DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 Information Disclosure Statements, filed 22 June 2023, 17 January 2024, 01 May 2024, 23 January 2025, and 12 March 2025 have been fully considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-16 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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, 14 and 15, these claims recites the limitation "the number of the at least one step". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what the ‘number’ refers to, particularly where a recipe may be comprised of only a single step, and where steps may be arbitrarily subdivided as necessary to enable data acquisition (see [0100]) so a nominal step may not be numbered consistently with the numbering of an arbitrarily divided sub-step, even if such steps were clearly described as numbered in the claims, which they are not. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim would not be clear to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2-13 and 16, these claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osada et al., US Pg-Pub 2008/0040061.
Regarding Claim 1, Osada discloses:
A substrate processing system, (see fig. 1) comprising: at least one substrate processing apparatus including a controller (see fig. 1, [0047] “The substrate processing apparatus 100” including control unit 300);
configured to be capable of controlling processing of a substrate (fig. 1, Wafer W) according to a recipe including at least one step (see e.g. [0076] “process recipes and data to be edited and various types of data such as a process recipe and a processed log can be output to a specific storage medium”; and [0015] describing at least a startup step and a processing step.)
and a first memory (see [0076] “specific storage medium”) configured to be capable of storing data of the at least one substrate processing apparatus that is reported during the processing of the substrate; ([0076] “a processed log can be output to a specific storage medium” which may comprise a RAM, see [0076].)
and a data manager (fig. 4, data processing apparatus 600) connected to the at least one substrate processing apparatus, (see fig. 4, depicting connections to controller 300 of the substrate processing apparatus) configured to acquire the data, (see e.g. [0089] “The data analysis means 612 statistically processes the various types of sampling data transmitted from the communication means 360 in the control unit 600 and received at the communication means 660”)
and configured to be capable of specifying the number of the at least one step that is included in the data to be acquired such that the data falls within a predefined data acquirable range. (see e.g. [0013] “the sampling cycle is adjusted in correspondence to the state of the substrate processing apparatus, and thus, the volume of data that are collected can be reduced compared to the volume of data sampled with the fixed cycle at all times. Since this allows the sampling cycle to be adjusted so that data that is not necessarily vital for data analysis or the like are collected in a smaller volume, wasteful use of storage capacity in the data storage means is minimized without lowering the accuracy of the data analysis.” See e.g. [0014] describing how this varies by recipe step between idle and executing: [0014] “it is desirable that a decision be made as to whether or not the substrate processing apparatus is currently in a substrate processing execution state and that a longer sampling cycle than the sampling cycle selected in the substrate processing execution state be set if the substrate processing apparatus is not in the substrate processing execution state (e.g., if the substrate processing apparatus is in an idling state).”)
Regarding Claim 6, Osada discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Osada further discloses:
wherein the data manager includes a second memory configured to save the acquired data as a file. (fig. “Data Storage Means 640”; [0094] “In the data storage means 640, the sampling data transmitted from the communication means 360 in the control unit 300 and received at the communication means 660 are stored. It is desirable to use a storage means that enables random access, assures a high access speed and has a large capacity, e.g., a hard disk, as the data storage means 640.”)
Regarding Claim 14, Osada discloses:
A substrate processing apparatus, (see fig. 1) comprising: a memory (see [0076] “specific storage medium”) configured to be capable of storing data of the substrate processing apparatus that is reported during a processing of a substrate; ([0076] “a processed log can be output to a specific storage medium” which may comprise a RAM, see [0076].)
a communicator configured to be capable of being connected to a data manager configured to acquire the data; (see fig. 3, Communication Means 360 in controller 300, connected to communication means 660 in data processing apparatus 600.)
and a controller (see figs. 1, 3; control unit 300) configured to be capable of controlling the processing of the substrate (Wafer W) according to a recipe including at least one step, (see e.g. [0076] “process recipes and data to be edited and various types of data such as a process recipe and a processed log can be output to a specific storage medium”; and [0015] describing at least a startup step and a processing step.)
and configured to be capable of instructing the memory to collect the data corresponding to the number of the at least one step included in the data when the number of the at least one step is specified such that the data acquired by the data manager falls within a predefined data acquirable range. (see e.g. [0013] “the sampling cycle is adjusted in correspondence to the state of the substrate processing apparatus, and thus, the volume of data that are collected can be reduced compared to the volume of data sampled with the fixed cycle at all times. Since this allows the sampling cycle to be adjusted so that data that is not necessarily vital for data analysis or the like are collected in a smaller volume, wasteful use of storage capacity in the data storage means is minimized without lowering the accuracy of the data analysis.” See e.g. [0014] describing how this varies by recipe step between idle and executing: [0014] “it is desirable that a decision be made as to whether or not the substrate processing apparatus is currently in a substrate processing execution state and that a longer sampling cycle than the sampling cycle selected in the substrate processing execution state be set if the substrate processing apparatus is not in the substrate processing execution state (e.g., if the substrate processing apparatus is in an idling state).”)
Regarding Claim 15, Osada discloses:
A method (see figs. 7, 9) of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: performing processing of a substrate (fig. 1, Wafer W) according to a recipe including at least one step; (see e.g. [0076] “process recipes and data to be edited and various types of data such as a process recipe and a processed log can be output to a specific storage medium”; and [0015] describing at least a startup step and a processing step. And fig. 9)
storing data of an apparatus that is reported during the processing of the substrate; (see e.g. [0089] “The data analysis means 612 statistically processes the various types of sampling data transmitted from the communication means 360 in the control unit 600 and received at the communication means 660” which may be stored; see [0094] “In the data storage means 640, the sampling data transmitted from the communication means 360 in the control unit 300 and received at the communication means 660 are stored.”)
and when acquiring the data, calculating the number of the at least one step included in the data to be acquired such that the data falls within a predefined data acquirable range. (see e.g. [0013] “the sampling cycle is adjusted in correspondence to the state of the substrate processing apparatus, and thus, the volume of data that are collected can be reduced compared to the volume of data sampled with the fixed cycle at all times. Since this allows the sampling cycle to be adjusted so that data that is not necessarily vital for data analysis or the like are collected in a smaller volume, wasteful use of storage capacity in the data storage means is minimized without lowering the accuracy of the data analysis.” See e.g. [0014] describing how this varies by recipe step between idle and executing: [0014] “it is desirable that a decision be made as to whether or not the substrate processing apparatus is currently in a substrate processing execution state and that a longer sampling cycle than the sampling cycle selected in the substrate processing execution state be set if the substrate processing apparatus is not in the substrate processing execution state (e.g., if the substrate processing apparatus is in an idling state).”)
Regarding Claim 16, Osada discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 15,
Osada further discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform the method of Claim 15. (see [0076], describing a main control unit that “controls the overall operations of the substrate processing apparatus”, including “storage means for storing processing programs in conformance to which various types of processing are executed in the substrate processing apparatus 100 and information needed when executing the processing programs.”)
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada further in view of Ashok, US Pg-Pub 2012/0215450.
Regarding Claim 2, Osada teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Osada further teaches:
wherein the predefined data acquirable range is capable of varying ([0013] “the sampling cycle is adjusted in correspondence to the state of the substrate processing apparatus,” )
Osada differs from the claimed invention in that:
Osada does not clearly teach: [wherein the predefined data acquirable range is capable of varying] according to the number of sensors connected to the at least one substrate processing apparatus.
However, Ashok teaches a data acquisition system (see e.g. [0124] “In most applications, following some preliminary processing at the sensor-level, the signals from all the sensors monitoring the system are sent to a central location for further processing or for use in deriving higher level information. This configuration is commonly observed in PC-based data acquisition and control”) which varies the sampling rate (i.e. varying acquirable range) of the data acquisition process, according to the number of sensors connected to the data acquisition system. ([0126] “if the system has a large number of sensors which also need to be sampled at high rates, the number of high-speed data acquisition channels required increases (to accommodate the increased bandwidth/sampling requirements) which typically leads to higher overall costs. Often, as a compromise between cost and performance requirements, a limited number of data acquisition channels are used (capable of handling large amounts of data at high frequencies) and the available resources are distributed across all the sensor channels, by using a lower sampling rate” )
Ashok and Osada are analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of data acquisition systems, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each acquires data from one or more sensors, each aggregates the data via data analysis to identify changes and/or anomalies.
Accordingly Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Osada, which differ from the claimed invention by the substitution of varied acquirable ranges based on the number of sensors connected instead of the step of the recipe that is being executed; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by Ashok, which teaches a data acquisition system which varies the acquisition rate when the number of connected sensors is large; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Ashok teaches that reducing the sample rate is a suitable compromise for reducing the overall storage requirements and cost of the system. (Ashok [0126]); and therefore, the substitution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada in view of Koizumi US Pg-Pub 2009/0125276.
Regarding Claim 3, Osada teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Osada differs from the claimed invention in that::
wherein a step execution time is set for the at least one step.
However, Koizumi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see fig. 1, substrate processing apparatuses 12) including a data acquisition system (see fig. 1, analyzing apparatus 16) where the recorded process data is divided according to the starting points and ending points of the respective execution steps in the process. ([0015] “dividing the process data into data corresponding to the steps based on event data indicative of starting points and ending points of the respective steps in the process.”)
Koizumi and Osada are analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of data acquisition systems, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each acquires data from one or more sensors, each aggregates the data via data analysis to identify changes and/or anomalies.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Osada to include setting a time for the acquisition period corresponding to the time of the desired execution step’s start and end points, as suggested by Koizumi.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the total quantity of data extracted while also more easily checking for transient response characteristics of the substrate processing apparatus, as suggested by Koizumi. ([0016] “because prior to the data extracting step, the process data is divided into data corresponding to the steps based on event data indicative of starting points and ending points of the respective steps in the process, data to be extracted which satisfies predetermined extracting conditions can be decreased, and hence the transient response characteristics of the substrate processing apparatus can be checked more easily.”)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Osada and Koizumi teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 3,
Koizumi further teaches:
wherein the predefined data acquirable range indicates a range of time from a start to an end of acquisition of the data acquired by the data manager. ([0016] “because prior to the data extracting step, the process data is divided into data corresponding to the steps based on event data indicative of starting points and ending points of the respective steps in the process, data to be extracted which satisfies predetermined extracting conditions can be decreased, and hence the transient response characteristics of the substrate processing apparatus can be checked more easily.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Osada to include setting a time for the acquisition period corresponding to the time of the desired execution step’s start and end points, as suggested by Koizumi.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the total quantity of data extracted while also more easily checking for transient response characteristics of the substrate processing apparatus, as suggested by Koizumi. ([0016] “because prior to the data extracting step, the process data is divided into data corresponding to the steps based on event data indicative of starting points and ending points of the respective steps in the process, data to be extracted which satisfies predetermined extracting conditions can be decreased, and hence the transient response characteristics of the substrate processing apparatus can be checked more easily.”)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada in view of Koizumi, further in view of Funk et al., US Pg-Pub 2005/0187649.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Osada and Koizumi teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 4,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly teaches: wherein the data manager is further configured to, when acquiring the data, be capable of specifying the number of the at least one step included in the data to be acquired, by adding, to the data to be acquired, one or more steps subsequent to one step, which is included in the data to be acquired, when a step execution time set for the one step is equal to or less than the predefined data acquirable range, and performing, one or more times, an operation of adding the one or more steps immediately before a total of step execution times of the added one or more steps exceeds the predefined data acquirable range. (emphasis added by examiner to illustrate features which are recited in the alternative.)
However, Funk teaches a data acquisition system (see e.g. [0006] “The monitoring system must be able to collect data tabulated for the process control system. The data collection of the monitoring system must handle univariate and multivariate data, the analysis and display of the data, and have the ability to select the process variables to collect.”) for a substrate processing system ([0004] “wafer”; [0005] “Semiconductor processing facilities require constant monitoring.” ) which may acquire additional data (e.g. fig. 8, step 820; [0175] In 820, a data collection (DC) strategy is executed.) from a subsequent execution step ([0218] “In 835, a query can be performed to determine if the process has finished. When the process has finished, procedure 800 branches to 840, and procedure 800 ends. When the process has not finished, procedure 800 branches to 815, and procedure 800 continues as shown in FIG. 8.” ) at least one time (ibid, see fig. 8) by repeating the data acquisition in the subsequent step of the recipe ([0160] “In 815, a control strategy is executed. The control strategy can be context-driven in that the user can define one or several context items that will affect when the control strategy is selected. Control strategies can be defined at the system/tool level, not at the process module level. This is necessary since R2R control usually includes wafer passes through multiple IM and process modules. One control strategy is executed for a given wafer. If the context of a given wafer matches multiple control strategies, then the first matching control strategy can be chosen.”)
Funk is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of data acquisition systems, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each acquires data from one or more sensors, each aggregates the data via data analysis to identify changes and/or anomalies.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Osada and Koizumi to include adding data acquisition of additional subsequent steps to the data acquired by the data acquisition process, as suggested by Funk.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to Monitor tool status during production to prevent tool errors as suggested by Funk ([0219] “The APC system can be used to detect and classify tool errors when a tool is not in production; detect and classify tool errors during production; detect and correct tool errors during production;”).
Claim(s) 7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada further in view of Kikuta, Japanese Patent Application Publication JP 2007-287843. (Citations to machine translation provided by eSpaceNet).
Regarding Claim 7, Osada teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 6,
Osada differs from the claimed invention in that:
Osada does not clearly articulate: wherein the file is stored in the second memory on a recipe-by-recipe basis, and the data included in the same recipe is stored as one file.
However, Kikuta teaches a wafer processing system (see figs. 1-4) which stores files on a recipe-by-recipe basis (see e.g. [0021] “18000 (this is the number of wafers process for 30 days, assuming that the processing time of one cassette (25 sheets) is 1 hour)
With each recipe run per wafer being stored as a single file. ([0021] “storing 18000 files, assuming 1.5MB together)”)
Kikuta is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of data acquisition systems, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each acquires data from one or more sensors, each aggregates the data via data analysis to identify changes and/or anomalies.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Osada to include storing the data in files by executed recipe, as suggested by Kikuta.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify the oldest recorded data for deletion when storage capacity is reached, as suggested by Kikuta ([0020] “When the following two conditions are satisfied, the folder collecting the oldest files is deleted. 1) The number of files created is greater than the maximum number of files that can be created. 2) The sum of the total size of the created files and the newly created file size is greater than the capacity required to create the maximum number of files.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Osada teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Osada differs from the claimed invention in that:
Osada is silent regarding wherein a data size that is capable of being acquired in the predefined data acquirable range is 1.8 GB or less.
However, Kikuta teaches a wafer processing system (see figs. 1-4) where the acquirable data size acquired per recipe run is less than 1.8 GB ([0021] “about 450KB when the logging execution time is 2 minutes, 30 seconds).
Kikuta is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of data acquisition systems, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each acquires data from one or more sensors, each aggregates the data via data analysis to identify changes and/or anomalies.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Osada to capture only a few minutes of data per run, as suggested by Kikuta.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to maximize the number of files which may be stored before reaching capacity, as suggested by Kikuta. ([0020] “That is, the maximum number of files that can be created on the second recording medium 18 and the capacity (maximum capacity) required to create the maximum number of files are set in advance”)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Osada and Kikuta teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 7,
Kikuta further teaches:
wherein the data manager is further configured to monitor a capacity of the second memory, and to delete old files in the second memory when the file is saved in excess of the capacity. ([0020] “When the following two conditions are satisfied, the folder collecting the oldest files is deleted. 1) The number of files created is greater than the maximum number of files that can be created. 2) The sum of the total size of the created files and the newly created file size is greater than the capacity required to create the maximum number of files. Note that in 2), deletion of the folder collecting the oldest files is repeatedly performed until the capacity for creating a new file is reached.” [0021] “(folder deletion is repeated until this condition is satisfied).”)
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Osada to include storing the data in files by executed recipe, as suggested by Kikuta.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify the oldest recorded data for deletion when storage capacity is reached, as suggested by Kikuta ([0020] “When the following two conditions are satisfied, the folder collecting the oldest files is deleted. 1) The number of files created is greater than the maximum number of files that can be created. 2) The sum of the total size of the created files and the newly created file size is greater than the capacity required to create the maximum number of files.”)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada and Kikuta, further in view of Shigeta et al., US Pg-Pub 2007/0043867.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Osada and Kikuta teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates wherein when the old files are deleted, the data manager is further configured to notify that the old files are deleted as history information.
However, Shigeta teaches a computer file system which notifies a user when old files are automatically deleted ([0036] “if the maximum number of data already exists, the control unit 2 deletes like oldest data (step S20), and informs the use[sic] of the fact that data have been deleted by displaying in the display unit 4 a message showing that the data have been deleted (step S21).”)
Shigeta is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the same problem confronted by applicant of managing the storage capacity of a computer system storing a large quantity of data.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a “base” device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” – the teachings of Kikuta upon which the notification to a user of deletion can be seen as an improvement; 2) the prior art contained a “comparable” device (method or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention – the computer file system of Shigeta which notifies the user upon a deletion of oldest data executed due to reaching a maximum storage amount; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application at least because Shigeta teaches that notifying the user may ensure storage capacity and all effective use of the available storage. (see [0043] “Therefore, it is possible to sufficiently ensure the storage capacity. In addition, it is possible to effectively use the storage area by giving a confirmation message such as "Are you sure you want to delete (filename)?" when deleting data.”); and accordingly, the improvement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.C)
(Although not relied upon for this rejection, examiner notes that event logging of file deletion events, including timestamps, is a known feature of the commonly used Windows® Operating System, see Microsoft Web Page “4660(S): an object was deleted” (2021), furnished with this office action.)
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada in view of Swanson et al., US Pg-Pub 2011/0010133.
Regarding Claim 8, Osada teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 6,
Osada differs from the claimed invention in that:
Osada does not clearly articulate: wherein the data is saved as the file in the second memory in a data format different from a data format when the data is acquired by the data manager.
However, Swanson teaches a data acquisition system ([0013] “The system 20 is operable upon a device 22 (referenced generally), and includes two or more sensors 24, a data acquisition unit 26, a user interface 28, a data server 30, and optionally one or more additional personal communication device(s) 32.”) which may save the acquired data in various formats based on user input ([0041] “ FIG. 8 provides a representative screen shot of a display 110 generated by the user interface 28 in some embodiments, and provides a user with the ability to select a sensor of interest and displays, in graphical form, the corresponding sensor information. In addition, the user interface 28 can be adapted to allow a user to save the selected sensor data in other formats, such as an ASCII text file. Other analysis and/or reporting tools can be included with the user interface 28 and/or the data server 30.”) which is a different format from that acquired by the sensors ([0007] “the first sensor senses a first parameter and signals sensed information in a first format, whereas the second sensor senses a second parameter and signals sensed information in a second format differing from the first format.” See also [0043] “the data or information being stored in an on-board cache or memory in a very compact and orderly fashion such that it can be uplinked, repackaged, and decoded on the user interface. Further, the format in which the on-board acquisition unit records information and/or the type of information being recorded can be remotely managed via commands”)
Swanson is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of data acquisition systems, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each acquires data from one or more sensors, each aggregates the data via data analysis to identify changes and/or anomalies.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Osada to include saving the acquired data in a different format as suggested by Swanson.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable a user to save the data into a format useful for analysis, as suggested by Swanson ([0041] “the user interface 28 can optionally be adapted or programmed to generate and display an analysis of the information generated and stored by the data acquisition unit 26. For example, FIG. 8 provides a representative screen shot of a display 110 generated by the user interface 28 in some embodiments, and provides a user with the ability to select a sensor of interest and displays, in graphical form, the corresponding sensor information. In addition, the user interface 28 can be adapted to allow a user to save the selected sensor data in other formats, such as an ASCII text file. Other analysis and/or reporting tools can be included with the user interface 28 and/or the data server 30.”)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Osada and Swanson teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 8,
Swanson further teaches:
wherein the data format of the file is capable of being specified in advance. (Swanson [0043] “the data or information being stored in an on-board cache or memory in a very compact and orderly fashion such that it can be uplinked, repackaged, and decoded on the user interface. Further, the format in which the on-board acquisition unit records information and/or the type of information being recorded can be remotely managed via commands”)
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Osada to include saving the acquired data in a different format as suggested by Swanson.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable a user to save the data into a format useful for analysis, as suggested by Swanson ([0041] “the user interface 28 can optionally be adapted or programmed to generate and display an analysis of the information generated and stored by the data acquisition unit 26. For example, FIG. 8 provides a representative screen shot of a display 110 generated by the user interface 28 in some embodiments, and provides a user with the ability to select a sensor of interest and displays, in graphical form, the corresponding sensor information. In addition, the user interface 28 can be adapted to allow a user to save the selected sensor data in other formats, such as an ASCII text file. Other analysis and/or reporting tools can be included with the user interface 28 and/or the data server 30.”)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada, Koizumi, and Funk, further in view of Ashok.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Osada, Koizumi and Funk teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 5;
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
The combination does not clearly articulate: wherein the data manager is further configured to divide and acquire the data of the at least one step when the step execution time exceeds the predefined data acquirable range.
However, Ashok teaches a data acquisition system (see e.g. [0124] “In most applications, following some preliminary processing at the sensor-level, the signals from all the sensors monitoring the system are sent to a central location for further processing or for use in deriving higher level information. This configuration is commonly observed in PC-based data acquisition and control”) which subdivides the execution time ([0126] “the available resources are distributed across all the sensor channels, by … polling the sensors periodically instead of continuous acquisition, etc.”) to reduce total acquired data. ([0126] “as a compromise between cost and performance requirements”)
Ashok and Osada are analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of data acquisition systems, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each acquires data from one or more sensors, each aggregates the data via data analysis to identify changes and/or anomalies.
Accordingly Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Osada, which differ from the claimed invention by the substitution of a subdivided acquisition time during the execution step; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by Ashok, which teaches a data acquisition system which polls sensors periodically during acquisition when the number of sensors is large; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Ashok teaches that polling periodically during the acquisition time is a suitable compromise for reducing the overall storage requirements and cost of the system. (Ashok [0126]); and therefore, the substitution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shieh et al., US Pg-Pub 2010/0023151 – particularly [0083] describing the setting of rules to limit total memory, total time, or quantity of data records acquired within a given time period in a semiconductor fabrication process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119