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 .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a kitting device” and “a confirmation section” in claim 1; “a measuring device” in claim 2; “a setup device” in claim 6; “a tape loading mechanism,” “a leading accommodation section,” and “a component movement mechanism” in claim 7; “a component retrieval box” in claim 8; “a reel movement mechanism” in claim 9; “a feeder unit” in claim 10; “a guide section” in claim 11; and “a component mounter” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
For claim 9, claim limitation “a reel movement mechanism configured to detach the reel accommodating the component from the feeder and move the reel to a reel storage area ” invokes § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under § 112(b).
For claim 12, claim limitation “a component mounter configured to mount the component on a board” invokes § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under § 112(b).
The Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If the Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, and 11 are rejected under §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 09130091 A to Yamamoto (Yamamoto) (as best understood by machine translation submitted with IDS). For claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a component confirmation device comprising:
a kitting device (2) configured to set a reel, on which a carrier tape (4) accommodating a component (3) is wound, on a feeder (see ¶ [0007] for providing a chip supply unit of a chip mounter); and
a confirmation section (9) configured to confirm suitability of the component in the kitting device based on component features of the component accommodated in the carrier tape of the reel set on the feeder (see ¶¶ [0008-0009] for providing a control device for performing program control of the whole chip mounter based, in part, on an indication of normality/abnormality captured by a CR meter).
In regards to claim 2, Yamamoto further discloses that the confirmation section measures electrical characteristics of the component by using a measuring device (8), and confirms the suitability of the component based on the electrical characteristics of the component measured by the measuring device. See ¶¶ [0008-0010] (providing that the control device is configured to determine normal/abnormal values of an electronic component chip captured by a CR meter).
In regards to claim 3, Yamamoto further discloses that the measuring device measures at least one of resistance when the component is a resistor, inductance when the component is an inductor, and static capacitance when the component is a capacitor. See ¶¶ [0008-0010] (providing a means such as a CR meter for registering the electric characteristic value of each electronic component chip).
In regards to claim 10, Yamamoto further discloses that the kitting device is a feeder unit in which the reel is set on the feeder by a worker. See ¶ [0006] (setting the feeder to the component mounting machine).
In regards to claim 11, Yamamoto further discloses that the confirmation device further comprises a guide section (12) configured to provide guidance that the component is unsuitable when the component is confirmed to be unsuitable by the confirmation section. See ¶ [0008-0009] (providing an alarm display configured to inform a user that an electronic component chip is abnormal).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, supra, as applied to claims 1 and 4, in view of JP 6433702 to Shimizu et al. (Shimizu) (as best understood by machine translation submitted with IDS). For claim 4, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for using an imaging device to confirm the suitability of components.
Although Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose that limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Shimizu teaches a component mounting machine wherein the confirmation section (31) images the component by using an imaging device (36), and confirms the suitability of the component based on an appearance image of the component imaged by the imaging device. See ¶¶ [0019-0020] (providing a mark camera configured to capture an image of a component in a target position and confirming the position where the component to be picked is located).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the system of Yamamoto with the imaging device of Shimizu in order to automatically adjust the position of an overhead suction nozzle to coincide with the determined position of the component to be picked.
In regards to claim 5, Shimizu further discloses that the confirmation section performs image processing on the appearance image to acquire component information related to the component attached to the component, and confirms the suitability of the component based on the acquired component information. See ¶¶ [0019-0020] (superimposing markers on captured images of components to confirm pick-up positions for mounting operations).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, supra, as applied to claims 1 and 6 respectively, in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0076548 to Nonoyama et al. (Nonoyama). For claim 6, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for automatically setting the reel in the feeder.
Although Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose that limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Nonoyama teaches a setup device (1) configured to automatically set the reel (200) in the feeder (100) so that the component can be supplied from the feeder. See ¶¶ [0046] (providing a automatically loading carrier tape into tape feeder).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the system of Yamamoto with the tape autoloading device of Nonoyama in order to further automate SMT pick-and-place operations when mounting electrical components onto printed circuit boards.
In regards to claim 7, Nonoyama further discloses that the setup device includes:
a tape loading mechanism (30) configured to convey the carrier tape by the number of empty accommodation sections (see ¶¶ [0046] & [0054]), which are accommodation sections configured to accommodate a predetermined number of the components from a tip end side of the carrier tape, and where the component is not accommodated, and to position a leading accommodation section accommodating the component at a predetermined position (see ¶¶ [0047] & [0051]); and
a component movement mechanism (400) configured to collect the components from the accommodation sections in which the components positioned by the tape loading mechanism are accommodated, and to move the components to a component confirmation area in which the suitability of the components is confirmed (see ¶ [0083] for providing a transfer device).
Claim 9 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Nonoyama, supra, as applied to claim 6, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0088555 to Shimada (Shimada). For claim 9, Yamamoto in view of Nonoyama discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for a reel movement mechanism.
Although Yamamoto in view of Nonoyama does not explicitly disclose that limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Shimada teaches a component mounting system including a reel movement mechanism (not shown) configured to detach the reel accommodating the component from the feeder and move the reel to a reel storage area when the component is confirmed to be unsuitable by the confirmation section. See ¶¶ [0063] & [0081] (providing a means for removing a component reel from a tape feeder and conveying the component reel to a component storage device in a storage area).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Yamamoto in view of Nonoyama with the removal and storage means of Shimada in order to free up space in the setup device for tape reels containing target components for SMT pick-and-place operations.
Claim 12 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, supra, as applied to claim 1, in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0120714 to Brown (Brown). For claim 12, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for automated guided vehicles for transporting tape reels to component mounters.
Although Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose that limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Brown teaches a component mounting system wherein the feeder (34), on which the reel is set, is conveyed by an automated guided vehicle (16) to a component mounter (11, 12) configured to mount the component on a board when the component is confirmed to be suitable by the confirmation section. See ¶ [0020] (automatically conveying feeder between storage containers and first/second mounting lines).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Yamamoto with the automated guided vehicles of Brown in order to provide an alternative means for transporting tape reels to and from component mounting stations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Relevant Prior Art
US Pub. No. 2019/0098809 to Eguchi et al. discloses a component supply device including an accommodation body installation unit in which one or more accommodation bodies each accommodating components are installable, the component supply device sequentially operates the one or more accommodation bodies to supply each of the components to a predetermined component supply position. The component supply device comprises a supply state detector which detects a supply state of components in total accommodated in the one or more accommodation bodies installed on the accommodation body installation unit, a determination unit which determines, based on the supply state, a state of the accommodation body installation unit among (i) an installation disabled state, (ii) an installation enabled state, and (iii) an installation required state, and a notifier which notifies a worker of the state of the accommodation body installation unit determined by the determination unit.
US Pub. No. 2019/0239400 to Ishikawa et al. discloses a component determination device and a component determination method for an electronic component, the component including a reference section formed as a different member to the multiple electrodes. The component determination device includes: a measuring device configured to measure positions of multiple reference points set on the reference section and a position of a measurement point set on each of the multiple electrodes; a plane calculating section configured to calculate a reference plane representing a position of the upper surface of the circuit board with respect to the component main body when the electronic component is mounted on the circuit board based on the positions of the multiple reference points; and a suitability determining section configured to determine whether the electronic component is suitable based on a distance between the reference plane and the multiple measurement points.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACOB SCOTT can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights