DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 10 April 2023 for application 18/297,850 filed 10 April 2023.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected.
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 .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
learning unit configured to decide (claim 1) … performs (claim 1) … evaluating (claim 1) … adjusts (claim 1) … decides (claim 2) … obtains (claim 3) … decides (claim 3) … perform (claim 16) … evaluating (claim 16) … adjusts (claim 16) …
learning apparatus configured to decide (claim 4) … performs (claim 4) … evaluating (claim 4) … adjusts (claim 4) … decides (claim 5) … obtains (claim 6) … decides (claim 6) …
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13, 15-16 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.
Regarding claims 1-6, 16, various claim limitations reciting learning unit configured to decide (claim 1) … performs (claim 1) … evaluating (claim 1) … adjusts (claim 1) … decides (claim 2) … obtains (claim 3) … decides (claim 3) … perform (claim 16) … evaluating (claim 16) … adjusts (claim 16) …; learning apparatus configured to decide (claim 4) … performs (claim 4) … evaluating (claim 4) … adjusts (claim 4) … decides (claim 5) … obtains (claim 6) … decides (claim 6) … invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. There is no clear disclosure of the particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the functions of the claims. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the functions can be performed in any number of ways including in hardware, in software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As noted above, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-3, 5-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly on claims 1-6, 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-6, 16 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of:
learning unit configured to decide (claim 1) … performs (claim 1) … evaluating (claim 1) … adjusts (claim 1) … decides (claim 2) … obtains (claim 3) … decides (claim 3) … perform (claim 16) … evaluating (claim 16) … adjusts (claim 16) …
learning apparatus configured to decide (claim 4) … performs (claim 4) … evaluating (claim 4) … adjusts (claim 4) … decides (claim 5) … obtains (claim 6) … decides (claim 6) …
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly on claims 1-6, 16.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) management apparatus for managing a processing apparatus.
The limitation of … decide the parameter of the neural network …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... evaluating a reward obtained from a control result of the target object …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... relatively adjusts rewards regarding the respective drive axes in accordance with required precisions for the respective drive axes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – management apparatus, processing apparatus, driver, controller, learning unit. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network, reinforcement learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... a driver configured to drive a target object in regard to a plurality of drive axes, and a controller configured to control the driver using a neural network for which a parameter for outputting a manipulated variable to the target object is decided by reinforcement learning ... which is simply additional information regarding the computer components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
management apparatus, processing apparatus, driver, controller, learning unit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
neural network, reinforcement learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the computer components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) management apparatus for managing a processing apparatus.
The limitation of ... decides respective weights in the weighted sum in accordance with the required precisions for the respective drive axes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the reward evaluated in the reinforcement learning is represented by a weighted sum of the rewards regarding the respective drive axes which is simply additional information regarding the reward, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
additional information regarding the reward do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) management apparatus for managing a processing apparatus.
The limitation of ... decides weights corresponding to the obtained required precisions based on a correspondence between the required precision and the weight that is obtained in advance, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the learning unit obtains the required precisions for the respective drive axes …, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system.
The limitation of … decide the parameter of the neural network …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... evaluating a reward obtained from a control result of the target object …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... relatively adjusts rewards regarding the respective drive axes in accordance with required precisions for the respective drive axes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – processing system, processing apparatus, driver, controller, learning apparatus. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network, reinforcement learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... a driver configured to drive a target object in regard to a plurality of drive axes, and a controller configured to control the driver using a neural network for which a parameter for outputting a manipulated variable to the target object is decided by reinforcement learning which is simply additional information regarding the computer components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
management apparatus, processing apparatus, driver, controller, learning unit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
neural network, reinforcement learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the computer components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system.
The limitation of ... decides respective weights in the weighted sum in accordance with the required precisions for the respective drive axes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the reward evaluated in the reinforcement learning is represented by a weighted sum of the rewards regarding the respective drive axes which is simply additional information regarding the reward, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
additional information regarding the reward do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system.
The limitation of ... decides weights corresponding to the obtained required precisions based on a correspondence between the required precision and the weight that is obtained in advance, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the learning apparatus obtains the required precisions for the respective drive axes …, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 4 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the system of claim 4 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation, the controller includes: a first compensator configured to generate a first command value based on the control deviation; a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on the control deviation; and an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value, and the neural network is included in the second compensator.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation, the controller includes: a first compensator configured to generate a first command value based on the control deviation; a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on the control deviation; and an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value, and the neural network is included in the second compensator which is simply additional information regarding the computer components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – first compensator, second compensator, adder. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
first compensator, second compensator, adder amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the computer components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 4 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the system of claim 4 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the processing apparatus is a positioning apparatus configured to move a movable device serving as the target object on a surface parallel to a first direction and a second direction that are orthogonal to each other.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the processing apparatus is a positioning apparatus configured to move a movable device serving as the target object on a surface parallel to a first direction and a second direction that are orthogonal to each other which is simply additional information regarding the components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – positioning apparatus, movable device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
positioning apparatus, movable device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the system of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the positioning apparatus includes a single guide serving as a guide that restrains a position of the movable device in the second direction, the movable device includes: a first movable device movable in the first direction while guided by the guide; a second movable device including a first end and a second end, the first end being connected to the first movable device via a rotation bearing and moving on the surface; and a third movable device movable within a predetermined range between the first end and the second end while guided by the second movable device, and the driver includes: a first driver configured to drive the first end of the second movable device in the first direction; and a second driver configured to drive the second end of the second movable device in the first direction.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the positioning apparatus includes a single guide serving as a guide that restrains a position of the movable device in the second direction, the movable device includes: a first movable device movable in the first direction while guided by the guide; a second movable device including a first end and a second end, the first end being connected to the first movable device via a rotation bearing and moving on the surface; and a third movable device movable within a predetermined range between the first end and the second end while guided by the second movable device, and the driver includes: a first driver configured to drive the first end of the second movable device in the first direction; and a second driver configured to drive the second end of the second movable device in the first direction which is simply additional information regarding the components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – guide, first movable device, second movable device, rotation bearing, third movable device, first driver, second driver. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
guide, first movable device, second movable device, rotation bearing, third movable device, first driver, second driver amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 4 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the system of claim 4 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the processing apparatus is an anti-vibration apparatus configured to reduce vibrations transmitted to a target object.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the processing apparatus is an anti-vibration apparatus configured to reduce vibrations transmitted to a target object which is simply additional information regarding the components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – anti-vibration apparatus. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
anti-vibration apparatus amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 11 carries out the system of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the anti-vibration apparatus includes an anti-vibration table on which the target object is mounted, and an accelerometer arranged on the anti-vibration table, the driver is configured to drive the anti-vibration table, the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation, the controller includes: a first compensator configured to generate a first command value based on a speed deviation; a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on an acceleration of the anti-vibration table measured by the accelerometer; and an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value, and the neural network is included in the second compensator.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the anti-vibration apparatus includes an anti-vibration table on which the target object is mounted, and an accelerometer arranged on the anti-vibration table, the driver is configured to drive the anti-vibration table, the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation, the controller includes: a first compensator configured to generate a first command value based on a speed deviation; a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on an acceleration of the anti-vibration table measured by the accelerometer; and an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value, and the neural network is included in the second compensator which is simply additional information regarding the components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – anti-vibration table, accelerometer, first compensator, second compensator, adder. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
anti-vibration table, accelerometer, first compensator, second compensator, adder amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 4 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the system of claim 4 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the processing apparatus is a lithography apparatus configured to perform processing of transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate serving as the target object.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the processing apparatus is a lithography apparatus configured to perform processing of transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate serving as the target object which is simply additional information regarding the components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – lithography apparatus. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
lithography apparatus amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a(n) system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) processing system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 12 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the system of claim 12 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the lithography apparatus includes a stage device on which the substrate serving as the target object is mounted, an alignment detector configured to measure a misalignment between the original and the substrate, and a position measurement device configured to measure a position of the stage device, the driver is configured to drive the stage device, the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation, the controller includes: a first compensator configured to generate a first command value to the driver based on a position deviation serving as a difference between a target value and a measurement value obtained by the position measurement device; a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on the misalignment measured by the alignment detector; and an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value, and the neural network is included in the second compensator.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the lithography apparatus includes a stage device on which the substrate serving as the target object is mounted, an alignment detector configured to measure a misalignment between the original and the substrate, and a position measurement device configured to measure a position of the stage device, the driver is configured to drive the stage device, the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation, the controller includes: a first compensator configured to generate a first command value to the driver based on a position deviation serving as a difference between a target value and a measurement value obtained by the position measurement device; a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on the misalignment measured by the alignment detector; and an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value, and the neural network is included in the second compensator which is simply additional information regarding the components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – stage device, alignment detector, position measurement device, first compensator, second compensator, adder. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
stage device, alignment detector, position measurement device, first compensator, second compensator, adder amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) management method of managing a processing apparatus.
The limitation of deciding the parameter of the neural network ... including evaluation of a reward obtained from a control result of the target object by the controller, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining required precisions for the respective drive axes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of relatively adjusting rewards regarding the respective drive axes in accordance with the obtained required precisions for the respective drive axes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – processing apparatus, driver, controller. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network, reinforcement learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites a processing apparatus including a driver configured to drive a target object in regard to a plurality of drive axes, and a controller configured to control the driver using a neural network for which a parameter for outputting a manipulated variable to the target object is decided by reinforcement learning which is simply additional information regarding the components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
processing apparatus, driver, controller amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
neural network, reinforcement learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) article manufacturing method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 13 is applicable here since claim 15 carries out the system of claim 13 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate by using the lithography apparatus in the processing system defined in claim 13; and processing the substrate having undergone the transferring, wherein an article is obtained from the substrate having undergone the processing.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate by using the lithography apparatus in the processing system defined in claim 13, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites processing the substrate having undergone the transferring, wherein an article is obtained from the substrate having undergone the processing which is simply applying the components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a(n) apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) management apparatus for managing a processing apparatus.
The limitation of ... evaluating a reward obtained from a control result of the target object by the controller, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... adjusts, in accordance with a requirement from a user, the neural network to satisfy the requirement, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – management apparatus, processing apparatus, controller, learning unit. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network, reinforcement learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites a controller configured to control a target object using a neural network, a learning unit configured to perform reinforcement learning of the neural network ... which is simply additional information regarding the components, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
management apparatus, processing apparatus, controller, learning unit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
neural network, reinforcement learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the components do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano et al. (US 2020/0233316 A1 – Control Device, Lithography Apparatus, Measurement Apparatus, Processing Apparatus, Planarizing Apparatus and Article of Manufacturing Method, hereinafter referred to as “Asano”) in view of Egashira, Shinichi (US 2019/0064679 A1 – Pattern Forming Apparatus, Deciding Method, Storage Medium, Information Processing Apparatus, and Article Manufacturing Method, hereinafter referred to as “Egashira”).
Regarding claim 1, Asano teaches a management apparatus for managing a processing apparatus (Asano, [0014] - teaches an imprint apparatus including a mechanical structure and a control system; Asano, [0018] - teaches control system including processing units) including a driver configured to drive a target object in regard to a plurality of drive axes (Asano, [0014] – teaches a wafer stage for a wafer [object]; Asano, [0015] – teaches moving wafer stage in x and y directions based on a driver), and a controller configured to control the driver using a neural network for which a parameter for outputting a manipulated variable to the target object is decided by reinforcement learning (Asano, [0020] – teaches a controller which outputs a manipulated variable to the wafer stage using a neural network; Asano, [0022] – teaches adjusting neural network parameter using reinforcement learning; see also Asano, Fig. 4), the management apparatus comprising:
a learning unit configured to decide the parameter of the neural network by reinforcement learning (Asano, [0022] – teaches adjusting neural network parameter using reinforcement learning).
While Asano teaches adjusting neural network parameters using reinforcement learning, Asano does not explicitly teach wherein the learning unit performs the reinforcement learning by evaluating a reward obtained from a control result of the target object by the controller, and relatively adjusts rewards regarding the respective drive axes in accordance with required precisions for the respective drive axes.
Egashira teaches wherein the learning unit performs the reinforcement learning (Egashira, [0058] – teaches reinforcement learning) by evaluating a reward obtained from a control result of the target object by the controller (Egashira, [0061] – teaches reward obtained based on alignment of the target object), and relatively adjusts rewards regarding the respective drive axes in accordance with required precisions for the respective drive axes (Egashira, [0061]-[0062] – teaches adjusting the reward based on the positional alignment; see also Egashira, [0039]-[0043] – discussing positional alignment along plurality of axes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asano with the teachings of Egashira in order to acquire an optimal action in an unknown environment in the field of manufacturing environments (Egashira, [0051] – “In the first embodiment, a template shape (a parameter indicating the shape of a template) used in prealigmnent is optimized by using reinforcement learning. Reinforcement learning is a learning method of acquiring an optimum action in an unknown environment through trial and error based on reward data...”).
Regarding claim 2, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1 as noted above. Egashira further teaches
wherein the reward evaluated in the reinforcement learning is represented by a weighted sum of the rewards regarding the respective drive axes (Egashira, [0061]-[0062] – teaches evaluating the reward based on the sum of degree of correlation [weight] at the true position and the degree of correlation [weight] at a position other than the true position; see also Egashira, [0039]-[0043] – discussing positional alignment along plurality of axes), and
the learning unit decides respective weights in the weighted sum in accordance with the required precisions for the respective drive axes (Egashira, [0039]-[0044] – teaches determining degree of correlation [weights] based on the position with respect to a mark [precision]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asano and Egashira in order to evaluate the reward to acquire an optimal action in an unknown environment (Egashira, [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the apparatus of claim 2 as noted above. Egashira teaches wherein the learning unit obtains the required precisions for the respective drive axes (Egashira, [0061] – teaches the true position [required precisions] of the mark; see also Egashira, [0062] – teaching thresholds), and decides weights corresponding to the obtained required precisions based on a correspondence between the required precision and the weight that is obtained in advance (Egashira, [0039]-[0044] – teaches determining degree of correlation [weights] based on the position with respect to a mark [precision] given a predetermined equation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asano and Egashira in order to evaluate the reward to acquire an optimal action in an unknown environment (Egashira, [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, it is the processing system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Asano in view of Egashira for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Asano in view of Egashira for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 4 as noted above. Asano further teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation (Asano, [0020] – teaches controller output driving a wafer stage based on a control deviation), the controller includes:
a first compensator configured to generate a first command value based on the control deviation (Asano, [0020] – teaches a first controller generating a first manipulated variable; see Asano, Fig. 4);
a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on the control deviation (Asano, [0020] – teaches a second controller generating a second manipulated variable; see Asano, Fig. 4); and
an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value (Asano, [0020] – teaches an adder which sums the first and second manipulated values), and
the neural network is included in the second compensator (Asano, [0020] – teaches the neural network in the second controller; see Asano, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asano and Egashira for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 8, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 4 as noted above. Asano further teaches wherein the processing apparatus is a positioning apparatus configured to move a movable device serving as the target object on a surface parallel to a first direction and a second direction that are orthogonal to each other (Asano, [0014]-[0015] teaches moving a wafer stage and a wafer in x and y directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asano and Egashira for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 4 as noted above. Asano further teaches wherein the processing apparatus is a lithography apparatus (Asano, [0013] – teaches a lithography apparatus) configured to perform processing of transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate serving as the target object (Asano, [0013] – teaches a lithography apparatus which transfers a pattern to a substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asano and Egashira for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 12 as noted above. Asano further teaches wherein the lithography apparatus includes a stage device on which the substrate serving as the target object is mounted (Asano, [0014] – teaches a wafer stage for the wafer [object]), an alignment detector configured to measure a misalignment between the original and the substrate (Asano, [0017] – teaches an alignment detector to detect misalignment), and a position measurement device configured to measure a position of the stage device (Asano, [0016] – teaches a position measuring unit to measure position of the wafer stage),
the driver is configured to drive the stage device (Asano, [0015] – teaches moving wafer stage in x and y directions based on a driver),
the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation (Asano, [0020] – teaches controller output driving a wafer stage based on a control deviation),
the controller includes:
a first compensator configured to generate a first command value to the driver based on a position deviation serving as a difference between a target value and a measurement value obtained by the position measurement device (Asano, [0020] – teaches a first controller generating a first manipulated variable based on a difference between measured position and desired position; see Asano, Fig. 4);
a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on the misalignment measured by the alignment detector (Asano, [0020] – teaches a second controller generating a second manipulated variable based on stage deviation ; see Asano, Fig. 4); and
an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value (Asano, [0020] – teaches an adder which sums the first and second manipulated values), and
the neural network is included in the second compensator (Asano, [0020] – teaches the neural network in the second controller; see Asano, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asano and Egashira for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Asano teaches a management method of managing a processing apparatus (Asano, [0014] - teaches an imprint apparatus including a mechanical structure and a control system; Asano, [0018] - teaches control system including processing units) including a driver configured to drive a target object in regard to a plurality of drive axes (Asano, [0014] – teaches a wafer stage [driver] moving a wafer [object] along an x-axis and a y-axis), and a controller configured to control the driver using a neural network for which a parameter for outputting a manipulated variable to the target object is decided by reinforcement learning (Asano, [0020] – teaches a controller which outputs a manipulated variable to the wafer stage using a neural network; Asano, [0022] – teaches adjusting neural network parameter using reinforcement learning; see also Asano, Fig. 4), the method comprising:
deciding the parameter of the neural network by reinforcement learning including (Asano, [0022] – teaches adjusting neural network parameter using reinforcement learning).
While Asano teaches adjusting neural network parameters using reinforcement learning, Asano does not explicitly teach evaluation of a reward obtained from a control result of the target object by the controller, wherein the deciding includes: obtaining required precisions for the respective drive axes; and relatively adjusting rewards regarding the respective drive axes in accordance with the obtained required precisions for the respective drive axes.
Egashira teaches deciding the parameter of the neural network by reinforcement learning (Egashira, [0058] – teaches reinforcement learning) including evaluation of a reward obtained from a control result of the target object by the controller (Egashira, [0061] – teaches reward obtained based on alignment of the target object),
wherein the deciding includes:
obtaining required precisions for the respective drive axes (Egashira, [0061] – teaches the true position [required precisions] of the mark; see also Egashira, [0062] – teaching thresholds); and
relatively adjusting rewards regarding the respective drive axes in accordance with the obtained required precisions for the respective drive axes (Egashira, [0061]-[0062] – teaches adjusting the reward based on the positional alignment; see also Egashira, [0039]-[0043] – discussing positional alignment along plurality of axes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asano with the teachings of Egashira in order to acquire an optimal action in an unknown environment in the field of manufacturing environments (Egashira, [0051] – “In the first embodiment, a template shape (a parameter indicating the shape of a template) used in prealigmnent is optimized by using reinforcement learning. Reinforcement learning is a learning method of acquiring an optimum action in an unknown environment through trial and error based on reward data...”).
Regarding claim 15, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 13 as noted above. Asano further teaches an article manufacturing method comprising:
transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate by using the lithography apparatus in the processing system defined in claim 13 (Asano, [0013] – teaches a lithography apparatus which transfers a pattern to a substrate); and
processing the substrate having undergone the transferring (Asano, [0020] – teaches iteratively preforming the imprinting process for a plurality of shot areas),
wherein an article is obtained from the substrate having undergone the processing (Asano, [0020] – teaches imprinting process to generate a wafer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asano and Egashira for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 16, Asano teaches a management apparatus for managing a processing apparatus (Asano, [0014] - teaches an imprint apparatus including a mechanical structure and a control system; Asano, [0018] - teaches control system including processing units) including a controller configured to control a target object using a neural network (Asano, [0020] – teaches a controller which outputs a manipulated variable to the wafer stage using a neural network; Asano, [0022] – teaches adjusting neural network parameter using reinforcement learning; see also Asano, Fig. 4), the apparatus comprising:
a learning unit configured to perform reinforcement learning of the neural network (Asano, [0022] – teaches adjusting neural network parameter using reinforcement learning).
While Asano teaches adjusting neural network parameters using reinforcement learning, Asano does not explicitly teach a learning unit configured to perform reinforcement learning of the neural network by evaluating a reward obtained from a control result of the target object by the controller, wherein the learning unit adjusts, in accordance with a requirement from a user, the neural network to satisfy the requirement.
Egashira teaches
a learning unit configured to perform reinforcement learning of the neural network (Egashira, [0058] – teaches reinforcement learning) by evaluating a reward obtained from a control result of the target object by the controller (Egashira, [0061] – teaches reward obtained based on alignment of the target object),
wherein the learning unit adjusts, in accordance with a requirement from a user (Egashira, [0031] – teaches the substrate at a predetermined position), the neural network to satisfy the requirement (Egashira, [0061]-[0062] – teaches adjusting the reward based on the positional alignment; see also Egashira, [0039]-[0043] – discussing positional alignment along plurality of axes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asano with the teachings of Egashira in order to acquire an optimal action in an unknown environment in the field of manufacturing environments (Egashira, [0051] – “In the first embodiment, a template shape (a parameter indicating the shape of a template) used in prealigmnent is optimized by using reinforcement learning. Reinforcement learning is a learning method of acquiring an optimum action in an unknown environment through trial and error based on reward data...”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Egashira and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2017/0329237 A1 – Positioning Apparatus, Lithography Apparatus, and Method of Manufacturing Article, hereinafter referred to as “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 9, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 8 as noted above. However, Asano in view of Egashira does not explicitly teach wherein the positioning apparatus includes a single guide serving as a guide that restrains a position of the movable device in the second direction, the movable device includes: a first movable device movable in the first direction while guided by the guide; a second movable device including a first end and a second end, the first end being connected to the first movable device via a rotation bearing and moving on the surface; and a third movable device movable within a predetermined range between the first end and the second end while guided by the second movable device, and the driver includes: a first driver configured to drive the first end of the second movable device in the first direction; and a second driver configured to drive the second end of the second movable device in the first direction.
Suzuki teaches wherein the positioning apparatus includes a single guide serving as a guide that restrains a position of the movable device in the second direction (Suzuki, [0043] – teaches a single guide constraining the movable part in the y-direction [second direction]; see also Suzuki Figs. 4-5),
the movable device includes:
a first movable device movable in the first direction while guided by the guide (Suzuki, [0045] – teaches an x movable member [first device] movable in x-direction [first direction] guided by the guide; see also Suzuki Figs. 4-5);
a second movable device including a first end and a second end, the first end being connected to the first movable device via a rotation bearing and moving on the surface (Suzuki, [0045] – teaches x-beam [second device] having first and second ends, the first end connected to x movable member [first device] via a rotation bearing and moving on the surface; see also Suzuki Figs. 4-5); and
a third movable device movable within a predetermined range between the first end and the second end while guided by the second movable device (Suzuki, [0045] – teaches the y-slider [third device] moving between first and second ends of x-beam [second device]; see also Suzuki Figs. 4-5), and
the driver includes:
a first driver configured to drive the first end of the second movable device in the first direction (Suzuki, [0046] – teaches a first driver to drive the first end of the of the x-beam [second device] in the x-direction [first direction]; see also Suzuki Figs. 4-5); and
a second driver configured to drive the second end of the second movable device in the first direction (Suzuki, [0046] – teaches a second driver to drive the second end of the of the x-beam [second device] in the x-direction [first direction]; see also Suzuki Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asano in view of Egashira with the teachings of Suzuki in order to improve making a stroke with regard to rotation larger with a simple arrangement in the field of manufacturing environments (Suzuki, [0008] – “The present invention provides a technique advantageous in making a stroke with regard to rotation larger with a simple arrangement.”).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Egashira and further in view of Wakui et al. (US 2001/0011697 A1 – Active Anti-Vibration and Exposure Apparatus, hereinafter referred to as “Wakui”).
Regarding claim 10, Asano in view of Egashira teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 4 as noted above. However, Asano in view of Egashira does not explicitly teach wherein the processing apparatus is an anti-vibration apparatus configured to reduce vibrations transmitted to a target object.
Wakui teaches wherein the processing apparatus is an anti-vibration apparatus configured to reduce vibrations transmitted to a target object (Wakui, [0001]-[0002] – teaches anti-vibration apparatus to suppress vibrations during semiconductor manufacturing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asano in view of Egashira with the teachings of Wakui in order to improve vibration control in the field of manufacturing environments (Wakui, [0006] – “In order to solve these problems, in recent years, an active anti-vibration apparatus tends to be used. The active anti-vibration apparatus can eliminate the trade-off between anti-vibration and vibration control within a range that can be adjusted by an adjusting mechanism. Above all, when the anti-vibration apparatus adopts feed-forward control, it can realize a performance that cannot be achieved by a passive anti-vibration apparatus.”).
Regarding claim 11, Asano in view of Egashira and further in view of Wakui teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 10 as noted above.
Asano teaches the neural network is included in the second compensator (Asano, [0020] – teaches the neural network in the second controller; see Asano, Fig. 4).
Wakui further teaches wherein the anti-vibration apparatus includes an anti-vibration table on which the target object is mounted (Wakui, [0009] – teaches a wafer stage mounted on an anti-vibration table), and an accelerometer arranged on the anti-vibration table (Wakui, [0009] – teaches acceleration sensors mounted on anti-vibration table),
the driver is configured to drive the anti-vibration table (Wakui, [0027] – teaches a compensator [controller] which generates and output signal to drive the controller/actuator [driver]),
the controller is configured to generate a command value to the driver based on a control deviation (Wakui, [0027] – teaches a compensator [controller] which generates and output signal to drive the controller/actuator [driver]),
the controller includes:
a first compensator configured to generate a first command value based on a speed deviation (Wakui, [0074] – teaches a velocity compensator; see also Wakui, Fig. 6);
a second compensator configured to generate a second command value based on an acceleration of the anti-vibration table (Wakui, [0074] – teaches an acceleration compensator; see also Wakui, Fig. 6) measured by the accelerometer (Wakui, [0009] – teaches acceleration sensors mounted on anti-vibration table); and
an adder configured to obtain the command value by adding the first command value and the second command value (Wakui, [0074] – teaches an adder to add the compensator values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asano, Egashira and Wakui in order to apply an anti-vibration apparatus to improve vibration control (Wakui, [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125