Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed on 7/22/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending, with Claims 7-15 being withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the Restriction requirement dated 7/14/2026 in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of Group I and Group II overlaps because Group I includes “at least one tool”. This is not found persuasive because, in Group I, the first value of the first parameter, and second value of the second parameter, are each explicitly recited as being associated with the performance of the at least one tool; i.e., the first value of the first parameter and second value of the second parameter are associated with the performance of all tools included in “at least one tool” in Group I. In Group II, the first value of the first parameter is associated with a performance the first tool, with the first parameter not being associated with the second tool, and the second value of the second parameter is associated with a performance of the second tool, with the second parameter not being associated with the first tool; this does not overlap with Group I, in which each of the first and second value are associated with all of the recited tools.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 7-15 are therefore withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
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 1-6 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for evaluating at least one tool, comprising:
measuring a first value of a first parameter associated with a performance of the at least one tool;
measuring a second value of a second parameter associated with the performance of the at least one tool;
mapping, with a first mapping function, the first value to an index to provide a first mapped parameter value;
mapping, with a second mapping function that is different from the first mapping function, the second value to the index to provide a second mapped parameter value; and
aggregating, with an aggregating function, the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value to provide an aggregated performance score for the at least one tool.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of independent Claims 7 and 16.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 16 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a mental process or mathematical concepts. This can be seen in the claim limitations of mapping, mapping, and aggregating which is the judicial exceptions of a mental process because these limitations are merely data evaluations, and/or judgements in order to determine a performance of a tool and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations such as averages and comparison to a distribution, see e.g. dependent Claims 2 and 3.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 16.
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 “measuring a first value of a first parameter associated with a performance of the at least one tool” and “measuring a second value of a second parameter associated with the performance of the at least one tool”; however these elements are found to be merely data gathering steps which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies).
Independent Claim 16 additionally recites a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium; however these amount to no more than generic computer hardware for implementing the mental process/mathematical concepts.
The generic data gathering and processing steps are recited at such a high level of generality 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 and method. For instance, nothing is done with the aggregated performance score that is determined in Claims 1 and 16.
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 performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claims 1 and 16 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims 2-6 and 17-21, these claims merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims. Claims 2-4 and 17-21 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts/mental process, and Claims 5-6 merely recite further details of the data gathering.
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)(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, 5, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheon et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0237412, hereinafter “Cheon”).
Regarding Claim 1, Cheon teaches a method for evaluating at least one tool (Fig. 5E), comprising: measuring a first value of a first parameter associated with a performance of the at least one tool (Fig. 1, sensors 126 associated with manufacturing equipment 124, see paragraph [0046]; Fig. 5E, block 540); measuring a second value of a second parameter associated with the performance of the at least one tool (Fig. 1, sensors 126 associated with manufacturing equipment 124, see paragraph [0046]; Fig. 5E, block 540); mapping, with a first mapping function, the first value to an index to provide a first mapped parameter value (Fig. 5E, block 542 and paragraphs [0038], [0049], [0183]-[0184], summary data can includes multiple values generated by different types of processing, which are equated to the first and second mapping functions); mapping, with a second mapping function that is different from the first mapping function, the second value to the index to provide a second mapped parameter value (Fig. 5E, block 542 and paragraphs [0038], [0049], [0183]-[0184], summary data can includes multiple values generated by different types of processing, which are equated to the first and second mapping functions); and aggregating, with an aggregating function, the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value to provide an aggregated performance score for the at least one tool (Fig. 5E, block 544, quality score index generated based on the summary data; paragraphs [0185]-[0191]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cheon further teaches wherein the first parameter and the second parameter are measured with different measurement techniques (paragraph [0046], various sensor types generate the sensor data 142).
Regarding Claim 16, Cheon teaches system (Figs. 1 and 8) for evaluating at least one tool, comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 8, 802); and non-transitory computer-readable memory (Fig. 8, 804) having stored thereon instructions (Fig. 8, 826) which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to: measure a first value of a first parameter associated with a performance of the at least one tool (Fig. 1, sensors 126 associated with manufacturing equipment 124, see paragraph [0046]; Fig. 5E, block 540); measure a second value of a second parameter associated with the performance of the at least one tool (Fig. 1, sensors 126 associated with manufacturing equipment 124, see paragraph [0046]; Fig. 5E, block 540); map, with a first mapping function, the first value to an index to provide a first mapped parameter value (Fig. 5E, block 542 and paragraphs [0038], [0049], [0183]-[0184], summary data can includes multiple values generated by different types of processing, which are equated to the first and second mapping functions); map, with a second mapping function that is different from the first mapping function, the second value to the index to provide a second mapped parameter value (Fig. 5E, block 542 and paragraphs [0038], [0049], [0183]-[0184], summary data can includes multiple values generated by different types of processing, which are equated to the first and second mapping functions); and aggregate, with an aggregating function, the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value to provide an aggregated performance score for the at least one tool (Fig. 5E, block 544, quality score index generated based on the summary data; paragraphs [0185]-[0191]).
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, 4, 17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon in view of Renders et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0103681, hereinafter “Renders”).
Regarding Claim 2, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cheon does not specifically teach wherein the aggregating includes taking an average or a weighted average of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value. However, Cheon does teach wherein the aggregating includes taking weighted sum of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value (paragraph [0188]), and that a plurality of weighting factors are used to generate the quality index (paragraph [0187]). Further, Renders teaches that aggregation is typically done by a weighted sum or a weighted average (paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the weighted average of Renders in the system of Cheon, because using a weighted average for aggregation of multiple objects into a single object is typical (see Renders, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 4, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cheon does not explicitly teach wherein the aggregating includes taking a weighted average of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value based on a type of the at least one tool. However, Cheon teaches wherein the aggregating includes taking weighted sum of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value (paragraph [0188]), that a plurality of weighting factors are used to generate the quality index, and that the weights may be determined based on how data from particular sensors (e.g., corresponding to different tools in the process) is correlated to product performance (paragraph [0187]), and that the type of hardware is included in the sensor data 142 that is processed to determine the quality index score (see paragraph [0046]). Further, Renders teaches that aggregation is typically done by a weighted sum or a weighted average (paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the weighted average of Renders in the system of Cheon, and to determine the weighted average of Renders based on the type data that is included in Cheon, because using a weighted average for aggregation of multiple objects into a single object is typical (see Renders, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 17, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Cheon does not specifically teach wherein to aggregate includes to take an average or a weighted average of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value. However, Cheon does teach wherein the aggregating includes taking weighted sum of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value (paragraph [0188]). Further, Renders teaches that aggregation is typically done by a weighted sum or a weighted average (paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the weighted average of Renders in the system of Cheon, because using a weighted average for aggregation of multiple objects into a single object is typical (see Renders, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 19, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Cheon does not explicitly teach wherein to aggregate includes to take a weighted average of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value based on an age of the first mapped parameter value and an age of the second mapped parameter value. However, Cheon teaches wherein the aggregating includes taking weighted sum of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value (paragraph [0188]), that a plurality of weighting factors are used to generate the quality index (paragraph [0187]), and that timestamp data is included in the summary data 162 that is processed to determine the quality index score (see paragraphs [0049] and [0146]); further, the summary data may be associated with a particular period of time (paragraph [0183]). Further, Renders teaches that aggregation is typically done by a weighted sum or a weighted average (paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the weighted average of Renders in the system of Cheon, and to determine the weighted average of Renders based on the time stamp data that is included in Cheon, because using a weighted average for aggregation of multiple objects into a single object is typical (see Renders, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 20, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Cheon does not explicitly teach wherein to aggregate includes take a weighted average of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value based on a type of the at least one tool. However, Cheon teaches wherein the aggregating includes taking weighted sum of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value (paragraph [0188]), that a plurality of weighting factors are used to generate the quality index, and that the weights may be determined based on how data from particular sensors (e.g., corresponding to different tools in the process) is correlated to product performance (paragraph [0187]), and that the type of hardware is included in the sensor data 142 that is processed to determine the quality index score (see paragraph [0046]). Further, Renders teaches that aggregation is typically done by a weighted sum or a weighted average (paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the weighted average of Renders in the system of Cheon, and to determine the weighted average of Renders based on the type data that is included in Cheon, because using a weighted average for aggregation of multiple objects into a single object is typical (see Renders, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 21, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cheon does not explicitly teach wherein the aggregating includes taking a weighted average of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value based on an age of the first mapped parameter value and an age of the second mapped parameter value. However, Cheon teaches wherein the aggregating includes taking weighted sum of the first mapped parameter value and the second mapped parameter value (paragraph [0188]), that a plurality of weighting factors are used to generate the quality index (paragraph [0187]), and that timestamp data is included in the summary data 162 that is processed to determine the quality index score (see paragraphs [0049] and [0146]); further, the summary data may be associated with a particular period of time (paragraph [0183]). Further, Renders teaches that aggregation is typically done by a weighted sum or a weighted average (paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the weighted average of Renders in the system of Cheon, and to determine the weighted average of Renders based on the time stamp data that is included in Cheon, because using a weighted average for aggregation of multiple objects into a single object is typical (see Renders, paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon in view of Malaver et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051419, hereinafter “Malaver”).
Regarding Claim 3, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cheon further teaches wherein the first mapping function includes one of:(i) an application of a Boolean function corresponding to the at least one tool (paragraph [0183], identification of steady state versus transient data based on variance being above or below a threshold, which is equated to Boolean function).
Cheon does not specifically teach (ii) a comparison to a first distribution of previously measured parameter values corresponding to only one of the at least one tool; (iii) a comparison to a second distribution of previously measured values corresponding to a plurality of the at least one tool (optional due to “one of”); and (iv) a comparison against a running average of measured values corresponding to the at least one tool (optional due to “one of”); and wherein the second mapping function includes another one of (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). However, Malaver teaches (ii) a comparison to a first distribution of previously measured parameter values corresponding to only one of the at least one tool; wherein the second mapping function includes another one of (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) (paragraph [0085], sensor data compared to distribution templates, which are equated to distribution of previously measured parameter values). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the distribution comparison of Malaver in the system of Cheon, in order to identify sensor data corresponding to a fault (see Malaver, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding Claim 18, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Cheon further teaches wherein the first mapping function includes one of:(i) an application of a Boolean function corresponding to the at least one tool (paragraph [0183], identification of steady state versus transient data based on variance being above or below a threshold, which is equated to Boolean function).
Cheon does not specifically teach (ii) a comparison to a first distribution of previously measured parameter values corresponding to only one of the at least one tool; (iii) a comparison to a second distribution of previously measured values corresponding to a plurality of the at least one tool (optional due to “one of”); and (iv) a comparison against a running average of measured values corresponding to the at least one tool (optional due to “one of”); and wherein the second mapping function includes another one of (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). However, Malaver teaches (ii) a comparison to a first distribution of previously measured parameter values corresponding to only one of the at least one tool; wherein the second mapping function includes another one of (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) (paragraph [0085], sensor data compared to distribution templates, which are equated to distribution of previously measured parameter values). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the distribution comparison of Malaver in the system of Cheon, in order to identify sensor data corresponding to a fault (see Malaver, paragraph [0085]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon in view of Sjostrand (EP-1955830-B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Cheon teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cheon does not specifically teach wherein only one of the first parameter and the second parameter is binary. However, Sjostrand teaches wherein only one of the first parameter and the second parameter is binary (paragraph [0017], point 3; any of the listed alternatives may be monitored, i.e., only one input signal may be binary, see paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include one of the binary machine monitoring parameters taught in Sjostrand in the system of Cheon, in order to detect and predict a malfunction of an industrial robot (i.e., tool, see Sjostrand, paragraph [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights