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 the Claims
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claims 1-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OGINO (US 2018/0165438 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, OGINO discloses an apparatus start-up method comprising: storing start-up condition execution status information used as authentication information when an apparatus (¶ 42: the apparatus is a manufacturing machine) is started, (¶ 45-46, Fig. 1 “second operation permission/inhibition information storage” 35, ¶ 75-82, Fig. 11: User identification is maintained in a storage unit on a second device in order to authenticate the operation request received from a first device. In addition to the user authentication information, a plurality of conditions are maintained and checked by the second control device to determine whether an operator’s identification information needs to be re-validated. The stored user authentication information and operation status conditions are therefore “start-up execution status information” used as authentication information.)
and start-up condition management information for managing a condition for validating the start-up condition execution status information; (¶ 38-40, Fig. 1 “first operation permission/inhibition information storage” 23: Operator identification information and information related to permission or inhibition to perform an operation on a manufacturing machine is stored on a first device. The information is used as information to authenticate the operator when the operator requests operation of the machine (i.e. when the apparatus is started). The first device therefore manages the information used for validation of the operator.)
monitoring an operation state of the apparatus; (¶ 47, 50, 52, 54-55, 63: The machine is continuously monitored and a log of machine operations is maintained. The current operation status, including connection status and who is operating the machine, is also monitored. A time duration since a start of operation and since a stop of operation is also monitored.)
and validating the start-up condition execution status information when the condition managed by the start-up condition management information is satisfied by referring to the start- up condition management information. (¶ 44-45, 75-82, 85-87: User identification information and operation permission information corresponding to “the start-up condition execution status information” is validated according to the stored information, which corresponds to “the start-up condition management information”. After operation has started, it is determined whether the validation needs to be reprocessed based on a plurality of conditions, such as elapsed time since operation start or operation stop.)
Regarding Claim 18, OGINO further discloses further comprising: when the apparatus is started, determining whether or not a password is requested based on the start-up condition execution status information (¶ 75-80, Fig. 11: After the apparatus is started, a determination is made whether operator identification needs to be re-executed. This is done based on start-up condition execution status information, such as whether identification processing was attempted in one of the identification units, whether there is an instruction to re-execute it from a machine, communication issues, or if a predetermined time has elapsed. See ¶ 38: The user identification information includes an ID and password.)
and an elapsed time from apparatus operation stop. (¶ 63, 80: When an operation unit is not operated (i.e. stopped) for a predetermined period of time, re-execution of operator identification process, such as by receiving a password, is requested.)
Regarding Claim 20, OGINO further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform the apparatus start-up method of Claim 17. (¶ 37, 42, Fig. 1 control device 32 includes a memory 35 and the program to perform the apparatus start-up method of claim 17.)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGINO (US 2018/0165438 A1) in view of MIZUGUCHI (US 2019/0221460 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, OGINO teaches all the limitations of claim 17, on which claim 19 depends.
OGINO therefore teaches comprising: the apparatus start-up method of Claim 17
OGINO does not teach that the apparatus start-up method is comprised within a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device… and processing a substrate.
However, MIZUGUCHI, which is directed to a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus, including an authentication program (¶ 135), teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device… and processing a substrate. (¶ 35-36, 39, Figs. 2-3: A semiconductor substrate wafer W is processed within multiple chambers of a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the start-up determination and user authentication processes for operating manufacturing equipment taught by OGINO by applying the methods to a semiconductor manufacturing process for processing a substrate as taught by MIZUGUCHI. Since the references are similarly directed to user authentication within manufacturing environments, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Such an implementation would merely amount to applying the methods of OGINO to a specific type of environment. Furthermore, as taught by MIZUGUCHI (¶ 28-29), improved authentication methods are needed in a device manufacturing environment in order to prevent leakage of information to competitors. Application of OGINO’s methods, which are also at least partly to improve system security (see ¶ 6, 43, 62), would have been an advantageous modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 1, OGINO teaches a main controller configured to be capable of controlling the processing of the substrate; (¶ 40-42, Fig. 1: An operation unit 38 is a main controller of a manufacturing machine 31. A material or product produced by a manufacturing machine would be equivalent to a “substrate”. The operating unit is therefore capable of controlling the processing of a substrate.)
a storage configured to be capable of storing start-up condition execution status information used to determine whether or not a start-up condition is executed when the main controller is started, (¶ 45-46, Fig. 1 “second operation permission/inhibition information storage” 35, ¶ 75-82, Fig. 11: User identification is maintained in a storage unit on a second device in order to authenticate the operation request of a machine operation unit 38 (i.e. the main controller) received from a first device. In addition to the user authentication information, a plurality of conditions are maintained and checked by the second control device to determine whether an operator’s identification information needs to be re-validated. The stored user authentication information and operation status conditions are therefore “start-up execution status information” used as authentication information.)
start-up condition management information for managing the start-up condition, (¶ 38-40, Fig. 1 “first operation permission/inhibition information storage” 23: Operator identification information and information related to permission or inhibition to perform an operation on a manufacturing machine is stored on a first device. The information is used as information to authenticate the operator when the operator requests operation of the machine (i.e. when the main controller is started). The first device therefore manages the information used for validation of the operator. For example, in Fig. 2, it shows a user A is permitted to operate machine driving, parameter changes, and program editing.)
and a state of the start-up condition management information; (¶ 48-50, ¶ 75-80, Figs. 4, 11: A state of the management information includes a history of operations performed on the machine as well as the current state of the operation, such as the current operator of the machine, a communication status, a time since start, a time since the machine has not been operated, and current identification requests from the machine, the first device, or the second device.)
and a start-up condition controller (¶ 75, Fig. 1: controller 32 with second operator identification unit 34 is a start-up condition controller) configured to be capable of validating the start-up condition execution status information when the start-up condition management information satisfies a predetermined condition. (¶ 44-45, 75-82, 85-87: User identification information and operation permission information corresponding to “the start-up condition execution status information” is validated according to the stored information, which corresponds to “the start-up condition management information”. After operation has started, it is determined whether the validation needs to be re-processed based on a plurality of conditions, such as elapsed time since operation start or operation stop.)
While OGINO is directed to a manufacturing process in general, OGINO does not teach the above system being comprised within a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber configured to be capable of processing a substrate;
However, MIZUGUCHI, which is directed to a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus, including an authentication program (¶ 135), teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber configured to be capable of processing a substrate; (¶ 35-36, 39, Figs. 2-3: A semiconductor substrate wafer W is processed within multiple chambers of a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus. The apparatus includes a controller for controlling the processing of the substrate.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the start-up determination and user authentication processes for operating manufacturing equipment taught by OGINO by applying the methods to a semiconductor manufacturing process for processing a substrate as taught by MIZUGUCHI. Since the references are similarly directed to user authentication within manufacturing environments, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Such an implementation would merely amount to applying the methods of OGINO to a specific type of environment. Furthermore, as taught by MIZUGUCHI (¶ 28-29), improved authentication methods are needed in a device manufacturing environment in order to prevent leakage of information to competitors. Application of OGINO’s methods, which are also at least partly to improve system security (see ¶ 6, 43, 62), would have been an advantageous modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI further teaches wherein the start-up condition execution status information is maintained in the storage even when an operation of the main controller is stopped. (OGINO, ¶ 45: The status information, including user identification information, is maintained in the storage unit 35 and is periodically updated. It is therefore maintained in the storage even when operation of the main controller (i.e. the operation unit 38, see ¶ 69) is stopped.)
Regarding Claim 3, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI further teaches wherein the substrate processing apparatus is electrically connected to a management device, (OGINO, ¶ 40-41, Fig. 1: The manufacturing machine 31 is both electrically connected to a control device 32 and a control device 20. The control devices 32 and 20 are connected via communication units 25 and 37. The devices manage the operation of the manufacturing machine, which in view of MIZUGUCHI would be a substrate processing apparatus.)
and wherein the start-up condition management information is information of the management device which is recognized by the main controller, (OGINO, ¶ 39-40: The management device 20 stores the start-up condition management information which is recognized by the operation unit 38, i.e. the main controller.)
and the predetermined condition is a case where the recognized information is acquired for the first time. (OGINO, ¶ 38, 60, 70: The operator provides their identification information for the first time and operation of the machine begins after the information is validated. See ¶ 75: If identification processing needs to be re-executed in order to continue operation of a machine, it would have been obvious for the machine to be started after a first processing of the identification information.)
Regarding Claim 5, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI further teaches wherein the storage is configured to be capable of updating and storing the start-up condition execution status information according to an instruction from the main controller. (OGINO, ¶ 41, 45, 47: Operation status information corresponding to the operation history of the machine, including the status of its operation, is periodically updated according to an instruction from the operating unit. The identification information included for determining the start-up condition of the operating unit is also periodically updated and stored in the storage unit 35.)
Regarding Claim 6, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI further teaches wherein the start-up condition controller is configured to be capable of performing determination of the start-up condition from a connection state with the management device. (OGINO, ¶ 63, 79, Fig. 11 S204: If there is a problem in the connection state between the operation unit and the management device (i.e. the communication unit 25), the operator identification processing is re-executed. Therefore, based on the condition of the connection state, a start-up condition is determined.)
Regarding Claim 7, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI further teaches wherein the storage is configured to be capable of storing operation stop information of the main controller, and wherein when the start-up condition execution status information is valid, the start-up condition controller is configured to be capable of calculating an elapsed time from an operation stop of the main controller using the operation stop information and start-up information of the main controller; and notifying the main controller of a result of comparison with a first threshold which is a pre-defined threshold of the elapsed time. (OGINO, ¶ 63, 80: When an operation unit is not operated (i.e. stopped) for a predetermined period of time, re-execution of operator identification process, such as by receiving a password, is requested. In other words, an elapsed time since the operating unit was stopped is calculated and compared to a predetermined threshold. If the elapsed time surpasses the threshold, then re-execution of the operator identification processing is required, i.e. a “start-up condition execution status information” is determined to be valid.)
Regarding Claim 8, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI further teaches wherein when the start-up condition execution status information is invalid, the start-up condition controller is capable of notifying the main controller of a continuous operation of the main controller. (OGINO, ¶ 75, 82, Fig. 11: If none of the conditions are satisfied (i.e. the “start-up condition execution status information” is invalid), the controller continues to accept operation of the operation unit 38. Operation would therefore be continuous if none of the conditions for re-executing identification processing are satisfied.)
Regarding Claim 9, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI further teaches wherein when determining that password authentication is required based on a notification from the start-up condition controller, the main controller is capable of instructing an input part, which performs an operation of the main controller, to request an input of a password. (OGINO, ¶ 38-40, 43-46: An authentication process is carried out by the second controller (i.e. the start-up condition control). The authentication includes a user password, and the operator of the machine enters the password via some type of input unit.)
Regarding Claim 10, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI further teaches wherein the main controller includes a display capable of displaying a state of the substrate processing apparatus, and is capable of instructing the display to display a password request. (OGINO, ¶ 67: Operation history including a state of the manufacturing process, which in view of MIZUGUCHI would be a semiconductor substrate process, is displayed on a display unit. ¶ 38: A password is obtained by an operator through an input unit, which must involve a displayed request for the password to the operator.
MIZUGUCHI, ¶ 129-130, 190-191: Status information of a substrate processing apparatus is displayed.)
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGINO (US 2018/0165438 A1) in view of MIZUGUCHI (US 20190221460 A1) and further in view of BATAPATI (US 2022/0253311 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 4 depends.
OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI does not teach further comprising: a counter configured to count the number of times of operation stop of the main controller, wherein the start-up condition management information is information of the number of times of operation stop counted by the counter, and wherein the predetermined condition is a case of exceeding a predefined number of times of operation stop of the main controller.
However, BATAPATI, which is directed to an industrial measurement apparatus, teaches further comprising: a counter configured to count the number of times of operation stop of the main controller, wherein the start-up condition management information is information of the number of times of operation stop counted by the counter, and wherein the predetermined condition is a case of exceeding a predefined number of times of operation stop of the main controller. (¶ 54, 83-84, Fig. 5 operations 348-350: A counter counts the number of times a controller stops operating. If the number of stops exceeds a threshold, a determination is made that the operation of the controller needs to be restarted under a different configuration. The count of operation stops exceeding a threshold is therefore a condition that determines an operation needs to be restarted.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the evaluation of authentication information and operation status of a substrate manufacturing apparatus in order to determine whether to start execution of a process taught by OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI by including a condition where a predetermined number of operations stops of a controller is recorded above a threshold as taught by BATAPATI. While BATAPATI is not directed to substrate manufacturing, it is analogous prior art as it is directed to a similar technical solution of monitoring a number of times a controller stops operating and determining that a restart process should be executed based on the number. The solution is also in the context of an industrial process. Since OGINO (¶ 75, Fig. 11) teaches a plurality of operation conditions that determine when an authentication process should be re-executed, such a combination would amount to including a stoppage counter and threshold as one of the conditions. As suggested by BATAPATI (¶ 75, 83), using this condition to determine when an operation needs to be reset or restarted would aid in “maintain[ing] continual execution of [a] time-critical software application.”
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGINO (US 2018/0165438 A1) in view of MIZUGUCHI (US 20190221460 A1) and further in view of RYU (US 2019/0180010 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 11 depends.
While OGINO teaches that the main controller maintains a password corresponding to the operators of the machine units, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI does not explicitly teach wherein the main controller further includes a password calculator capable of calculating a password and outputting a calculation password that is the calculated password, and wherein the main controller is capable of instructing the password calculator to output the calculation password.
However, RYU, which is directed to managing user authentication, teaches wherein the main controller further includes a password calculator capable of calculating a password and outputting a calculation password that is the calculated password, and wherein the main controller is capable of instructing the password calculator to output the calculation password. (¶ 51-53, Figs. 4-5: A password is generated using a password generator, or calculator, that uses a hashing function. The generated password is compared to the input password input by a debugging server requesting access to information in a storage device (see ¶ 31) in order to determine an authentication result.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user identification process for operating manufacturing equipment taught by OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI by including a password calculator for calculating and outputting a password for an authentication process as taught by RYU. While RYU is not directed to a substrate processing apparatus, it is analogous prior art since it is pertinent to the problem of authentication during communication between different computing systems. As taught by RYU (¶ 4-5), such a password calculation process would have improved the security of any type of system, protecting it from issues such as dictionary attacks and brute-force attacks.
Regarding Claim 12, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI and RYU teaches wherein the storage is capable of storing the calculation password only when the main controller is in operation. (RYU, ¶ 32, 51: A calculation password is generated from a seed stored in a buffer memory, which would only be stored when the controller is in operation. ¶ 86-87: Furthermore, a mismatch count value is maintained regardless of a controller being rebooted. The password would be different for every attempt, so when the controller is rebooted the previous password would not be recovered, just the mismatch count.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 11 applies to claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI and RYU teaches wherein the start-up condition controller is capable of receiving an input password, which is input by an input part, (OGINO, ¶ 38-40, 43-46: An authentication process is carried out by the second controller (i.e. the start-up condition control). The authentication includes a user password, and the operator of the machine enters the password via some type of input unit.)
confirming a match with the calculation password, and notifying the main controller of a password authentication result. (OGINO, ¶ 38, 46, 64, 84-87: If user identification information matches with stored information, an operating unit is notified of the authentication result and an operation is executed by the operating unit of the machine.
RYU, ¶ 68, 72: If the passwords match, an authentication result is communicated to the controller.)
Regarding Claim 14, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI and RYU teaches wherein the start-up condition controller is capable of counting the number of mismatches when the input password and the calculated password are mismatched, and notifying the main controller that the operation of the main controller is not possible when the number of mismatches exceeds a predetermined second threshold. (RYU, ¶ 30, 33-35, 42: Access to a controller and a storage associated with the controller is blocked if a count of a number of mismatches between the generated password and an input password exceed a threshold.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 11 applies to claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI and RYU teaches wherein the main controller receives the password authentication result and if the operation of the main controller is not possible, stops the operation of the main controller. (OGINO, ¶ 46, 64: If an operator is identified, the operation unit is notified of the result and the operation unit performs the requested operation. Otherwise, operation of the main controller would be stopped. ¶ 82: Operation is also stopped when authentication needs to be re-executed.
RYU, ¶ 30: If there is a mismatch between the passwords, an authentication result is a failure and communication between the two controllers is not possible.)
Regarding Claim 16, OGINO in view of MIZUGUCHI and RYU teaches wherein the main controller receives the password authentication result and if the operation of the main controller is not possible, (OGINO, ¶ 46, 64: If an operator is identified, the operation unit is notified of the result and the operation unit performs the requested operation. Otherwise, operation of the main controller is not possible. ¶ 45, Fig. 3: Information regarding what operations are inhibited (i.e. not possible) in the case of successful user authentication is also stored.)
the main controller is capable of instructing a display to display a message indicating that the operation of the main controller is not possible. (OGINO, ¶ 67: A display unit displays operation history information shown in Fig. 9. It would have been an obvious modification for the display to also indicate that operation of the operating unit is not possible if an authentication result failed. In other words, an operator would be notified that they are not authenticated in the same way that they would be notified that they require re-authentication, as discussed in Fig. 11 and ¶ 75-80. It would have been further obvious for the information illustrated in Fig. 3, which shows which operations are not possible for each operator, to be displayed by the display unit. Such an implementation would have improved the user experience, such as for an administrator, to review attempts to access operation of a machine’s operating unit or to manage the permissions.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seta (US 2002/0143422 A1) teaches an authentication process for a manufacturing apparatus. (Figs. 3-4)
Watanabe (US 2021/0150004 A1) teaches an authentication process for a numerical control device where in a case of unsuccessful authorization, an error response is transmitted. (Abstract, ¶ 27, Fig. 7)
Kawai (US 2014/0316602 A1) teaches recording of start and stop times for manufacturing devices and conditions for when each device should start. (Figs. 4, 6)
Kobayashi (US 2002/0129284 A1) teaches a startup condition storage for starting a main unit of a controller. (claim 2, Fig. 2)
Bessegato (US 2017/0364360 A1) teaches a user authentication process, including an authentication counter, for a power tool. (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118