Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons that follow;
PNG
media_image1.png
490
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - Yes Product and Method
2A, Prong 1 - Yes. The claim are directed to the abstract idea of renting and controlling production equipment. Claim 1 is the representative claim where the limitation.
The steps that make up the abstract idea are the following:
performing, via a management server
performing, via management server,
and controlling, via a remote control controller operated by the user, the first production equipment by communicably connecting to an owner-side controller of the first production equipment, to cause the first production equipment to perform physical operations including at least one of substrate conveyance, component supply, or component mounting.
2A-2.
The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., a manufacturing environment. Employing well known technology within a manufacturing environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
2B, The additional elements are that set forth above in Step 2A, Prong 2.
The additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2111.04
As to the newly amended, and controlling, via a remote control controller operated by the user, the first production equipment by communicably connecting to an owner-side controller of the first production equipment, to cause the first production equipment to perform physical operations including at least one of substrate conveyance, component supply, or component mounting. Under the second step of the Alice analysis, the limitation lacks an “inventive concept” and does not render the claim patent eligible. Evidence as to the conventional use of remote controller can be found in US Patent Publication 20050267826 A1 as well as Kang (cited above)
Levy [0055] The remotely controlled systems are located at remote geographic locations from the telepresence workstation. These remote locations can be anywhere the communication network can reach. The remotely controlled systems comprise one or several sensors and possibly, as well, as actuators and displays. In addition, because of technical and/or legal limitations, these remotely controlled systems require human assistance to operate.
Levy [0056] Sensors, can be represented in one of the simplest embodiments such as in a cell phone, by just a microphone capable of collecting audio data; a more complex embodiment would include a camera such as in a video cell phone capable of producing video streams; a more complex embodiment yet, can be embodied by a remotely controlled robot equipped with a full array of sensors duplicating human's senses. Information collected by the sensors is packed and communicated to the user via the communication network and the telepresence workstation.
Levy [0057] Actuators in one of the simplest embodiments can be represented by at least one audio or video means for converting part of, or all, said control information in a form suitable to be understood by humans (i.e., voice or images) For example a speaker can produce voice command and a display can generate graphic commands, to be executed by a human assistant. Commands communicated by audio or video means would be essential to the control of the human assistant.
Levy [0058] In a more complex embodiment, the actuators can be represented by a remotely controlled swivel on top of which a camera would be mounted. The swivel can have one or two degrees of freedom. Such a device would rely on the user to control the orientation of the camera with respect its carrier, and on the human assistant for translational movements as well as orientation of the carrier.
Levy [0059] In a more complex embodiment yet, the remote device would be capable of full locomotion and orientation under remote control by the user. As is well known to one versed in the art, there is a multitude of means for locomotion on land, water and air that can be used in this invention. In particular, a four wheel vehicle can provide good stability for a land vehicle. However, an interesting embodiment would include for the purpose of locomotion, a type of vehicle similar to that with the trademark "SEGWAY" as described in Kamen's patent 6,651,766. This vehicle would be equipped with one or several cameras as well as a display of the user's face and would be remotely controlled by the user under the supervision of the human assistant.
The dependent claims add further elements to the abstract idea and/or further embodiments to the additional components beyond the abstract idea. Individually and in combination the additional limitations amount to no more than generally described high level components to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using on using one of more of the components fails to provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002366855A in view of Kang 20180345557
As to claim 1 and 10 (the corresponding method)
a production equipment sharing system comprising:
a rental management section provided in a management server and configured to perform
rental processing of renting first production equipment from an owner who owns the first
production equipment to a user who remotely uses the first production equipment;
and JP [0005]
a billing processing section provided in the management server and configured to perform
billing processing of paying a usage fee from the user to the owner based on the rental of the first
production equipment. JP [0035]
The reference fails to teach a remote control controller operated by the user and communicably connected to an owner-side controller of the first production equipment.
Kang 20180345557 teaches the remote control controller being configured to actively control the first production equipment to perform physical operations including at least one of substrate conveyance, component supply, or component mounting. Kang [0037] Further, the remote controller 200 performs the transmission and reception of the data to and from the injection molding machine 100 through wireless internet, utilizes the operation data of the take-out robot 110 and the information data on the injection molding, and remotely controls the injection molding machine 100 on the basis of the utilized operation data and information data.
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have combined the teaching as 1) the art share a common end, “parts production” and 2) share a common “parts production” problem, handle the malfunctions of equipment and unexpected accidents which lead to undesirably reducing productivity, causing difficulties in production management and inconveniences in control, and remarkably lowering an industrial safety level. Kang [0006].
Claim 2. The production equipment sharing system according to Claim 1, further comprising a
matching section provided in the management server and configured to perform matching
processing for associating the owner and the user based on a rental condition of the first production
equipment provided by the owner and a use condition of the first production equipment provided
by the user. JP [0012]
Claim 3. The production equipment sharing system according to Claim 2, wherein rental
management section performs the rental processing between the owner and the user associated by
the matching processing, and
the billing processing section performs the billing processing between the owner and the
user associated by the matching processing. JP [0012]
The reference fails to teach Claim 5. The production equipment sharing system according to Claim 1, wherein the remote control controller is also used as a user-side controller configured to control second production equipment owned by the user. Kang as cited teaches this above – as user side is read broadly to include any user.
The reference fail to teach Claim 6. The production equipment sharing system according to Claim 1 , wherein the remote control controller is remotely connected to an owner-side controller configured to control the first production equipment by encrypted communication. This teaching is taught by Kang [0009] where the examiner takes official notice as to the “wireless internet” being encrypted. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have combined the teaching as 1) the art share a common end, “parts production” and 2) share a common “parts production” problem, handle the malfunctions of equipment and unexpected accidents which lead to undesirably reducing productivity, causing difficulties in production management and inconveniences in control, and remarkably lowering an industrial safety level. Kang [0006].
The reference fail to teach Claim 7. The production equipment sharing system according to any one of Claims 1, wherein the remote control controller remotely controls the first production equipment by
communication using a 5G communication network system. This teaching is taught by Kang at [0009] where the examiner takes official notice as to the “wireless internet” being 5G. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have combined the teaching as 1) the art share a common end, “parts production” and 2) share a common “parts production” problem, handle the malfunctions of equipment and unexpected accidents which lead to undesirably reducing productivity, causing difficulties in production management and inconveniences in control, and remarkably lowering an industrial safety level. Kang [0006].
Claim 8. The production equipment sharing system according to any one of Claims 1 ,
wherein the first production equipment includes a warehouse dedicated to a component for use in
a product produced by the user using the first production equipment. JP [0001]
Claim 9. The production equipment sharing system according to any one of Claims 1 ,
wherein the first production equipment includes a component mounter configured to mount an
electronic component on a substrate. JP [0003] – the examiner takes official notice that equipment is mounted.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues 101 without any particularities and the examiner relies on the rejection above for a response thereto.
The applicant argues the primary reference is not directed to causing production equipment to actively perform physical operations such as substrate conveyance, component supply, or component mounting. The examiner disagrees as injection molding yields components
The applicant argues that Kang does not disclose or suggest renting production equipment from an owner to a user via a management server, nor does Kang disclose a management server that performs rental management and billing processing between multiple parties. This argument is not persuasive as Kang is to relied upon for this teaching.
The applicant next argues that Kang is directed to a specific injection molding environment and does not disclose remote control of general production equipment for performing substrate conveyance, component supply, or component mounting as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The examiner disagrees as injection molding machines produce components.
Next the applicant argues that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient rationale as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references. The examiner disagrees. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have combined the teaching as 1) the art share a common end, “parts production” and 2) share a common “parts production” problem, handle the malfunctions of equipment and unexpected accidents which lead to undesirably reducing productivity, causing difficulties in production management and inconveniences in control, and remarkably lowering an industrial safety level. Kang [0006].
With respect to dependent claim 6, the Examiner has taken official notice that "wireless internet" is encrypted. Applicant traverses this position arguing that it is not the case that all wireless internet communications are encrypted; The examiner is not persuaded by the argument as it is not commensurate in scope with the examiner’s official notice. Moreover, there is nothing in the applicant’s specification suggesting that the applicant invented any encryption. As to encrypted Wifi , the applicant can look to any 2003+ source of internet wifi standards. WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access) is a security protocol for wireless networks, introduced in 2003 to address the weaknesses of the older WEP protocol. It uses dynamic encryption keys to improve security, and it has two main modes: WPA-Personal for home use, which uses a pre-shared key (PSK), and WPA-Enterprise, which uses the 802.1X framework for user authentication. While WPA was a significant improvement, WPA2 and WPA3 are now considered more secure and are recommended for modern use. As a protocol, the fact relied upon by the Examiner is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being universally known, and therefore official notice proper under MPEP § 2144.03 and the use thereof for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the applicant argues the official notice that "wireless internet" is 5G. The applicant is misstating the official notice. The examiner is not asserting that "wireless internet" equates to 5G. The examiner is as asserting that 5G is an established protocol. 5G internet is the fifth-generation mobile network that uses wireless cellular technology to provide internet service to homes. It offers high speeds and low latency, but availability and actual performance depend heavily on location, distance from the tower, and provider-specific factors. 5G is not alleged to be invented by the applicant and accordingly wireless internet includes all protocols governing its use. Moreover, as a protocol the use thereof for its intended purpose is obvious. As a protocol, the fact relied upon by the Examiner is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being universally known, and therefore official notice proper under MPEP § 2144.03 and the use thereof for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the Examiner has taken official notice that "equipment is mounted." Applicant respectfully traverses this position. A component mounter is a specific machine designed for surface-mount technology, and its presence cannot be established through official notice of a generalized fact that "equipment is mounted." The examiner is not persuaded by this argument as
the applicant has no reasonable basis to claim that production equipment can be mounted to on a substrate. Moreover, the claim is directed to “the production equipment sharing system” and whether the equipment is mounted does not further limit the sharing system. The mounting or lack of mounting of the equipment has no effect, no input to the sharing system. As the determination of whether this limitation in this claim depends on the definition of the sharing system. This wherein clause has no patentable weight. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps")
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 RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0580. 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.
RICHARD C. WEISBERGER
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693