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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on December 29, 2022. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on December 29, 2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for JP2020-114579 dated July 2, 2020.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is required at this time.
Additionally, Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request for priority to PCT/JP2021/023137 dated June 18, 2021.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method, claim 8 is directed toward a method, claim 10 is directed toward an apparatus, and claim 13 is directed toward an apparatus. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes and mathematical concepts. The language of independent claim is used for illustration:
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring a time series data group measured during a processing cycle for a substrate (this limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below);
calculating a statistical value in each cycle of the processing cycle for each of time series data included in the acquired time series data group (this limitation is directed toward a mathematical concept);
generating statistical data based on the calculated statistical value (this limitation is directed toward a mathematical concept);
dividing the generated statistical data into predetermined sections (a person may mentally divide the statistical data into predetermined sections (i.e., is directed toward a mental process)); and
calculating a representative value for each of the sections based on the divided statistical data (this limitation is directed toward a mathematical concept), wherein the acquiring further includes:
acquiring result data regarding a result of a process for the substrate (this limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below); and
generating a model based on the calculated representative value for each of the sections and the result data (this limitation is directed toward a mathematical concept).
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 8, 10, and 13, which are of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes and mathematical concepts judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 recite the additional elements of acquiring a time series data group…, and acquiring result data regarding…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a. acquiring a time series data group… found in independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 13. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
b. acquiring result data regarding… found in independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 13. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations of acquiring a time series data group…, and acquiring result data regarding…, as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of acquiring a time series data group…, and acquiring result data regarding… are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. acquiring a time series data group… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and
b. acquiring result data regarding… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-20 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
All pending claims are allowable over the prior art and may be allowed after the above rejections are remedied. Reasons for indication of allowable subject matter will be provided once one or more claims is in a state of allowance.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
WO 2019/043934 which relates to monitoring for an anomaly in a substrate process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665