workers 704a-c. In addition, objects 706 travel along the assembly line 702 from worker 704a towards worker 704c. The user 105 has selected to track the workers 704 by placing rectangles R6a-c around each worker 704a-c, respectively. The user 105 has also selected to track the objects 706 by placing rectangles R6 around each object 706. In addition, the user 105 has selected to track drop zone 708 by placing rectangle R7 around the drop zone 708.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to incorporate the worker selection of Maunder into the acquiring of worker status taught by Yuki in view of Masaka further in view of Nonoyama.
The motivation for doing so would have been to surveil a particular worker for performance evaluation and safety monitoring. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yuki in view of Masaki further in view of Nonoyama with the additional teaching of Maunder to fully disclose, “further comprising: second designation circuitry configured to designate a worker that is an analysis target from among the one or multiple workers, wherein the display circuitry is further configured to visualize and display a work status of the worker designated by the second designation circuitry.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 101 and 112(b), and 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, and amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 9, in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 9 recites: “The component mounting system according to claim 2, wherein, in the image processing, in a case where it is determined that the worker performs the work for the production facility having the smallest distance, when a time during which the work is performed for the production facility is shorter than a predetermined time, the determination that the worker performs the work for the production facility is discarded, and when the time during which the work is performed for the production facility is equal to or longer than the predetermined time, the determination that the worker performs the work for the production facility is maintained.”
Yuki teaches a production management system for component mounting line wherein worker downtime, production facility information, worker information, and scheduled production time are analyzed. Masaka teaches an image analysis based facility management strategy that monitors operator position and orientation and operating state of equipment. Woodward teaches a mounting line monitoring strategy, in real time, that includes user selection of analysis targets. Maunder teaches computer vision strategies for reporting metrics of a workflow environment. Nonoyama teaches a production line monitoring system that compares worker distance to machine distance. However, none of these references expressly disclose the above bolded elements.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672