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 Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 06/09/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 2-21 are pending:
Claims 21 are new
Claims 1 are canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to claim interpretation as invoked via 35 USC 112f have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 8-9, that the amendments change the claim language such that the claim interpretations invoked under 35 USC 112f has been overcome.
The office agrees that the interpretations of the claim language that has been removed overcomes any such interpretation under 35 USC 112f due to removal. The amended claim language invokes 35 USC 112f to the extent as indicated below, please see said section below for details.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 112a/b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112a/b rejections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 11-12, that the scope of claim 2 is not properly rejected under 35 USC 101 due to the partial apparatus recitations of “a substrate processing module including a processing container”, and that the controller of Claim 2 performs an interruption of the execution of the processing program, and thus integrates the abstract idea into the arrangement.
The office respectfully disagrees.
In claim 2, the closest to integration of the abstract ideas into the technological area of the substrate processing module is “execute an interruption program … when it is determined that the processing program is infected with the computer virus”. However, this does not provide sufficient integration to the base structure. It is not until new claim 21 that integration is provided in the claim language.
Claim 21 recitation “wherein the controller is configured to stop operation of the substrate processing module by executing the interruption program.” provides integration of the abstract ideas of Claim 2 into the structure of Claim 2. The integration is imparted due to stopping operation of the base arrangement due to the result of the determination of the abstract idea, as the execution of an “interruption” program does not inherently change any performance/action of the base arrangement. The BRI of “an interruption program” may include only setting a flag stating that there is an issue, while preforming all the same actions/determination of the processing program.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections by Litichever (US 2020/0320023) and Keller (US 2016/0098561) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of record has been withdrawn.
In particular, applicant argument, page 20, that Litichever fails to disclose the interruption program running as a result of the virus determination, as opposed to the continuous running of Litichever’s intrusion prevention function.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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:
“temperature adjustor” in claim 7
Corresponding structure
Heaters 213a/b, as informed by Para29/112; and purging step of supplying inert gas to process chamber 201 per Para87/65
Or equivalents
“mass flow controller configured to supply a gas” in claim 8
Corresponding structure
Processing mass flow controller (MFC) 243c/244c, Inert mass flow controller (MFC) 246c/247c, Purge mass flow controller (MFC) 245c
Or equivalents
“mass flow controller of a processing gas” in claim 9
Corresponding structure
Processing mass flow controller (MFC) 243c/244c
Or equivalents
“mass flow controller of an inert gas” in claim 9
Corresponding structure
Inert mass flow controller (MFC) 246c/247c
Or equivalents
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 Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout
Amend Claim 2 L3 “a controller” to include a further naming convention (first, prime, etc.) to improve clarity in the dependent claims relative to further recited controller limitations.
Claim 9
L3-6, amend “a first mass flow controller of a processing gas … a second mass flow controller of an inert gas” to greatly improve clarity by using a more distinctive naming convention.
Extend the above naming convention amendment to all further respective recitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because in Claim 2/13/20 the claimed invention directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2
“A substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
a substrate processing module including a processing container that is configured to process a substrate therein;
a memory configured to store a processing program configured to process the substrate and a plurality of interruption programs configured to interrupt execution of the processing program; and
a controller configured to control the substrate processing module by reading and executing the processing program,
wherein the controller is configured to:
inspect whether the processing program is infected with a computer virus; and
select, read, and execute an interruption program among the plurality of interruption programs, according to a processing status of the substrate, when it is determined that the processing program is infected with the computer virus.”
Claim 13
A method of processing a substrate, comprising:
(a) processing a substrate by executing a processing program stored in a memory;
(b) inspecting and determining whether the processing program is infected with a computer virus; and
(c) selecting, reading, and executing an interruption program among plural typos of a plurality of interruption programs stored in the memory and configured to interrupt the processing program, according to a processing status of the substrate, when it is determined that the processing program is infected with the computer virus.”
Claim 20
“A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform:
processing a substrate by executing a processing program stored in a memory;
inspecting and determining whether the processing program is infected with a computer virus; and
selecting, reading, and executing an interruption program among a plurality of interruption programs stored in the memory and configured to interrupt the processing program, according to a processing status of the substrate, when it is determined that the processing program is infected with the computer virus.”
The underlined portions of the cited claim are all directed towards abstract ideas that fall within the bucket of a mental process. That is each of the underlined portions can be performed in the human mind as the abstract idea is effectively an exam question for one of ordinary skill in the art.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because beyond the abstract idea, the only items are either basic computing parts or are applying the abstract idea within a technological area. Additionally, the non-underlined claim limitations are merely detailing the intended technological area.
Dependent claims 3-5, 10-12, 14-19 have been analyzed and present only additional abstract ideas and thus do not cure the deficiencies of the cited claim.
Dependent claims 6-9 have been analyzed and present additional technological area details that are not integrated with the abstract ideas, and additional abstract ideas and thus do not cure the deficiencies of the cited claim.
The office explicitly notes that Claim 21 recitation “wherein the controller is configured to stop operation of the substrate processing module by executing the interruption program.” provides integration of the abstract ideas of Claim 2 into the structure of Claim 2. The integration is imparted due to stopping operation of the base arrangement due to the result of the determination of the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular the subject matter of Claim 21 in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 2 removes the rejection under 35 USC 101 of claim 2.
Claim 2-21 would be allowable, over the art of record, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular “a controller configured to control the substrate processing module by reading and executing the processing program, wherein the controller is configured to: inspect whether the processing program is infected with a computer virus; and select, read, and execute an interruption program among the plurality of interruption programs, according to a processing status of the substrate, when it is determined that the processing program is infected with the computer virus.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claim 13
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular “(b) inspecting and determining whether the processing program is infected with a computer virus; and (c) selecting, reading, and executing an interruption program among plural typos of a plurality of interruption programs stored in the memory and configured to interrupt the processing program, according to a processing status of the substrate, when it is determined that the processing program is infected with the computer virus.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claim 20
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular “inspecting and determining whether the processing program is infected with a computer virus; and selecting, reading, and executing an interruption program among a plurality of interruption programs stored in the memory and configured to interrupt the processing program, according to a processing status of the substrate, when it is determined that the processing program is infected with the computer virus.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 3-12, 14-19, 21 are allowable over the art of record based on dependency
Conclusion
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights