DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-14 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification should have a section titled cross reference to related applications citing JP-2023-024621. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/08/2024 and 6/01/2026 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 2/08/2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A measurement method of measuring a height of a hand at a start timing of contact between the hand and a substrate in a process of causing the hand to hold the substrate by moving up the hand from below the substrate, wherein the hand has an upper surface provided with a suction hole that is connected to a vacuum line, the method comprising:
performing the process while detecting a pressure of the vacuum line;
obtaining a height profile indicating a change in a height of the hand in the process; and
determining a height of the hand at a second timing which is a predetermined time period before a first timing when a pressure of the vacuum line decreases and reaches a threshold, based on the height profile, as a height of the hand at the start timing.
Specifically, representative Claim 11 recites:
11. A conveyance apparatus for conveying a substrate, the apparatus comprising:
a hand having an upper surface provided with a suction hole that is connected to a vacuum line;
a detector configured to detect a pressure of the vacuum line; and
a controller configured to control holding and conveyance of the substrate with the hand,
wherein the controller monitors the height of the hand based on a measurement result obtained by measuring the height of the hand at a start timing of contact between the hand and the substrate in a process of causing the hand to hold the substrate by moving up the hand from below the substrate, and
wherein the measuring the height of the hand includes
performing the process while causing the detector to detect the pressure of the vacuum line,
obtaining a height profile indicating a change in the height of the hand in the process, and
determining the height of the hand at a second timing which is a predetermined time period before a first timing when a pressure of the vacuum line decreases and reaches a threshold, based on the height profile, as a height of the hand at the start timing.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 6 and 13.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1 and 6 belong to a statutory category, namely they are process claims. Likewise, claim 11 and 13 are apparatus claims.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of performing the process and determining a height of the hand at a second timing which is a predetermined time period before a first timing when a pressure of the vacuum line decreases and reaches a threshold, based on the height profile, as a height of the hand at the start timing. which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 6.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 11 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of a controller configured to control holding and conveyance of the substrate with the hand, wherein the controller monitors the height of the hand based on a measurement result obtained by measuring the height of the hand at a start timing of contact between the hand and the substrate in a process of causing the hand to hold the substrate by moving up the hand from below the substrate, and performing the process while causing, determining the height of the hand at a second timing which is a predetermined time period before a first timing when a pressure of the vacuum line decreases and reaches a threshold, based on the height profile, as a height of the hand at the start timing. which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 13.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “detecting a pressure of the vacuum line; and obtaining a height profile indicating a change in a height of the hand in the process (claims 1 and 6)
Further, in addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 11, the claimed additional elements including “a hand having an upper surface provided with a suction hole that is connected to a vacuum line; a detector configured to detect a pressure of the vacuum line; and wherein the measuring the height of the hand includes detector to detect the pressure of the vacuum line, obtaining a height profile indicating a change in the height of the hand in the process, (claims 11 and 13) The additional elements cited above with regards to claims 1, 6, 11 and 13 are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claims also recite a “controller” however the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “controller” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the height determination.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 6, 11 and 13, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5, 7-10, 12 and 14, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 6, 11 and 13.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jin et al. US 205/0214085 teaches multifunction wafer and film frame handling system.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights