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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-11 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9 and 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2 of claim 3, the combination of words “at at” appears to be a typo; in claim 9, the combination “so as” is similar to “such that” which is rejectable under 35 USC 112. Claims 10 is objected to for being dependent on objected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama et al. (Nakayama; US 2018/0348733).
As per claim 1, Nakayama teaches a work machine notification device comprising:
a determination section configured to determine whether a board work machine configured to perform a predetermined board work on a board is a compatible work machine that can be remotely operated by a worker (a determination unit determines whether a remote operation of an equipment is enabled [or compatible to accept a remote operation], see e.g. para. [0025], wherein the equipment is a board work machine configured to perform one or more works on a board; see e.g. [0012]); and
a notification section configured to notify the compatible work machine to the worker when the determination section determines that the board work machine is the compatible work machine (a determination and notification unit to display whether or not the equipment is capable or compatible for accepting remote operation, see e.g. para. [0026], for carrying out one or more functions on a board; see e.g. para. [0012]).
As per claim 2, the work machine notification device according to Claim 1 as taught by Nakayama, wherein the determination section communicates with the board work machine to acquire work machine information indicating whether the board work machine is the compatible work machine, and determines whether the board work machine is the compatible work machine based on the acquired work machine information (as discussed in analysis of claim 1, working machine compatibility or remote operability is determined and communicated with a remote unit and displayed; see e.g. para. [0026]).
As per claim 11, is rejected similar to claim 1.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama.
As per claim 3, the work machine notification device according to claim 1 as taught by Nakayama, wherein the determination section acquires the work machine information at at least one of a timing at which the work machine notification device is activated and a timing at which the board work machine is activated (operational state information is obtained at a predetermined time after one or more conditions are satisfied, see e.g. para. [0022], wherein the state information when the machine is turned on can also envisioned by a person having an ordinary skill in the art).
As per claim 4, the work machine notification device according to Claim 1 as taught by Nakayama, wherein the notification section performs a notification about the compatible work machine in at least one of a mobile terminal and the compatible work machine carried by the worker (a display or notification about the compatibility as discussed earlier, see e.g. para. [0026]. Even though Nakayama does not teach that the display is in at least one of a mobile terminal and the compatible work machine carried by the worker, it would have been obvious to include the display at any desired integrated or detached location since integration or separation of parts has been held obvious by courts).
As per claim 5, the work machine notification device according to claim 1 as taught by Nakayama, wherein the remote operation of the board work machine is executable by a specific worker, who is the worker specified (the worker performs work at a production line constituted by a plurality of pieces of equipment; see e.g. para. [0012]), and the notification section performs the notification about the compatible work machine on the mobile terminal carried by the specific worker (as discussed earlier, a display or notification about the compatibility as discussed earlier, see e.g. para. [0026]. Even though Nakayama does not teach that the display is in at least one of a mobile terminal and the compatible work machine carried by the worker, it would have been obvious to include the display at any desired integrated or detached location since integration or separation of parts has been held obvious by courts).
As per claim 6, the work machine notification device according to claim 1 as taught by Nakayama, wherein the remote operation of the board work machine is executable in at least one specific production line among multiple production lines in which the board work machine is provided, and the notification section performs a notification about the compatible work machine on the mobile terminal carried by the worker in charge of the specific production line (a plurality of remotely controlled equipment, see e.g. para. [0012-13], wherein a display or notification about the compatibility as discussed earlier, see e.g. para. [0026], which can be about one of the equipment or machines; see e.g. para. [0043-44]. Even though Nakayama does not teach that the display is in at least one of a mobile terminal and the compatible work machine carried by the worker, it would have been obvious to include the display at any desired integrated or detached location since integration or separation of parts has been held obvious by courts).
As per claim 7, the work machine notification device according to claim 1 as taught by Nakayama, wherein the notification section performs the notification about the compatible work machine such that the worker can recognize the compatible work machine through at least one of a visual sense, an auditory sense, and a tactile sense of the worker (the one or more notifications can be a display as discussed earlier, or a sound/music perceptible by a worker, see e.g. para. [0032], wherein it would have been obvious to include a haptic feedback for improved worker attention).
As per claim 8, the work machine notification device according to Claim 7 as taught by Nakayam, wherein the notification section displays the compatible work machine with a predetermined icon on a display screen that simulates and displays a production line in which the board work machine is provided (displaying notification about the compatibility as discussed earlier, see e.g. para. [0026], which can be about one of the equipment or machines; see e.g. para. [0043-44], wherein it would have been obvious to program the displayed notification as an icon over or within a production line simulation for improved user engagement, experience or contextual awareness).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights