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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been entered into the record. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 12-13 recites “the controller.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3, 8-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20150074994 (hereinafter “MAENISHI”) et al., in view of U.S. PGPub 20080097640 to (hereinafter “Cho”) et al.
As per claim 1, Maenishi teaches a method for preventing parts supply errors, the method comprising:
inputting a recipe for a battery module into assembly equipment; 0032: “Namely, the individual parts library 8b has a structure in which the master parts name PN(M) (the symbol A) the same as that of the master parts library 8a is combined with vender codes VC(i) (parts maker codes) which specify the parts makers of the electronic parts so that the individual parts data PD(i) including the length size, the width size and the thickness size of the electronic part as contents are respectively corresponded to each of a plurality of individual parts names PN(i) (the parts information) which are individually corresponded to the electronic parts. The individual parts names PN(i) indicate the identification information applied to the electronic parts and correspond to the parts information including the parts codes for specifying the parts of the electronic parts and the parts maker codes for specifying the parts makers of the electronic parts. As the parts information, data of other form than the individual parts name PN(i) may be used.”
supplying a part to the assembly equipment; reading a code displayed on the part supplied to the assembly equipment;
0028: “The parts supply work support part 7 has a function which supports a work processing to be carried out by an operator in a supply of parts that the tape reel 17 is replaced by a new tape reel in the parts feed part 14 of each of the mounting machines 10. Namely, identification information such as a bar code label (see a reel ID label 21 shown in FIG. 4) stuck to the tape reel 17 as an object to be exchanged for another tape reel and tied to parts information of the carrier tape 18 accommodated in the tape reel 17 is read to decide whether or not the detected parts information is the parts information of a correct electronic part based on the read result. Then, when the decided result shows that the parts information is error parts information, this result is reported. As a result, when the parts information is changed, the changed parts information is transmitted to the use parts information management part 6 and the changed contents are reflected on the use parts information.”
determining, by the assembly equipment in a first determination step, whether the recipe stored in the assembly equipment matches the supplied part based on the read code; 0028: “The parts supply work support part 7 has a function which supports a work processing to be carried out by an operator in a supply of parts that the tape reel 17 is replaced by a new tape reel in the parts feed part 14 of each of the mounting machines 10. Namely, identification information such as a bar code label (see a reel ID label 21 shown in FIG. 4) stuck to the tape reel 17 as an object to be exchanged for another tape reel and tied to parts information of the carrier tape 18 accommodated in the tape reel 17 is read to decide whether or not the detected parts information is the parts information of a correct electronic part based on the read result. Then, when the decided result shows that the parts information is error parts information, this result is reported. As a result, when the parts information is changed, the changed parts information is transmitted to the use parts information management part 6 and the changed contents are reflected on the use parts information…0046: When the reading operation is OK, the parts stock management part 4 recognizes the master parts name PN(M) from the read result of the parts information label 20 (Step ST4). Then, the parts stock management part 4 decides whether or not the master parts name PN(M) is already registered in the storing part (Step ST5). When the master parts name PN(M) is not yet registered in the storing part, the parts stock management part 4 decides that there is no information to report an error (Step ST6) and returns to the Step ST1 to wait for the detection of the label.”
Maenishi may not explicitly teach the following. However, Cho teaches:
determining, by an equipment management system in a second determination step, whether a recipe stored in the equipment management system matches the supplied part on a basis of the read code; 0026: “ a plurality of semiconductor equipment 130 for performing semiconductor manufacturing processes, a host computer 110 ("host") for controlling the processes being performed by the semiconductor equipment 130, and a server 120 electrically connected to the semiconductor equipment 130 and the host 110 for bi-directionally transmitting various data and control signals…0030: The host 110 is preferably configured to control a process being performed by the semiconductor equipment 130 through the server 120. In particular, the host 110 preferably includes a database 115, in which a reference recipe corresponding to a process being performed by the semiconductor equipment 130 is stored. The reference recipe may include conditions appropriate to perform the process, with specific values corresponding to those conditions. The reference recipe may further include an allowable tolerance range (including, for instance, upper and lower limit points) for each of the process conditions, within which tolerance range the process may appropriately be performed. The host 110 is preferably configured to determine under certain circumstances, whether the contents of the process recipe (the recipe body) is within tolerance of the reference recipe and to control whether or not the semiconductor equipment 130 performs the process according to that determination.”
and stopping operation of the assembly equipment and outputting an alarm when at least one result of the first determination step or the second determination step comes out as mismatch;0035: “Checking the recipe body of the process recipe 136 may be performed by instructing the host 110 to request data corresponding to the recipe body from the semiconductor equipment 130. The semiconductor equipment 130 may then be instructed to provide the recipe body information to the host 110. The host 110 then compares values of the process recipe 136 with values for the reference recipe conditions, and determines whether the values of the process recipe 136 being checked are within an allowable tolerance range of the reference recipe values (S250). If the process recipe 136 is within tolerance of the reference recipe, the host 110 preferably updates the final modification time T2 of the reference recipe stored in the host database 115 to be equal to the final modification time T1 of the process recipe 136 (S260). The host 110 may thereafter or simultaneously control the semiconductor equipment 130 to perform a process according to the process recipe 136 (S270). If, on the other hand, the value of the checked process recipe 136 is not within tolerance of the reference recipe, the host 110 may instruct the semiconductor equipment 130 to interlock the process (S280).”Note: Matching stopping the process with interlock the process.
Maenishi and Cho are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maenishi with the aforementioned teachings from Cho with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to determine and update information with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Cho 0026].
As per claim 2, Maenishi and Cho teach all the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Cho teaches:
determining, in a third determination step, whether the results of the first determination step and the results of the second determination step are all matched; 0035: “Checking the recipe body of the process recipe 136 may be performed by instructing the host 110 to request data corresponding to the recipe body from the semiconductor equipment 130. The semiconductor equipment 130 may then be instructed to provide the recipe body information to the host 110. The host 110 then compares values of the process recipe 136 with values for the reference recipe conditions, and determines whether the values of the process recipe 136 being checked are within an allowable tolerance range of the reference recipe values (S250). If the process recipe 136 is within tolerance of the reference recipe, the host 110 preferably updates the final modification time T2 of the reference recipe stored in the host database 115 to be equal to the final modification time T1 of the process recipe 136 (S260). The host 110 may thereafter or simultaneously control the semiconductor equipment 130 to perform a process according to the process recipe 136 (S270). If, on the other hand, the value of the checked process recipe 136 is not within tolerance of the reference recipe, the host 110 may instruct the semiconductor equipment 130 to interlock the process (S280).”
and proceeding, by the assembly equipment, with assembly when the results of the first determination step and the results of the second determination step are all matched;0035: “Checking the recipe body of the process recipe 136 may be performed by instructing the host 110 to request data corresponding to the recipe body from the semiconductor equipment 130. The semiconductor equipment 130 may then be instructed to provide the recipe body information to the host 110. The host 110 then compares values of the process recipe 136 with values for the reference recipe conditions, and determines whether the values of the process recipe 136 being checked are within an allowable tolerance range of the reference recipe values (S250). If the process recipe 136 is within tolerance of the reference recipe, the host 110 preferably updates the final modification time T2 of the reference recipe stored in the host database 115 to be equal to the final modification time T1 of the process recipe 136 (S260). The host 110 may thereafter or simultaneously control the semiconductor equipment 130 to perform a process according to the process recipe 136 (S270). If, on the other hand, the value of the checked process recipe 136 is not within tolerance of the reference recipe, the host 110 may instruct the semiconductor equipment 130 to interlock the process (S280).”
Maenishi and Cho are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maenishi with the aforementioned teachings from Cho with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to determine and update information with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Cho 0035].
As per claim 3, Maenishi and Cho teach all the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Maenishi teaches:
photographing, by a code reader of the assembly equipment, a code of the part supplied to a part receiver of the assembly equipment; 0028: “The parts supply work support part 7 has a function which supports a work processing to be carried out by an operator in a supply of parts that the tape reel 17 is replaced by a new tape reel in the parts feed part 14 of each of the mounting machines 10. Namely, identification information such as a bar code label (see a reel ID label 21 shown in FIG. 4) stuck to the tape reel 17 as an object to be exchanged for another tape reel and tied to parts information of the carrier tape 18 accommodated in the tape reel 17 is read to decide whether or not the detected parts information is the parts information of a correct electronic part based on the read result. Then, when the decided result shows that the parts information is error parts information, this result is reported. As a result, when the parts information is changed, the changed parts information is transmitted to the use parts information management part 6 and the changed contents are reflected on the use parts information.”
obtaining, by a controller of the assembly equipment, a character string from the code captured by the code reader; and extracting, by the controller, a number of the part from the character string; 0032: “Namely, the individual parts library 8b has a structure in which the master parts name PN(M) (the symbol A) the same as that of the master parts library 8a is combined with vender codes VC(i) (parts maker codes) which specify the parts makers of the electronic parts so that the individual parts data PD(i) including the length size, the width size and the thickness size of the electronic part as contents are respectively corresponded to each of a plurality of individual parts names PN(i) (the parts information) which are individually corresponded to the electronic parts. The individual parts names PN(i) indicate the identification information applied to the electronic parts and correspond to the parts information including the parts codes for specifying the parts of the electronic parts and the parts maker codes for specifying the parts makers of the electronic parts. As the parts information, data of other form than the individual parts name PN(i) may be used.”
As per claim 8, Maenishi and Cho teach all the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Maenishi teaches:
wherein the recipe for the battery module is created on a basis of a part number assigned and classified according to criteria set for one or more of a model, a part type, a manufacturer, or specifications of a battery module; 0032: “Namely, the individual parts library 8b has a structure in which the master parts name PN(M) (the symbol A) the same as that of the master parts library 8a is combined with vender codes VC(i) (parts maker codes) which specify the parts makers of the electronic parts so that the individual parts data PD(i) including the length size, the width size and the thickness size of the electronic part as contents are respectively corresponded to each of a plurality of individual parts names PN(i) (the parts information) which are individually corresponded to the electronic parts. The individual parts names PN(i) indicate the identification information applied to the electronic parts and correspond to the parts information including the parts codes for specifying the parts of the electronic parts and the parts maker codes for specifying the parts makers of the electronic parts. As the parts information, data of other form than the individual parts name PN(i) may be used.”
Claims 9-11 and 16 recites the apparatus for performing the method of claims 1-3 and 8. Since the art teaches the apparatus, the same art and rationale applied to claims 1-3 and 8 are applied to claims 9-11 and 16.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20150074994 (hereinafter “MAENISHI”) et al., in view of U.S. PGPub 20080097640 to (hereinafter “Cho”) et al., in further view of U.S. PGPub 20120189188 (hereinafter “Nagai”) et al.
As per claim 6, Maenishi and Cho teach all the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Cho teaches:
wherein in the step of outputting an alarm, when the position where the code is displayed on the part is not the normal position, the assembly equipment is stopped and an alarm is output; 0035: “Checking the recipe body of the process recipe 136 may be performed by instructing the host 110 to request data corresponding to the recipe body from the semiconductor equipment 130. The semiconductor equipment 130 may then be instructed to provide the recipe body information to the host 110. The host 110 then compares values of the process recipe 136 with values for the reference recipe conditions, and determines whether the values of the process recipe 136 being checked are within an allowable tolerance range of the reference recipe values (S250). If the process recipe 136 is within tolerance of the reference recipe, the host 110 preferably updates the final modification time T2 of the reference recipe stored in the host database 115 to be equal to the final modification time T1 of the process recipe 136 (S260). The host 110 may thereafter or simultaneously control the semiconductor equipment 130 to perform a process according to the process recipe 136 (S270). If, on the other hand, the value of the checked process recipe 136 is not within tolerance of the reference recipe, the host 110 may instruct the semiconductor equipment 130 to interlock the process (S280).”
Maenishi and Cho may not explicitly teach the following. However, Nagai teaches:
determining, in a fourth determination step, whether a position where the code is displayed on the part is a normal position after the step of reading a code displayed on the part supplied to the assembly equipment, 0031: “The component extraction processing portion 3a calculates a difference between pre-mounting image data acquired by the inspection module M3A and post-mounting image data acquired by the inspection module M6A to thereby perform a process of extracting a component mounted by the mounting work. The discrimination processing portion 3b compares the shape and position of the component extracted by the component extraction processing portion 3a with inspection data indicating the shape and position of a normal component stored in advance to thereby determine whether the mounting state of the component on the board 4 is good or not. The inspection data storage portion 3c stores the inspection data used when the discrimination processing portion 3b determines whether the mounting state is good or not.”
Maenishi, Cho, and Nagai are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maenishi and Cho with the aforementioned teachings from Nagai with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to determine and update information with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Nagai 0031].
Claim 14 recites the apparatus for performing the method of claim 6. Since the art teaches the apparatus, the same art and rationale applied to claim 6 are applied to claim 14.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20150074994 (hereinafter “MAENISHI”) et al., in view of U.S. PGPub 20080097640 to (hereinafter “Cho”) et al., in further view of U.S. PGPub 20120189188 (hereinafter “Kotani”) et al.
As per claim 7, Maenishi and Cho teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Maenishi and Cho may not explicitly teach the following. However, Kotani teaches:
checking, by a check sensor of the assembly equipment, a designated point of the supplied part after the step of reading a code displayed on the part supplied to the assembly equipment; 0030: “A component mounting state inspection function in the component mounting system 1 will be described next with reference to FIG. 3. The host device 3 generally controls the inspection module M3A serving as an un-mounted board image capturing portion, the component mounting modules M3B, M4A, M4B, M5A, M5B and M6B forming component mounting portions, and the inspection module M6A serving as a mounted board image capturing portion. The host device 3 has a component extraction processing portion 3a, a discrimination processing portion 3b and an inspection data storage portion 3c as internal processing functions concerned with component mounting state inspection.”
and determining, in a fifth determination step, whether an orientation of the part is a normal orientation on a basis of an output of the check sensor, wherein in the step of outputting an alarm, when the orientation of the part is not the normal orientation, the assembly equipment is stopped and an alarm is output; 0030: “A component mounting state inspection function in the component mounting system 1 will be described next with reference to FIG. 3. The host device 3 generally controls the inspection module M3A serving as an un-mounted board image capturing portion, the component mounting modules M3B, M4A, M4B, M5A, M5B and M6B forming component mounting portions, and the inspection module M6A serving as a mounted board image capturing portion. The host device 3 has a component extraction processing portion 3a, a discrimination processing portion 3b and an inspection data storage portion 3c as internal processing functions concerned with component mounting state inspection.”
Maenishi, Cho, and Kotani are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maenishi and Cho with the aforementioned teachings from Kotani with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to utilize sensor date information with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Kotani 0030].
Claim 15 recites the apparatus for performing the method of claim 7. Since the art teaches the apparatus, the same art and rationale applied to claim 7 are applied to claim 15.
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20150074994 (hereinafter “MAENISHI”) et al., in view of U.S. PGPub 20080097640 to (hereinafter “Cho”) et al., in further view of U.S. PGPub 20100036747 (hereinafter “Bagley”) et al.
As per claim 4, Maenishi and Cho teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Maenishi and Cho may not explicitly teach the following. However, Bagley teaches:
providing a recipe input screen for the battery module by means of an input/output interface of the assembly equipment; and deactivating, when one of model names displayed on the recipe input screen is selected, remaining model names are deactivated so as not to be selected; 0023: “When a model is created and executed by product configurator 16, a user can interact with the model. The interaction in general involves the user being presented with a series of choices or items. Each item is represented by a variable in the underlying constraint system. Each variable has a domain, which is a range or set of possible values (e.g., integers between 0 and 10, the set of blue, red or green, etc.). As choices are made by the user, the domain may shrink. For example, if the configurator is for a car, the user may choose a sedan instead of a convertible. However, in the next choice, which is the color of the car, red may no longer be available because a sedan cannot be configured in red. If a user backtracks and decides not to choose a sedan, the color red should be restored as one of the color choices. In prior art configurator systems, a restart is typically required to restore the color red. In contrast, in one embodiment, the change of domains is efficiently tracked and stored so changes as a result of backtracking or other reasons can easily be undone.”
Maenishi, Cho, and Bagley are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maenishi and Cho with the aforementioned teachings from Bagley with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to utilize sensor date information with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Bagley 0030].
As per claim 5, Maenishi and Cho teach all the limitations of claim 4.
Maenishi and Cho may not explicitly teach the following. However, Bagley teaches:
displaying a plurality of manufacturers for selection for a plurality of parts on the recipe input screen, and when a manufacturer is selected for one part, a manufacturer of other parts related to the one part is also selected as the same manufacturer; 0005: “The configurator receives one or more user selections and generates one or more automatic selections to form a complete configuration…0023-0025: the user being presented with a series of choices or items. Each item is represented by a variable in the underlying constraint system. Each variable has a domain, which is a range or set of possible values (e.g., integers between 0 and 10, the set of blue, red or green, etc.). As choices are made by the user, the domain may shrink. For example, if the configurator is for a car, the user may choose a sedan instead of a convertible. However, in the next choice, which is the color of the car, red may no longer be available because a sedan cannot be configured in red. If a user backtracks and decides not to choose a sedan, the color red should be restored as one of the color choices. In prior art configurator systems, a restart is typically required to restore the color red. In contrast, in one embodiment, the change of domains is efficiently tracked and stored so changes as a result of backtracking or other reasons can easily be undone… the user choice is received and stored. The user choice can be stored using any type of internal representation of the choice and in one embodiment is stored in memory 14. The user choice at 202 may cause one or more associated outward constraints in the constraint network to be affected (i.e., due to the propagation of the user choice throughout the constraint network), which may modify the associated node for each constraint.”
Maenishi, Cho, and Bagley are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maenishi and Cho with the aforementioned teachings from Bagley with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to utilize sensor date information with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Bagley 0030].
Claims 12-13 recite the apparatus for performing the method of claims 4-5. Since the art teaches the apparatus, the same art and rationale applied to claims 4-5 are applied to claims 12-13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Macdonald; Donald G. Label Inspection And Rejection System And Method For Use Thereof, .U.S. Patent 10269109In general, the present invention relates to a label inspection and rejection system for inspecting labels applied to products and identifying mislabeled or properly-labeled packages prior to shipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”)./Arif Ullah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights