6DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to application filed on 5/13/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim recites “when the remote operation is not stared” which need to be corrected as “when the remote operation is not started” according to the specification para. 0060. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-5 and 7-11 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 11 is directed to and a method which is within the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 1-5 and 7-10 are directed to a system (apparatus) which is within the four statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1 and 11 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of operation notification by a determination step of determining whether there is a remote operation to be performed by a worker of a board work machine configured to perform predetermined board work on a board; and a notification step of [providing] an executable notice to the first [worker/area/station] and the second [worker/area/station] when it is determined that there is a remote operation to be performed wherein the first [area/station] to display a work screen of the remote operation and to enter a state in which a specific worker of the board work machine, who is the worker who performs the remote operation on the board work machine, can perform the remote operation when the first [worker/area/station] receives the executable notice, and wherein the second [worker/area/station] to display to a general worker, who is the worker other than the specific worker, that the specific worker is performing the remote operation when the second [worker/area/station] receives the executable notice; which include mental processes (observing and evaluating data related to an operation/task for a judgement or opinion of notifying the specific worker or other workers), and certain methods of organizing human activity based on fundamental economic practice (managing operations/tasks in a business), and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions to managing, facilitating operation notification to workers in a work environment). Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 1 with further details on the parameters/attributes of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-5 and 7-11 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a first mobile terminal; a second mobile terminal; these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-5 and 7-11 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a first mobile terminal; a second mobile terminal; these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-5 and 7-11 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takuya et al (JP2018200654) in view of Ranaan (US 20150262112 A1)
As per Claim 1, Takuya teaches a system comprising a remote operation notification system (para. 0001) comprising:
a determination section configured to determine whether there is a remote operation to be performed by a worker of a board work machine configured to perform predetermined board work on a board (para. [0012], [0038], [0039], fig. 1-5, regarding component mounting equipment 4 ( corresponding to the "substrate working machine" of the present application), wherein: an operation mode is changed to a remote operation mode when a remote operation is requested from a remote monitoring unit 8; and after the operation mode is changed to the remote operation mode, an operation mode changing unit 25 displays that the operation mode of the equipment 4 became the remote operation mode by using a touch panel 11 or a notification unit 16);
While Takuya teaches a notification section configured to give a notification of the remote operation performed by a specific worker of the board work machine, who is the worker who performs the remote operation on the board work machine, to at least a general worker, who is the worker other than the specific worker, among the specific worker and the general worker when the determination section determines that there is the remote operation (para. [0012], [0038], [0039], fig. 1-5, regarding component mounting equipment 4 ( corresponding to the "substrate working machine" of the present application), wherein: an operation mode is changed to a remote operation mode when a remote operation is requested from a remote monitoring unit 8; and after the operation mode is changed to the remote operation mode, an operation mode changing unit 25 displays that the operation mode of the equipment 4 became the remote operation mode by using a touch panel 11 or a notification unit 16; para. [0032], regarding The first notification pattern here is a flashy notification pattern that is highly noticeable and
can be recognized by workers who are located far away from the device in the production
area 2; also see [0033]-[0036], regarding the notification is given to remote worker/remote unit or to employee on-site via display screen at different occasions; also see para. [0038]-[0040]); Ranaan teaches more clearly a first mobile terminal; a second mobile terminal; transmit an executable notice to the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal when it is determined that there is a remote operation to be performed, wherein the first mobile terminal is configured to display a work screen of the remote operation and to enter a state in which a specific worker of the board work machine, who is the worker who performs the remote operation on the board work machine, can perform the remote operation when the first mobile terminal receives the executable notice, and wherein the second mobile terminal is configured to display to a general worker, who is the worker other than the specific worker, that the specific worker is performing the remote operation when the second mobile terminal receives the executable notice (Abstract “A monitoring system and method that enables a manager to monitor a mobile employee carrying a communication device. The exact location and time worked by the employee while performing the job helps the manager formulate compensation. The communication device includes a smart phone having a positioning system and a camera for the manager to view and track the employee while performing the job. The manager downloads a positioning system, such as a global positioning system, into a communication device. The employee carries the communication device in proximity while performing a job. The manager sets parameters for the employee and the job. The parameters include location, and at what durations the employee works. The manager is alerted if the employee works outside the parameters.”; Fig. 4 para. 0088, 0090 regarding first and second mobile terminals; para. 0074, “The communication device may also be operatively joined with the manager's processing device.”; Abstract, para. 0061-0062, 0066, 0072-0073, 0079, 0085, claim 5, regarding alerting/notifying the manager or the employee about the remote job);
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify aforementioned teachings from Takuya with features from Ranaan, in the field of remote task monitoring, with the motivation to enable efficient communication between multiple employees.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as Claim1; therefore, Claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning, rationale and motivation as recited above for Claim 1.
As per Claim 2, Takuya in view of Ranaan teaches a method as recited above for Claim 1. Takuya further teaches wherein the determination section determines that the remote operation is started, when a start notice indicating that the remote operation is started is transmitted from the worker, and the notification section starts the notification of the remote operation (para. [0040], [0045], [0046], fig. 3, 4, regarding on a monitor 41 of the remote monitoring unit 8, a remote operation request is made to corresponding equipment 4 when an operation panel window 55 is opened; also "a start notification for starting a distant operation is transmitted from a worker."; also see [0032], [0038], [0039]).
As per Claim 3, Takuya in view of Ranaan teaches a method as recited above for Claim 2. Takuya further teaches wherein the board work machine on which the remote operation is performed determines whether the remote operation is executable based on an operation state of the board work machine, when the start notice is received from the worker, and the determination section determines that the remote operation is started, when an executable notice indicating that the remote operation is executable is received from the board work machine on which the remote operation is performed (para. [0025]-[0026], regarding remote operation feasibility determination; Also see [0033], [0040], [0045]-[0046]).
As per Claim 4, Takuya in view of Ranaan teaches a method as recited above for Claim 2. Takuya further teaches wherein the determination section determines that the remote operation is ended, when an end notice indicating that work performed by the remote operation is ended is transmitted from the specific worker, and the notification section ends the notification of the remote operation ([0033], [0040], [0045]-[0046], regarding starting and ending a remote operation and operation panel 55; Also see [0032], [0038]-[0039]).
As per Claim 5, Takuya in view of Ranaan teaches a method as recited above for Claim 1. Takuya further teaches wherein the notification section gives a notification of determination information with which whether at least one of handling work for handling an abnormality occurring in the board work machine, maintenance work of the board work machine, and preparation work for the board work machine is handlable through the remote operation is determinable by the worker (para. 0028, regarding Among the error items detected by the error detection unit 23, the memory unit 30 stores
error items that can be recovered from by remote operation from the remote monitoring unit 8 as "remote operation target error information" 35. Here, the term "error subject to remote operation" refers to an error item that can be dealt with without requiring an operator to access the facility site, check the site, and take physical action. Specifically, the content of the error can be identified from the screen information displayed on the monitor 41 (see Figure 3) of the remote monitoring unit 8, and an error item that can be dealt with simply by operating input from an operation unit 42 such as a touch panel corresponds to a remote operation target error. That is, in the manufacturing equipment monitoring system 1 shown in this embodiment, the multiple pieces of equipment 4 have "remote operation target error information" 35, which is error information that defines errors that can be recovered from by operation from at least the remote monitoring unit 8; also see [0029]-[0040]).
As per Claim 7, Takuya in view of Ranaan teaches a method as recited above for Claim 1. Takuya further teaches wherein the notification section gives the notification of the remote operation such that the remote operation is recognizable through at least one of a visual sense, an auditory sense, and a tactile sense of the worker (para. [0028], the content of the error can be identified from the screen information displayed on the monitor 41 (see Figure 3) of the remote monitoring unit 8, and an error item that can be dealt with simply by operating input from an operation unit 42 such as a touch panel corresponds to a remote operation target error.).
As per Claim 8, Takuya in view of Ranaan teaches a method as recited above for Claim 1. Takuya further teaches wherein the notification section gives a notification of at least one of worker information on the specific worker, production line information on a production line in which the board work machine on which the remote operation is performed is provided, and working machine information on the board work machine on which the remote operation is performed (para. [0028], the content of the error can be identified from the screen information displayed on the monitor 41 (see Figure 3) of the remote monitoring unit 8, and an error item that can be dealt with simply by operating input from an operation unit 42 such as a touch panel corresponds to a remote operation target error. Also see [0033]-[0040]).
As per Claim 10, Takuya in view of Ranaan teaches a method as recited above for Claim 1. Takuya further teaches wherein the notification section gives a notification of prohibition of the remote operation performed by the general worker on the board work machine on which the remote operation is performed by the specific worker (para. 0038, The operation mode change unit 25 has a function of switching the operation mode for the facility between an automatic operation mode and a remote operation mode that permits remote operation input from the remote monitoring unit 8 . In other words, when the equipment is in automatic operation mode and a remote operation request is received from the remote monitoring unit 8, the operation mode is changed to remote operation mode, and an exclusive state is established in which the functions of the touch panel 11 and operation buttons of the equipment are restricted. This prevents an operator at the site from carelessly operating the equipment while a remote operation is being executed from the remote monitoring unit 8.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takuya et al (JP2018200654) in view of Ranaan (US 20150262112 A1) in view of Brown et al (US 20070036300 A1).
As per Claim 9, Takuya in view of Ranaan teaches a method as recited above for Claim 1. Takuya further teaches while Takuya teaches wherein the notification section gives the notification of the remote operation to the specific worker and when the remote operation is not started by the specific worker within a predetermined time (para. 0028, 0032-0040 and 0045-0046); however Takuya does not expressly specify repeating notifications.
Brown teaches wherein the notification section gives the notification of the {remote} operation again to the specific worker when the {remote} operation is not [started] by the specific worker within a predetermined time after the notification of the {remote} operation is given (para. 0098, The messaging application may also be adapted to generate the at least one form of user notification until a second predefined time period has elapsed, after which completion of the task may remain pending, or performance of the task, cancelled. For example, if after two minutes (or some other period of time) the user has still not responded to the prompt, it may be that the user is away from the mobile device and is not receiving the notifications. The generation of notifications may be suspended temporarily and subsequently continued at a later time, or performance of the task may be cancelled altogether.).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify aforementioned teachings from Takuya in view of Ranaan with features from Brown, in the field of task notifications, with the motivation to start and complete tasks timely.
Response to Arguments
All arguments have been considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on rejections under 35 USC 101:
Arguments are moot. New and updated rejection have been provided based on applicant’s extensive amendments to the claim.
Arguments on rejections under 35 USC 103:
Arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection per Ranaan.
Conclusion
Additional relevant art not relied upon includes:
Hastings (US 20170270763 A1), regarding “A monitoring device that serves as a remote notification system and provides communication between a medical device and a remote computing device. The monitoring device is installed in the medical device and has a microcontroller that is synched with a main board of the medical device, allowing signals and commands to be transmitted between the microcontroller and the main board. A transceiver is electrically connected to the microcontroller and allows for communication between the microcontroller and the remote computing device over a wireless network. The microcontroller monitors the medical device and sends an alert to the remote computing device when an undesirable states is detected. A dashboard application on the remote computing device allows a user to view alerts and initiate a plurality of medical device functions from a remote location.”
Skillsäter et al (US 12054909 B2), regarding “A system and a method for remote operation of a working machine comprising a tool is provided. The system includes an on-board controller configured to receive signals from a remote control station remotely controlling the operation of the working machine, and to obtain and send camera images to an off-board controller. The system also includes an off-board controller configured to receive the camera images from the on-board controller. The off-board controller identifies at least one visual tag in the camera images located on a load carrier, determines at least one distance between the tool and the load carrier based on the identified at least one visual tag, and provides, to the on-board controller and/or to an operator of the working machine, information based on the determined at least one distance between the tool and the load carrier in order to support the remote operation of the working machine.”
Ferguson et al (US 20060047377 A1), regarding “Systems and methods are disclosed that enable one or more work machines to control operations of one or more remote work machines. In one embodiment, the systems and methods perform a process including determining a first type of first work machine performing first operations in a work environment and determining a second type of second work machine performing second operations in the work environment. Based on the first and second type of the first and second work machines, a selected second operation that the first work machine can control is determined. Subsequently, the first work machine may adjust the selected second operation while the first work machine performs the first operations.”
Takahiro et al (JP 2015097224 A), regarding “In the component mounting system 1, the mounting device which is connected with the tablet PC can be remotely operated. In the component mounting system 1, the tablet PC 4 is configured to perform connection request to the mounting device selected by an operation performed on a display/operation screen of the tablet PC 4, then receive a response from the mounting device of the connection request destination and control itself to be connected with the mounting device, and the selected mounting device is configured to reply to the connection request and control itself to be in the connected state. Also, the component mounting system 1 directly notifies an operator that the mounting device is in the connected state by an acoustic device or signal device 7.”
Keita et al (JP 2021012937 A), regarding “To provide a remote operation system such that an operator of a remote monitor part can start an operation for error recovery without entering a wait state after being informed of error occurrence.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights