CTFR 18/488,529 CTFR 84726 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the created provisional” should be rewritten as --the created provisional profile --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-16 are 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. Claims 1 and 16 recite: “determining, in a first case, that the length of the constant speed period of the created provisional profile is not more than a threshold: and determining the driving profile, in the first case, processing the created provisional profile so as to make an absolute value of a Jerk include no zero portion between the acceleration period and the deceleration period.” In is unclear whether the first case creates a conditional limitation on either of the claimed limitations. The presence of the language “in a first case” implies that there are other cases where these limitations are not practiced and the bounds of the first case are unclear. Further claim 8 recites a second case and claim 9 recites an additional case, where these cases are defined by the conditional statements, implying that these cases are alternatives to the first case and that the condition of the first case is not the conditions of the second case and the additional case. Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1. For the purposes of examining, the claims are understood based on the disclosure as originally filed where the first case is conditioned on the determination associated with the length of the constant speed period of the created provisional profile is not more than a threshold. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a method of generating a driving profile, Claim 15 is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing the computer to execute the methods, and Claim 16 is directed to an information processing apparatus having a memory and processor. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1 and 16 recite the following mental process using mathematical relationship: creating, based on (i. the target driving amount and (ii) by adjusting a length of a constant speed period, in which the object is moved at a constant speed, between an acceleration period and a deceleration period so as to achieve the target driving amount, a provisional profile including the acceleration period in which the object is accelerated so as to change an acceleration nonlinearly and the deceleration period in which the object is decelerated so as to change a deceleration nonlinearly; determining, in a first case, that the length of the constant speed period of the created provisional profile is not more than a threshold: and determining the driving profile, in the first case, processing the created provisional profile so as to make an absolute value of a Jerk include no zero portion between the acceleration period and the deceleration period Creating a provisional profile and determining a driving profile based on the provisional profile where the profiles are based on kinematics is a mental process that can also be performed with pen and paper using mathematics to perform optimization calculations (disclosed formulas). This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mental process based on mathematical relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III)). Step 2A Prong Two: The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons: Claims 1 and 16 recite additional elements that includes: obtaining a target driving amount by which the object is to be driven by the driving profile. Obtaining information for processing is a mere data gathering step that is a nominal addition to the claim to provide data for processing and does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 16 recites an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions in the memory. The claimed processor and memory does not make the claim a practical application because they are performing to recite at a high level of generality and generic computer functions or software routinely used in generic computer components or software in the claim, (see MPEP 2016.05(f)) Step 2B: Claims 1 and 16 recite additional elements that includes: obtaining a target driving amount by which the object is to be driven by the driving profile. Obtaining information for processing is a mere data gathering step that is a nominal addition to the claim to provide data for processing and does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 16 recites an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions in the memory. The claimed processor and memory does not make the claim a practical application because they are performing to recite at a high level of generality and generic computer functions or software routinely used in generic computer components or software in the claim, (see MPEP 2016.05(f)) There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of a method for processing data. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved. For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claims 1 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea/ judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the generically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer. Dependent claims 2-12 and 15 are dependent on their respective base claim 1, and include all the limitations of their respective base claim. Therefore, claims 2-12 and 15 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 2-12 and 15 are each functional processing steps comprise data gathering and process steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible. Claim 15 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a generation method” which is an additional generic element that represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see 2106.05(f)). Claims 2-12 and 15 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-12 and 15 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 7, 8, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirkx [US 2016/0077505] in view of Van Der Sande [US 2004/0166425] . The determining step of claim 1 includes a conditional limitation (see the rejection under 35 USC 112 above). For method claims “the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.” (see MPEP 2111.04(II)). Accordingly, under BRI relative to the prior art, when the case condition is not met the determining step is not performed. For claims 1 and 16 , Dirkx teaches an information processing apparatus (memory and computer processor, see [0041], [0045], [0048], and [0094]) that generates a driving profile for driving an object, the information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (memory and computer processor, see [0041], [0045], [0048], and [0094]); and a processor configured to execute the instructions in the memory (memory and computer processor, see [0041], [0045], [0048], and [0094]) to cause the information processing apparatus to: obtain a target driving amount (one of a target state of said object, see [0093] and Fig. 7) by which the object is to be driven by the driving profile, create, based on (i) the target driving amount (set point, see [0074]-[0075]) and (ii) by adjusting a length of a constant speed period, in which the object is moved at a constant speed, between an acceleration period and a deceleration period so as to achieve the target driving amount (changes piecewise constant of the jerk profile into piecewise linear using average over time period TMA of the input jerk by generating a snap piecewise constant function thereby shrinking zero portion of the jerk, acceleration, and velocity profiles through integration, see Figs. 3 and 4 and [0076]-[0082], the jerk profile of the fourth order generator 512, which is piecewise linear, changes into the jerk profile of the fifth order generator 518, which is built-up by polynomial segments of order 2, inherently adjusting any zero portions in higher order functions, see [0084]-[0091]), a provisional profile including the acceleration period in which the object is accelerated so as to change an acceleration and the deceleration period in which the object is decelerated so as to change a deceleration (set point position profiles 313, 515 and associated non-linear polynomial acceleration profiles 315, 517, see Figs. 3-6 and [0074]-[0091]); and determine the driving profile, in the first case, by processing the created provisional profile so as to make an absolute value of a Jerk include no zero portion between the acceleration period and the deceleration period (constant speed of velocity is zero the jerk is also non-zero and nonlinear, thereby functionally performing the function, see Fig. 6). Dirkx fails to explicitly teach determine, in a first case, that the length of the constant speed period of the created provisional profile is not more than a threshold. Van Der Sande teaches an information processing apparatus (18, see Fig. 1) that generates a driving profile for driving an object, the information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (location where program is stored, see [0018], [0026], and [0110]); and a processor (hardware for executing the software, see [0110]) configured to execute the instructions in the memory to cause the information processing apparatus to: obtain a target driving amount by which the object is to be driven by the driving profile, create, based on (i) the target driving amount (specified trajectory, see [0038]) and (ii) by adjusting a length of a constant speed period (t c , see [0062] and Fig. 3A), in which the object is moved at a constant speed, between an acceleration period (t a , see Figs. 3A and 3B) and a deceleration period (t b , see Figs. 3A and 3B) so as to achieve the target driving amount, a provisional profile including the acceleration period in which the object is accelerated so as to change an acceleration and the deceleration period in which the object is decelerated so as to change a deceleration (generating sub-trajectories, see [0090]-[0094]); determine, in a first case, that the length of the constant speed period of the created provisional profile is not more than a threshold (t c is less than or equal to zero, see [0069]); and determine the driving profile (selecting a sub-trajectory, see [0089]), in the first case, by processing the created provisional profile so as to make an absolute value of a Jerk include no zero portion between the acceleration period and the deceleration period (change from positive acceleration to negative acceleration is nonzero, see Fig. 3B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the threshold determination as taught by Van Der Sande in the process of control as taught by Dirkx in order to time optimize the sub-trajectory routine. For claim 2 , Dirkx teaches the acceleration period includes a first decrease interval in which an acceleration is reduced nonlinearly, and the deceleration period includes a second increase interval in which a deceleration increases nonlinearly (nonlinear portions of profiles 315 and 517 in Figs. 4 and 6), and in the determining the driving profile, the driving profile is determined by processing the created provisional profile so as to change the absolute value of the Jerk in a curve in a period including the first decrease interval of the acceleration period and the second increase interval of the deceleration period (second order polynomial of jerk 518). For claim 3 , Dirkx teaches in the determining the driving profile, the driving profile is determined by processing the created provisional profile so as to change the absolute value of the Jerk parabolically in a period including the first decrease interval of the acceleration period and the second increase interval of the deceleration period (second order polynomial of jerk 518, see Fig. 6). For claim 4 , Dirkx teaches in the determining of the driving profile, the driving profile is determined by processing the created provisional profile so as to change an absolute value of the acceleration linearly in a period including a later phase portion of the acceleration period and an early phase portion of the deceleration period (linear portions of the acceleration profile crossing zero, see 310 in Fig. 4 and 511 in Fig. 6). For claim 5 , Dirkx teaches the later phase portion of the acceleration period is at least part of a first decrease interval in which an acceleration decreases nonlinearly among the acceleration period, and the early phase portion of the deceleration period is at least part of a second increase interval in which a deceleration increases nonlinearly among the deceleration period (nonlinear portions of the acceleration profile, see 315 in Fig. 4 and 517 in Fig. 6). For claim 7 , In the combination, Van Der Sande teaches the threshold is zero (see [0068] and [0069]). For claim 8 , In the combination, Van Der Sande teaches determining, in a second case where the length of the constant speed period of the created provisional profile is larger than the threshold, the provisional as the driving profile (see [0068]). For claims 13 and 14 , Dirkx fails to teach a pattern forming method of forming a pattern on a substrate, the method comprising generating a driving profile for the substrate by using a generating method defined in claim 1; driving the substrate in accordance with the driving profile generated in the generating; and forming a pattern on the substrate driven in the driving, and article manufacturing method comprising: forming a pattern on a substrate by using the pattern forming method defined in claim 13; processing the substrate having undergone the forming; and manufacturing an article from the substrate having undergone the processing. Van Der Sande teaches a pattern forming method of forming a pattern on a substrate (profile used in photolithography, see Fig. 1), the method comprising generating a driving profile for the substrate by using a generating method defined in claim 1; driving the substrate in accordance with the driving profile generated in the generating; and forming a pattern on the substrate driven in the driving, and article manufacturing method comprising: forming a pattern on a substrate by using the pattern forming method defined in claim 13; processing the substrate having undergone the forming; and manufacturing an article from the substrate having undergone the processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control a substrate stage used in photolithography with a drive profile as taught by Van Der Sande using the profile as taught by Dirkx in order to provide for smoothing the oscillatory motion used in scanning lithography while minimize the generation of vibrations. For claim 15 , Dirkx teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a generation method according to claim 1 (memory and computer processor, see [0041], [0045], [0048], and [0094]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirkx in view of Van Der Sande as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Szoboszlay [US 2004/0236453] . For claim 9 , Dirkx fails to teach the created provisional profile include the deceleration period and a second acceleration period in which the object is accelerated after the deceleration period, and is created by adjusting a length of a stop period in which the object is stopped between the deceleration period and the second acceleration period, and in the determining the driving profile, in a case where the stop period of the created provisional profile is not more than a second threshold, the driving profile is determined by processing the provisional profile so as to make the absolute value of the Jerk include no zero between the deceleration period and the second acceleration period. Szoboszlay teaches created provisional profile include the deceleration period and a second acceleration period in which the object is accelerated after the deceleration period (second acceleration after deceleration shown in 524, see Fig. 5B), and is created by adjusting a length of a stop period in which the object is stopped between the deceleration period and the second acceleration period (removing stop in period 528-530, see Fig. 5B), and in the determining the driving profile, in a case where the stop period of the created provisional profile is not more than a second threshold (case requirements not met), the driving profile is determined by processing the created provisional profile so as to make the absolute value of the Jerk include no zero between the deceleration period and the second acceleration period. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the provisional profile as taught by Szoboszlay in the profile of Dirkx in order to provide for smoothing of the oscillatory motion used in scanning lithography. For claim 10 , in the combination, Szoboszlay teaches the deceleration period includes a second decrease interval in which a deceleration decreases nonlinearly, the second acceleration period includes a first increase interval in which an acceleration increases nonlinearly (see the nonlinear decrease in deceleration period and nonlinear increase in the second acceleration period shown in Fig. 5B), and Szoboszlay and Dirkx are understood to have not met a desired case requirement to perform the determining (method threshold not met), the driving profile is determined by processing the provisional profile so as to change the absolute value of the Jerk in a curve in a period including the second decrease interval of the deceleration period and the first increase interval of the second acceleration period (Dirkx teaches changing the Jerk function and therefore the absolute value, see 316 and 518 of Figs.4 and 6, respectively) . For claims 11 and 12 , in the combination, Szoboszlay and Dirkx are understood to have not met a desired case requirement to perform the determining the driving profile, the driving profile is determined by processing the created provisional profile so as to change an absolute value of an acceleration linearly in a period including a later phase portion of the deceleration period and an early phase portion of the second acceleration period, wherein the later phase portion of the deceleration period is at least part of a second decrease interval in which a deceleration decreases nonlinearly among the deceleration period, and the early phase portion of the second acceleration period is at least part of a first increase interval in which an acceleration increases nonlinearly among the second acceleration period (Dirkx teaches changing the acceleration function to include both linear and higher order polynomial functions, see 315 and 517 of Figs.4 and 6, respectively) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirkx in view of Van Der Sande as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Papiernik et al. [US 2009/0295323] . For claim 6 , Dirkx fails to teach in the determining, the driving profile is determined by re-processing the processed provisional profile so as to reduce discontinuity included in the provisional profile after the processing. Papiernik teaches in the determining the driving profile, the driving profile is determined by re-processing the created provisional profile so as to reduce discontinuity included in the created provisional profile (connecting paths in profiles based on integration of the jolt, see Figs. 5 and 6 and [0046]-[0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the velocity profiles as taught by Papiernik in the drive profile created by Dirkx in order to maximize the velocity and acceleration profile based on the maximum “jolt” to reduce the likelihood of error cause by exceeding the limitations of the machine . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on April 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues in the Remarks on pages 10-11, regarding claims 1 and 16, that the claimed subject matter is a) directed to a specific control rule and therefore not a disembodied mental process and b) the technological improvement is the creation of a driving profile for control of the object. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to both arguments, no control is implemented, only a process for creating a control profile. A created control profile doesn’t solve the problem of steep force changes, but only generally links the possible use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See for example MPEP 2106.05(e): “In Diehr , the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press.” Kinematics problems that can be solved with pen and paper are understood to be a mental process and therefore a judicial exception that is generally linked to the technological problem and not used. Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections of claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Van Der Sande is relied upon to teach the salient determination features of the claims . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dirkx et al. [US 6,002,231] teaches profiles with thresholds . 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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST). 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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. /Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 2 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 3 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 4 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 5 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 6 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 7 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 8 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 9 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 10 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 11 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 12 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 13 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 14 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 15 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 16 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/488,529 Page 17 Art Unit: 1759
Prosecution Insights