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 .
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.
Claim 1-8 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 1, 7, 8, are directed to the limitation of acquisition circuitry configured to acquire data in substrate processing apparatuses, and recites a wherein clause with respect to the substrate processing apparatuses being connected via a network. It is unclear how the substrate processing apparatuses being connected via a network further limits the scope of the acquisition circuitry configured to acquire data in substrate processing apparatuses.
Referring to claim 1, 7, 8, the indefinite claim language is “wherein the predictive value is used to schedule preventive maintenance of each substrate processing apparatus”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (wherein the predictive value is used to schedule preventive maintenance of each substrate processing apparatus) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure/steps recited in the claim, i.e., the prediction circuitry configured to… so it is unclear whether the function requires some other step or structure or is simply a result of operating the method/system in a certain manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite
1, 7, 8. A state management system, method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising:
an acquisition circuitry configured to continuously acquire data accumulated in each of a plurality of substrate processing apparatuses in real time during operation of the plurality of substrate processing apparatuses, wherein the plurality of substrate processing apparatuses are connected via a network;
an execution circuitry configured to execute, in each predetermined cycle during the operation, a processing of calculating a specific index indicating a state of each substrate processing apparatus of the plurality of substrate processing apparatuses using a plurality of types of data among the data acquired by the acquisition circuitry, wherein the execution circuitry includes a health level calculation unit, an operation rate calculation unit, and a production rate calculation unit;
a display control circuitry configured to display time-series data indicating a time-series change in the specific index calculated by the execution circuitry for each substrate processing apparatus of the plurality of substrate processing apparatuses; and
a prediction circuitry configured to calculate a predictive value of a time-series change in the specific index in a future for each substrate processing apparatus of the plurality of substrate processing apparatuses, based on the time-series data of the specific index calculated by the execution circuitry, wherein the predictive value is used to schedule preventive maintenance of each substrate processing apparatus, wherein the processing executed by the execution circuitry includes:
calculating a first index indicating a degree of normality of each substrate processing apparatus by combining a plurality of types of data selected in advance from among the data acquired by the acquisition circuitry;
calculating a second index indicating a rate at which each substrate processing apparatus was in the operable state, by extracting data indicating whether or not each substrate processing apparatus has been in an operable state from among the data acquired by the acquisition circuitry; and
calculating a third index indicating productivity of each substrate processing apparatus by extracting data indicating a product produced by the substrate processing apparatus from among the data acquired by the acquisition circuitry, and
wherein the display control circuitry displays the time-series data having at least one of the first index, second index, and third index as the specific index.
2. The state management system according to claim 1, wherein the execution circuitry executes the processing on data of a predetermined target section among the data acquired by the acquisition circuitry.
3. The state management system of claim 1,
wherein the display control circuitry displays the predictive value of the time-series change in the specific index.
4. The state management system according to claim 3, wherein the display control circuitry displays, in time series, the time-series data of the specific index calculated by the execution circuitry and the predictive value of the time-series change in the specific index calculated by the prediction circuitry.
5. The state management system according to claim 4, wherein the display control circuitry converts time-series data indicating the time-series change for a designated period to time-series data indicating the time-series change for a period newly set each time setting of the designated period is changed, and displays the converted time-series data.
6. The state management system according to claim 1, wherein the display control circuitry displays, for each of a plurality of apparatuses, the time-series changes in the specific index calculated for each of the plurality of apparatuses.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by circuitry/computer/program and a display, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the circuitry/computer/program and a display language, acquiring data and making calculations, encompasses a user thinking about or manually acquiring data and making calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – by circuitry/computer/program and a display. The circuitry/computer/program is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The display adds only insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include 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, the additional element(s) of the circuitry/computer/program amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The display adds only insignificant extra solution activity that is well-known, routine, and conventional (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 38-43 of the instant disclosure). The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant continues to argue limitations that are not claimed. Circuitry or a method step to acquire data from processing apparatuses is not claiming processing apparatuses and not claiming processing apparatuses that are connected via a network, and as indicated above, it is not even clear how applicant intends the processing apparatuses that are connected via a network to further limit the scope of acquisition circuitry.
Applicant argues calculation units are additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. Calculations can be performed in the mind or manually with a pen and paper.
Applicant argues real-time data acquisition and a prediction somehow integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. A prediction and scheduling is a calculation that can be performed in the mind or manually with a pen and paper. Real-time is broad in view of the disclosure and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and at bests add nothing more than circuitry/computer/program that was already addressed as being recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Applicant argued that the control circuitry configured to automatically adjust operational parameters of the apparatus based on the specific index calculated by the execution circuitry integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. The examiner submits that operational parameters is broad in view of one of ordinary skill in the art and the instant disclosure which teaches automatic adjustments to prediction calculations (see e.g., paragraph 58), and therefore the calculation remains an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues continuous monitoring during active equipment operation cannot be performed mentally. The examiner disagrees. A person can continuously monitor and make calculations during active equipment operation.
In response to applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., network based coordination, performing maintenance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues real-time cannot be performed mentally. The examiner disagrees because the claims are broad and the cycle can be days, therefore real-time calculations can be made mentally. Additionally, even if real-time required computer processing, the additional element(s) – by circuitry/computer/program is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claimed system is integrated into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. The claim does not include 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, the additional element(s) of the circuitry/computer/program amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The display adds only insignificant extra solution activity that is well-known, routine, and conventional (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 38-43 of the instant disclosure). The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896