DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant alleges that the claims are an improvement on the technology regarding providing an actual occurrence sequence of the first events and the second events and outputting the actual occurrence sequence to an output device of a computing device, thereby integrating the abstract idea into a practical application
This argument is not persuasive; as determining the sequence of events are some of the abstract concepts identified by the examiner in Step 2A. In Step 2B, it cannot be the abstract concepts themselves that improve a technology or technical field but rather the additional elements or extra solution activities such that the claims themselves amount to significantly more than the abstract concept.
Further, the output device of a computing device merely reads as additional elements acting as tools to perform the insignificant extra-solution active of outputting the data to a display of a computing device; as the outputted data does nothing to improve the operations of these generic computer elements. Thereby, the computing device and display merely act as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant goes on to further argue the instant claims solve a problem in the semiconductor fabrication systems, which can include hundreds of tools, generating log data in disparate format, page 10-13. However, applicant appears to be arguing a narrower claim than what is instantly recited.
The instantly claims do not define a complicate ecosystem of semiconductor fabrication systems, having an extensive network of subsystems, outputting hundreds of varying data files. The claim merely recites a signal manufacturing system having only two subsystems, outputting two data logs. Further, there are no specifics to the complexity of those data logs. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the plain language of the instant claims presents a much simpler system. Therefore, a person is more than capable of receiving two data files with undefined amount of data, merge the two logs and their respective contents, convert them into a signal format, sort the merge log and output the results with aid of pen and paper. The claim does not define a time frame in which this occurs, a semiconductor environment, or an extensive network of subsystems.
Applicant lastly argues the improvement in technology is most evident when considering the scale of the problem, however, that scale is not reflected in the instant claims.
Therefore, the instant claims, as currently presented are not found patent eligible.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 4/6/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Debnath et al. (2018/0307576).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites receiving first log entries from a first subsystem of the manufacturing system, the first log entries having a first data format and first timestamps, and being associated with first events of the first subsystem; receiving second log entries from a second subsystem of the manufacturing system, the second subsystem being different from the first subsystem, the second log entries having a second data format and second timestamps, the second log entries being associated with second events of the second subsystem, the second data format being different from the first data format; and merging the first log entries and the second log entries to generate a merged log of merged log entries, including entries corresponding to the first log entries and entries corresponding to the second log entries, the merged log entries including merged log timestamps corresponding to the first timestamps and the second timestamps, respectively, the merged log entries being associated with merged log events corresponding to the first events and the second events, respectively, the merging including: converting both the first data format and the second data format into a merged log data format of the merged log entries, the merged log data format being different from the first data format and the second data format, the converting including modifying a data format of a least one of the first timestamps or the second timestamps to generate the merged log timestamps; and sorting the merged log entries into chronological order based on the merged log timestamps to provide an actual occurrence sequence of the first events and the second events which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts. The examiner considers receiving log files, merging the log files into a merged log file, converting the data format into a merge data format and sorting the merge log data files into chronologic order as mental processes centered around collecting information, analyzing and displaying the data in a sorted manner. The claims lack specific limits regarding data volume, subsystem complexity, or implementation, the examiner contends they can be performed entirely in the human mind with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the manufacturing system and subsystem reads as additional elements that merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves these additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional element step of outputting the actual occurrence sequence to an output device of a computer device merely amounts to a mere instruction to apply the exception; as the outputted data does nothing to improve the computer or outputting devices. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements related to the manufacturing system are not impacted by either the performance or result of the abstract idea. The additional elements, as generically claimed, do not add significantly more, as the generically linked manufacturing system, subsystem, computing and outputting devices are considered insufficient.
Claims 2 and 11 further define the abstract idea, as generating a data table from the merge log files is considered to be a mental concept. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 3 and 12 further define the abstract idea, as comparing the merged log entries to predefined data patterns to determine that at least two of the merged log entries correspond to merged log events having predefined event types details a mental concept, with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 4 and 13 further define the abstract idea, as generating a visualization, at a graphical user interface, of the manufacturing system over time, including visual representations of the merged log events corresponding to the at least two of the merged log entries, the visual representations being generated in chronological order based on the merged log timestamps of the at least two of the merged log entries details a mental concept, as generating a visual representation is merely displaying certain results from the collection and analysis. Although the claim recites a graphical user interface, this generically claimed computer component is merely an addition element acting as a tool for performing the mental concepts; as neither the result or performance of the generated representation improves the generically claimed graphical user interface.
Claims 5, 14 and 20 further define the abstract idea, as generating a dictionary of events details a mental concept, as observing the data and making a dictionary of events from that data can practically occur in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 6 and 15 further define the abstract idea, as generating a visualization, at a graphical user interface, of the manufacturing system over time based on the dictionary of event details a mental concept, as generating a visual representation is merely displaying certain results from the collection and analysis. Although the claim recites a graphical user interface, this generically claimed computer component is merely an addition element acting as a tool for performing the mental concepts; as neither the result or performance of the generated representation improves the generically claimed graphical user interface.
Claims 7 and 16 further define the additional element of a manufacturing system being a semiconductor substrate manufacturing system and the first subsystem being a subsystem of a first semiconductor substrate manufacturing tool and wherein the second subsystem is a subsystem of a second semiconductor substrate manufacturing tool that is different from the first semiconductor substrate manufacturing tool. These generically claimed manufacturing systems merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves these systems.
Claims 8 and 17 further define the data gathered and observed without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 18 further define the abstract idea, as converting the first timestamps and the second timestamps into merged log timestamps, wherein the conversion involves supplementing data contained in at least one of the first time stamps or second timestamps with supplemental data representing a prescribed order of the first events and the second events, to enable the merged log events to be chronologically ordered where at least one of the first timestamps or the second timestamps alone lack the detail necessary to enable chronological ordering can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites receive first log entries from a first subsystem of the manufacturing system, the first log entries having a first data format and first timestamps, and being associated with first events of the first subsystem, and receive second log entries from a second subsystem of the manufacturing system, the second subsystem being different from the first subsystem, the second log entries having a second data format and second timestamps, the second log entries being associated with second events of the second subsystem, the second data format being different from the first data format; convert both the first data format and the second data format into a merged log data format of the merged log entries, the merged log data format being different from the first data format and the second data format; and merge the first log entries and the second log entries to generate a merged log of merged log entries, including entries corresponding to the first log entries and entries corresponding to the second log entries, the merged log entries including merged log timestamps corresponding to the first timestamps and the second timestamps, respectively, the merged log entries being associated with merged log events corresponding to the first events and the second events, respectively, wherein a data format of at least one of the first timestamps or the second timestamps is modified to generate the merged log timestamps; sort the merged log entries into chronological order based on the merged log timestamps to provide an actual occurrence sequence of the first events and the second events which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts. The examiner considers receiving log files, merging the log files into a merged log file, converting the data format into a merge data format and sorting the merge log data files into chronologic order as mental processes centered around collecting information, analyzing and displaying the data in a sorted manner. The claims lack specific limits regarding data volume, subsystem complexity, or implementation, the examiner contends they can be performed entirely in the human mind with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the manufacturing system and subsystem reads as additional elements that merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves these additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional element step of outputting the actual occurrence sequence to an output device of a computer device merely amounts to a mere instruction to apply the exception; as the outputted data does nothing to improve the computer or outputting devices. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements related to the manufacturing system are not impacted by either the performance or result of the abstract idea. The additional elements, as generically claimed, do not add significantly more, as the generically linked manufacturing system, subsystem, computing and outputting devices are considered insufficient.
Claim 19 is rejected similarly to claim 10, as a computer program product, non-transitory computer readable storage medium and processor merely act as tools for performing the recited abstract idea; as neither the result or performance of the exception improves their respective operations. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modi (2007/0239799) in view of Kong et al. (11,861,767), further in view of Debnath et al. (2018/0307576).
With respect to claim 10, Modi teaches a computer system (10; Fig. 1) for file aggregation, comprising: one or more processors (as indirectly taught, as the system depicted in 10 operates in a computer environment and thereby comprises a processor); and non-transitory computer readable storage media encoding instructions (i.e. the instructions depicted in Fig. 3) which, when executed by the one or more processors (as indirectly taught), causes the computer system (10) to: receive first log entries (i.e. a log from a log source 1 with corresponding entries) from a first subsystem of the manufacturing system (as Modi teaches the logs coming from disparate systems, thereby reading on the claimed limitation, as where the log entries come from, i.e. “a first subsystem of the manufacturing system” does not further differentiate the claimed combination of the computer system over the prior art; therefore, insofar as what is structurally recited, the computer system of Modi is capable of receiving log entries from any subsystem, including one from a manufacturing system), the first log entries (via log source 1) having a first data format (as Modi teaches in [0011] the log files are kept in different formats) and first timestamps (i.e. time; [0012]), and being associated with first events of the first subsystem ([0012] generally, log files will have a field with a date, a time, a transaction name, and a user identifier, as well as a transaction identifier), and receive second log entries (i.e. log from log source n; Fig.1) a second subsystem of the manufacturing system (as Modi teaches the logs coming from disparate systems, thereby reading on the claimed limitation, as where the log entries come from, i.e. “a first subsystem of the manufacturing system” does not further differentiate the claimed combination of the computer system over the prior art; therefore, insofar as what is structurally recited, the computer system of Modi is capable of receiving log entries from any subsystem, including one from a manufacturing system), the second subsystem being different from the first subsystem (as these disparate systems are considered to be separate, standalone systems), the second log entries (via the second log source n) having a second data format (as Modi teaches in [0011] the log files are kept in different formats) and second timestamps (i.e. time; [0012]), the second log entries (via the second source n) being associated with second events of the second subsystem (as the second log entries with contain similar information but regarding the second subsystem), the second data format being different from the first data format (as Modi teaches in [0011] the log files are kept in different formats); convert (s34; transforming logs into a common format) both the first data format (from log source 1) and the second data format (from log source n) into a merged log data format of the merged log entries [0028], the merged log data format being different from the first data format and the second data format (as Modi teaches in [0028], [t]he filtered log data is then transformed into a common log format using the transform utility 18a, as indicated in block 34. More specifically, each log line may be formatted into columns and added into the end of a grid that is built by the log analyzer 18 as indicated in block 36. A machine name may be extracted for each log line as indicated in block 38. Metrics may be computed if the log line reflects performance data as indicated in block 40; which describes taking different formatted logs [0011], and formatting them into a searchable log file format); and merge the first log entries and the second log entries to generate a merged log of merged log entries (as at the result of s34, the first and second log entries are merged into a merged log of merged log entries; [0028]), including entries corresponding to the first log entries (from the first source 1) and entries corresponding to the second log entries (from the second source n), the merged log entries including merged log timestamps corresponding to the first timestamps and the second timestamps (as each log comprises time associated data), respectively, the merged log entries being associated with merged log events (i.e. metrics; [0024]) corresponding to the first events and the second events, respectively (i.e. metrics respective to the first and second logs).
Modi fails to teach sort[ing] the merged log entries into chronological order based on the merged log timestamps, wherein a data format of at least one of the first timestamps or the second timestamps is modified to generate the merged log timestamps, provide an actual occurrence sequence of the first events and second events and output the actual occurrence sequence to an output device of a computing device.
Kong et al. teaches a similar system that sorts log entries into chronological order based on log timestamps (as Kong et al. teaches using timestamp data for listing events in chronological order; Col. 24 lines 30-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Modi such that the merged log entries are sorted according to their timestamp data, as taught by Kong et al. because Kong et al. teaches such sorting improves time-based searching; Col. 21 lines 24-31.
Modi as modified by Kong et al. remains silent regarding wherein a data format of at least one of first timestamps or the second timestamps is modified to generate the merged log timestamps, provide an actual occurrence sequence of the first events and second events and output the actual occurrence sequence to an output device of a computing device.
Debnath et al. teaches a similar system that includes control logic that collects input logs having respective timestamps (s201; Fig. 2) with corresponding data formats of at least one of the first timestamps or the second timestamps being modified to generate the merged log timestamps (via converting them into a fixed format at s205C; Fig.2), provide an actual occurrence sequence of the first events and second events (as s220E applies rules to generate a sequence of events; [0077]) and output the actual occurrence sequence (s210G; [0067] to an output device (862) of a computing device [0276].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Modi to include the control logic of Debnath et al. such that data logs having timestamps are formatted to a fix format, merged, sequenced and displayed, as taught by Debnath et al.; as such a modification provides an improvement over the previous mechanisms, thereby reducing the overhead of preprocessing all logs; [0107].
The method steps of claim 1 are performed by the operation of the rejected system of claim 10.
With respect to claim 19, Modi as modified teaches a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a plurality of instructions (as modified by the combination seen in the rejection of claim 1) stored thereon, which when executed by a processor (as indirectly taught), cause the processor (as indirectly taught) to perform operations for file aggregation comprising the recited steps during the operation of the system of claim 1.
With respect to claims 2 and 11, Modi as modified teaches the computer system wherein the instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (as indirectly taught in Modi), further causes the computer system (10, as modified) to generate a data table (i.e. a grid format; [0028]) of the merged log entries.
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Modi as modified teaches the computer system (10) wherein the instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (as indirectly taught in Modi), further causes the computer system (10, as modified) to compare the merged log entries (via s34 of Modi) to predefined data patterns (defined by a filter) to determine that at least two of the merged log entries correspond to merged log events having predefined event types (as Modi teaches the merged log data is filtered to ensure that relevant log entries of the respective logs contain events match the predefined data patterns defined by the log entries themselves).
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Modi as modified teaches the computer system (10) wherein the instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (as indirectly taught), further causes the computer system (10) to generate a visualization, at a graphical user interface, of the manufacturing system over time, including visual representations of the merged log events corresponding to the at least two of the merged log entries, the visual representations being generated in chronological order based on the merged log timestamps of the at least two of the merged log entries (as the combination as a whole teaches in Modi generating a visualization on a graphical user interface, s48 of Modi, of the semiconductor system represented as time, data, metrics, transactions, etc., [0023-0024], in a chronological order, as taught by Kondo, based on the merged log timestamps of the two merged log entries from source 1 and n).
With respect to claims 5, 14 and 20 Modi as modified teaches the computer system (10) wherein the instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (as indirectly taught), further causes the computer system (10) to generate a dictionary of events of the manufacturing system having a corresponding timestamp (as Modi teaches the generated file allows for a searchable file of merged events of specific nature, like time; [0024]; hence the searchable file reads on the claimed “dictionary of events”).
With respect to claims 6 and 15, Modi as modified teaches the computer system (10) wherein the instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (as indirectly taught), further causes the computer system (10) to generate a visualization of the manufacturing system over time based on the dictionary of events (as Modi teaches the displayed generated file allows for a searchable file of merged events of specific nature, like time; [0024]; hence the searchable file reads on the claimed “dictionary of events”).
With respect to claims 7 and 16, Modi as modified teaches the computer system (10) wherein the first subsystem is (capable of being) a subsystem of a first semiconductor substrate manufacturing tool (as Modi teaches the computer system receives data from sources related to a semiconductor substrate manufacturing tool; hundreds of tool [0020]); and wherein the second subsystem is a subsystem of a second semiconductor substrate manufacturing tool (i.e. a second of a second source n of the disclosed hundreds of tools) that is different from the first semiconductor substrate manufacturing tool (as Modi teaches the computer system receives data from sources related to a semiconductor substrate manufacturing tool; [0020]).
With respect to claims 8 and 17, Modi as modified teaches the computer system (10) wherein the instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (as indirectly taught), further causes the computer system (10) to populate at least one of the first timestamps (i.e. times cultivated from the first source and its respective log) or the second timestamps (i.e. times cultivated from the first source and its respective log) with an approximate time stamp (as Modi teaches transforming multiple log files and information, like time, into on merged file, therefore, insofar as what is structurally recited defining “approximate”, the taught transformation of the logs uses rounding and data aggregation techniques which will lead to approximations; [0028]).
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Modi as modified teaches the computer system (10) wherein the instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the computer system to convert the first timestamps and the second timestamps into merged log timestamps (as Modi teaches transforming the data such that all the time stamps and relevant events are merged into one searchable file; [0028]), wherein the conversion involves supplementing data contained in at least one of the first time stamps or second timestamps with supplemental data representing a prescribed order of the first events and the second events (as Modi teaches using a middleware application [0029] to provide information recorded about a system and used to provide historical data to help merge two or files from two or more sources into one, searchable file), to enable the merged log events to be chronologically ordered (as taught by the combination as a whole) where at least one of the first timestamps or the second timestamps alone lack the detail necessary to enable chronological ordering (as Modi teaches data can be added when timestamps, alone, do not represent performance data relative to an event).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Danielson et al. (2011/0154117) which teaches that performs log file analysis.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights