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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that claim 12 has been amended to depend from claim 1. Claims 12-43 are therefore included in Group I.
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement between Group I and Groups III and IV, the election with respect to these Groups has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 44-62 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
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 1-43 and 63-65 are directed to a health monitoring, assessing and response system, which is considered to be a machine.
Claims 1-43 and 63-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a health monitoring, assessing and response system comprising “the health index module is configured to perform an algorithm comprising
obtaining a window and a boundary threshold,
monitoring the first signal output from the first sensor,
determining whether the first signal has crossed the boundary threshold,
updating a health index component, wherein the health index component is a binary value and transitioned between HIGH and LOW values in response to the first signal crossing the boundary threshold, and
generating a first health index value based on the health index component and decreasing the first health index value from 100% to 0% over a duration of at least the window, and
the controller is configured to perform a countermeasure based on the first health index value” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0083]-[0091] of the instant PGPub, teach the obtaining, monitoring, determining, updating and generating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the obtaining, monitoring, and performing the countermeasure could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “an interface configured to receive a first signal from a first sensor disposed in a substrate processing system; and a controller comprising a health index module”. The additional elements of the interface, the first sensor, the controller, and the structure of the health index module are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the first sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The interface, the controller, and the health index module are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even if the “controller is configured to perform a countermeasure based on the first health index value” were to be considered an additional element, the performing a counter measure is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim and post solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “an interface configured to receive a first signal from a first sensor disposed in a substrate processing system; and a controller comprising a health index module” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the interface, the first sensor, the controller, and the structure of the health index module are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the first sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The interface, the controller, and the structure of the health index module are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even if the “controller is configured to perform a countermeasure based on the first health index value” were to be considered an additional element, the performing a counter measure is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim and post solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 63-65 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claims 11, 12, and 43 recite the further additional element of N sensors disposed in the substrate processing system, where N is greater than or equal to two. The additional element of a second sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claims 11, 12, and 43 are not eligible.
Claims 13-25, 33-34, 36-38, and 42 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 12 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 12 above.
Claim 26 recites the further additional element of the structure of a sensor mapping module. The structure of the sensor mapping module is recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 26 is not eligible.
Claims 27-32 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 26 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 26 above.
Claim 35 recites the further additional element of the structure of a mathematical module. The structure of the mathematical module is recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 35 is not eligible.
Claim 39 recites the further additional element of the structure of a datalogging module. The structure of the datalogging module is recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 39 is not eligible.
Claims 40-41 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 39 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 39 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Albarede et al. (8,473,089), Schwarm (7,356,377), and Allen (US PGPub 2023/0341369 A1) teach systems and methods with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853