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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/19/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/3/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/3/2024 and 8/21/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving determine a predicted task time to complete a task according to the task information, determine the predicted task time based on disposition information of the feeders among the plurality of slots, information on first slots among the plurality of slots in which first feeders are provided in a first state; information on second slots among the plurality of slots in which second feeders are configured to be provided in a second state after the first state, wherein the second slots in which the second feeders are configured to be provided in the second state are selected by a user, determine a pickup pattern of the head based on one or more groups of the first slots in which the first feeders are provided, determine the predicted task time based on the second slots in which the second feeders are configured to be provided relative to the first slots in which the first feeders are provided, determine the predicted task time based on information comprising: simultaneous adsorption information on whether the head adsorbs a plurality of components simultaneously according to the disposition information of the feeders among the plurality of slots; nozzle exchange information on exchanging the plurality of nozzles included in the head with other nozzles; a moving distance of the head between a board and a slot where a feeder is disposed among the plurality of slots, generate a first algorithm in which the components are adsorbed to a maximum number of nozzles, generate a second algorithm in which a minimum number of nozzles are exchanged, generate a third algorithm in which the moving distance of the head is a minimum, determine the predicted task time according to the first algorithm, the second algorithm, and the third algorithm, determine the predicted task time based on the disposition information of the feeders among the plurality of slots and at least one of the simultaneous adsorption information, the nozzle exchange information, and the moving distance of the head, determining a predicted task time to complete a task according to the task information, wherein the predicted task time is based on disposition information of the feeders among the plurality of slots (claims 1-8 and 13-20), these limitations as described in [0080]-[0087] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of receive task information, receiving task information (claims 8 and 13) represent mere data collection which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The controller (claims 1 and 4-8) is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “a head comprising a plurality of nozzles; a driver configured to move the head; a feeder base comprising a plurality of slots in which feeders are provided, control the head and the driver according to the task information” (claim 1) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The controller is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20120253499 to Nakamura.
As for claim 1, Nakamura substantially discloses an apparatus for mounting a component (Nakamura, see Fig. 1, Fig. 4 and [0056]), comprising:
a head comprising a plurality of nozzles (Nakamura, see Fig. 1 and [0049]);
a driver configured to move the head (Nakamura, see [0057]);
a feeder base comprising a plurality of slots in which feeders are provided (Nakamura, see Fig. 2 [0044]-[0046] and [0070] for attaching section 20 with a plurality of the tape feeders 90 attached to it, it is noted that the positions of the feeders in the attaching section can be interpreted as slots); and
a controller (Nakamura, see Fig. 4 and [0056]) configured to:
receive task information (Nakamura, see [0014]-[0017], Fig. 4, and [0056]-[0062]);
control the head and the driver according to the task information (Nakamura, see Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0056]-[0062] and [0086]), and
determine a predicted task time to complete a task according to the task information (Nakamura, see [0014]-[0017] and [0095] for calculating current cycle time based on the position information and the component information, it is noted that “current cycle time” can be interpreted as predicted task time because the mounting process did not take place yet when the current cycle time is calculated),
wherein the controller is configured to determine the predicted task time based on disposition information of the feeders among the plurality of slots (Nakamura, see [0014]-[0017] and [0095]).
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, in view of translation of WO2004047513 to Kato et al. (hereinafter “Kato”).
As for claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Nakamura does not explicitly disclose the disposition information f the feeders comprises: information on first slots among the plurality of slots in which first feeders are provided in a first state; and information on second slots among the plurality of slots in which second feeders are configured to be provided in a second state after the first state.
However, Kato in an analogous art discloses the disposition information f the feeders comprises: information on first slots among the plurality of slots in which first feeders are provided in a first state; and information on second slots among the plurality of slots in which second feeders are configured to be provided in a second state after the first state (Kato, see pages 14-15 for information on feeder slot before setup change (i.e. information on first slots among the plurality of slots in which first feeders are provided in a first state) and information on another feeder slot after setup change).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kato into the apparatus of Nakamura. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an apparatus capable of performing setup change in a short time (Kato, see page 2).
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 2, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Kato further discloses wherein the second slots in which the second feeders are configured to be provided in the second state are selected by a user (Kato, see pages 14-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kato into the apparatus of Nakamura. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an apparatus capable of performing setup change in a short time (Kato, see page 2).
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 3, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, in view of Kato, in view of US20040073322 to Maenishi et al. (hereinafter “Maenishi’322”).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, the combination of Nakamura and Kato does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to determine a pickup pattern of the head based on one or more groups of the first slots in which the first feeders are provided. However, Maenishi’322in an analogous art discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine a pickup pattern of the head based on one or more groups of the first slots in which the first feeders are provided (Maenishi’322, see Fig. 21 and [0477]-[0492]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Maenishi’322 into the above combination of Nakamura and Kato. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to increase the productivity of the mounter by determining optimal pickup pattern (Maenishi’322, see [0007] and [0015]).
Claim 16 is a method claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 4, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Nakamura further discloses the controller is further configured to determine the predicted task time based on the slots in which the feeders are configured to be provided (Nakamura, see [0014]-[0017] and [0095]). Kato further discloses the second slots in which the second feeders are configured to be provided relative to the first slots in which the first feeders are provided (Kato, see pages 14-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kato into the apparatus of Nakamura. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an apparatus capable of performing setup change in a short time (Kato, see page 2).
Claim 17 is a method claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 5, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, in view of Maenishi’322, in view of US20080154392 to Maenishi et al. (hereinafter “Maenishi’392).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Nakamura further discloses wherein the feeders comprise a plurality of components (Nakamura, see Fig. 2, [0044]-[0046] and [0070], and wherein the controller is further configured to determine the predicted task time based on information (Nakamura, see [0014]-[0017] and [0095]).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose simultaneous adsorption information on whether the head adsorbs a plurality of components simultaneously according to the disposition information of the feeders among the plurality of slots; nozzle exchange information on exchanging the plurality of nozzles included in the head with other nozzles; and a moving distance of the head between a board and a slot where a feeder is disposed among the plurality of slots.
However, Maenishi’322in an analogous art discloses simultaneous adsorption information on whether the head adsorbs a plurality of components simultaneously according to the disposition information of the feeders among the plurality of slots (Maenishi’322, see [0026]-[0027] and [0645]-[0649]), nozzle exchange information on exchanging the plurality of nozzles included in the head with other nozzles (Maenishi’322, see Fig. 146, [2313] and [2339]-[2342]), a moving distance of the head (Maenishi’322, Fig. 14 and [0712]-[0713]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Maenishi’322 into the apparatus of Nakamura. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to increase the productivity of the mounter by determining optimal pickup pattern (Maenishi’322, see [0007] and [0015]).
The combination of Nakamura and Maenishi’322 does not explicitly disclose a moving distance of the head between a board and a slot where a feeder is disposed among the plurality of slots. However, Maenishi’392 in an analogous art discloses a moving distance of the head between a board and a slot where a feeder is disposed among the plurality of slots (Maenishi’392, see [0583]-[0585]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Maenishi’392 into the apparatus of Nakamura and Maenishi’322. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a component mounting order determination method that permits determination of optimal component mounting order within a practical time (Maenishi’392, see [0006]).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Nakamura further discloses determine the predicted task time according to the algorithm (Nakamura, see [0014]-[0017] and [0095]). Maenishi’322 further discloses , wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a first algorithm in which the components are adsorbed to a maximum number of nozzles (Maenishi’322, see [0026]-[0027]), generate a second algorithm in which a minimum number of nozzles are exchanged (Maenishi’322, see Fig. 146, [2313] and [2339]-[2342]), generate a third algorithm in which the moving distance of the head is a minimum (Maenishi’322, Fig. 14 and [0712]-[0713]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Maenishi’322 into the apparatus of Nakamura. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to increase the productivity of the mounter by determining optimal pickup pattern (Maenishi’322, see [0007] and [0015]).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Nakamura further discloses the controller is further configured to determine the predicted task time based on the disposition information of the feeders among the plurality of slots (Nakamura, see [0014]-[0017] and [0095]).
Maenishi’322 further discloses determining time based on information of the simultaneous adsorption information (Maenishi’322, see [0026]-[0034] and [0645]-[0649]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Maenishi’322 into the apparatus of Nakamura. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to increase the productivity of the mounter by determining optimal pickup pattern (Maenishi’322, see [0007] and [0015]).
Claims 18-20 are method claims corresponds to the apparatus claims 6-8, respectively, they are therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 6-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US10299418 discloses a component mounting system that efficiently determines a component as a bulk component to be mounted on a bulk feeder through a simulation, and a bulk component determining method. The component mounting system includes a printed-circuit-board conveyance section that includes conveyance lanes and which convey a plurality of different types of printed circuit boards, a component supply section, a mounting head, a bulk feeder, and a bulk component determining section that performs a simulation in which operation times when the components supplied from the component supply section are moved on the printed circuit boards on the conveyance lanes are calculated for all the components and determines the bulk component to be mounted on the bulk feeder based on the calculated operation times.
US11683922 discloses a component mounting system includes multiple component mounting lines where multiple component mounters and a feeder storage are aligned along a board conveyance direction, a feeder exchange device configured to move along the board conveyance direction to exchange the feeder between the component mounter and the feeder storage of the component mounting line in charge, and a memory device. The feeder exchange device is configured to store an in-process feeder in the feeder storage of the component mounting line in charge, when it is determined, based on production information and feeder information, that there is the in-process feeder that was used in the component mounting line in charge and is scheduled to be used in another component mounting line.
US9971982 discloses a simulation library presentation unit which presents, to a user, a plurality of items of model libraries which are stored in a storage unit so as to receive specification of items of the model libraries from the user; a priority degree imparting unit which, with respect to the specified items of the model libraries, uses an input association table stored in the storage unit in order to calculate the priorities of the input items so as to present an input screen to the user on the basis of the calculated priorities; a simulation input receiving unit for receiving input of the input items on the user screen; and a duplicate data generation unit which, with respect to the duplicate items indicated in the input item association table, duplicates data that has been already received at the simulation input receiving unit.
US11357151 discloses a component mounting machine performs a mounting operation of mounting an electronic component to a board. The component mounting machine includes: multiple related operation devices each including an electrically-operated section configured to perform a related operation that is an operation related to the mounting operation, and an output section configured to output an operation signal representing a state of the electrically-operated section that is operating; and circuitry configured to limit the quantity of the related operation devices for which the electrically-operated section is in an operating state to a specified quantity or fewer based on whether there is presence of the operation signal of the multiple related operation devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
