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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hager, III et al. US 6,216,051 (hereinafter Hager).
Regarding claim 1, Hager teaches: a substrate processing system comprising:
a substrate processing apparatus (C1, L10 - - semiconductor processing manufacturing system);
an input/output apparatus (C2, L45-49 - - the combination of mainframe front end, work stations an reports PC are input./output apparatus);
a first control apparatus installed with first software, configured to control the substrate processing apparatus based on a first signal output from the input/output apparatus, and configured to acquire a second signal output from the substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37 - - mainframe is a first control apparatus; it receives input from the mainframe front end and acquire message from manufacturing device; the message from manufacturing device is a second signal);
a second control apparatus installed with second software, and configured to perform same calculation processing as that of the first control apparatus, and not configured to control the substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37 - - backup server is a second control apparatus; it runs in parallel with mainframe and receives requests from the manufacturing device, thus the second control apparatus perform same calculation processing as mainframe; C5, L20-25 - - during normal processing, interceptor sends the response from the primary server to the manufacturing device, thus the backup server does not control the process);
a first distributor configured to distribute the first signal to the second control apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C6, L17-34 - - mainframe front end is a first distributor; mainframe front end sends data to the backup server); and
a second distributor configured to distribute the second signal to the second control apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37 - - the interceptor is a second distributor, it receives requests from manufacturing device, duplicates the requests sends the requests to applications servers; application servers are mainframe and backup servers),
wherein the second control apparatus outputs a third signal based on the first signal and the second signal (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37, C5, L20-35 - - the backup server creates responses).
Regarding claim 10, Hager teaches: a control apparatus configured to perform same calculation processing as that of a control unit installed with first software, configured to control a substrate processing apparatus based on a first signal output from an input/output apparatus, and configured to acquire a second signal output from the substrate processing apparatus, the control apparatus being not configured to control the substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 - - mainframe is a first control apparatus; it receives input from the mainframe front end and acquire message from manufacturing device; the message from manufacturing device is a second signal; C1, L10 - - semiconductor processing manufacturing system; backup server is a second control apparatus; it runs in parallel with mainframe and receives requests from the manufacturing device, thus the second control apparatus perform same calculation processing as mainframe; C5, L20-25 - - during normal processing, interceptor sends the response from the primary server to the manufacturing device, thus the backup server does not control the process),
wherein the control apparatus is installed with second software (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37 - - backup server is a second control apparatus; it has software), and
wherein the control apparatus outputs a third signal based on the first signal distributed by a first distributor and the second signal distributed by a second distributor (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37, C5, L20-35 - - the backup server creates responses; the interceptor is a second distributor, it receives requests from manufacturing device, duplicates the requests sends the requests to applications servers; application servers are mainframe and backup servers; C6, L17-34 - - mainframe front end is a first distributor; mainframe front end sends data to the backup server).
Regarding claim 11, Hager teaches: a control method of a substrate processing system, the control method comprising the steps of:
outputting a first signal from an input/output apparatus to a first control apparatus installed with the first software (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37 - - mainframe is a first control apparatus; it receives input from the mainframe front end; the data from the mainframe front end is a first signal);
distributing through a first distributor the first signal to a second control apparatus installed with second software (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C6, L17-34 - - mainframe front end is a first distributor; mainframe front end sends data to the backup server);
controlling through the first control apparatus a substrate processing apparatus based on the first signal (C1, L10 - - semiconductor processing manufacturing system);
performing same calculation processing as that of the first control apparatus through the second control apparatus based on the first signal, the second control apparatus being not configured to control the substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37 - - backup server is a second control apparatus; it runs in parallel with mainframe and receives requests from the manufacturing device, thus the second control apparatus perform same calculation processing as mainframe; C5, L20-25 - - during normal processing, interceptor sends the response from the primary server to the manufacturing device, thus the backup server does not control the process);
outputting a second signal from the substrate processing apparatus to the first control apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37 - - the message from manufacturing device is a second signal);
distributing the second signal to the second control apparatus by a second distributor (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37 - - the interceptor is a second distributor, it receives requests from manufacturing device, duplicates the requests sends the requests to applications servers; application servers are mainframe and backup servers); and
outputting a third signal from the second control apparatus based on the first signal and the second signal (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, C3, L3-37, C5, L20-35 - - the backup server creates responses).
Regarding claim 13, Hager teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hager further teaches:
processing a substrate using the substrate processing system according to claim 1; and
manufacturing an article from a processed substrate (C1, L10 - - semiconductor processing manufacturing system).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager, III et al. US 6,216,051 (hereinafter Hager) in view of Meyer et al. US 2008/0319555 (hereinafter Meyer).
Regarding claim 2, Hager teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hager does not explicitly teach: the second software is software obtained by updating the first software.
However, Meyer teaches: the second software is software obtained by updating the first software ([0014] - - new upgraded version of an application is executed concurrently with a currently used version).
Hager and Meyer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to control system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hager, and incorporating running updated version of software and current version software, as taught by Meyer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to ensuring a new version of an application is functioning in a real environment, as suggested by Meyer ([0009]).
Regarding claim 9, Hager teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hager does not explicitly teach: the first control apparatus and the second control apparatus operate on the same hardware.
However, Meyer teaches: the first control apparatus and the second control apparatus operate on the same hardware ([0014] - - two versions of the application are stored within a controller).
Hager and Meyer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to control system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hager, and incorporating installing two versions of application within a controller, as taught by Meyer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to ensuring a new version of an application is functioning in a real environment, as suggested by Meyer ([0009]).
Regarding claim 12, Hager teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hager does not explicitly teach: updating the first software installed in the second control apparatus to the second software before the step of outputting the first signal is performed.
However, Meyer teaches: updating the first software installed in the second control apparatus to the second software before the step of outputting the first signal is performed ([0014] - - new upgraded version of an application is executed concurrently with a currently used version; the upgraded version is the second software).
Hager and Meyer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to control system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hager, and incorporating running updated version of software and current version software, as taught by Meyer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to ensuring a new version of an application is functioning in a real environment, as suggested by Meyer ([0009]).
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager, III et al. US 6,216,051 (hereinafter Hager) in view of Pressmall et al. US 5,491,625 (hereinafter Pressmall).
Regarding claim 3, Hager teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hager does not explicitly teach: an output apparatus configured to acquire the third signal from the second control apparatus; and
a third distributor configured to distribute to the output apparatus a fourth signal output from the first control apparatus to the input/output apparatus based on the second signal.
However, Pressmall teaches: an output apparatus configured to acquire the third signal from the second control apparatus; and
a third distributor configured to distribute to the output apparatus a fourth signal output from the first control apparatus to the input/output apparatus based on the second signal (Fig. 2, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, C13, L55-C14,L21 - - display values from each of redundant computers; the displayed values are 3rd and 4th signals).
Hager and Pressmall are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to control system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hager, and incorporating displaying output of redundant computers, as taught by Pressmall.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve the process of software updating, as suggested by Pressmall (C2, L24-50).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hager and Pressmall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pressmall further teaches: the output apparatus displays data corresponding to the third signal and data corresponding to the fourth signal (Fig. 2, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, C13, L55-C14,L21 - - display values from each of redundant computers).
Hager and Pressmall are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hager and Pressmall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pressmall further teaches: the output apparatus compares data corresponding to the third signal with data corresponding to the fourth signal (Fig. 2, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, C13, L55-C14,L21 - - display values from each of redundant computers, compare the values).
Hager and Pressmall are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager, III et al. US 6,216,051 (hereinafter Hager) in view of Pressmall et al. US 5,491,625 (hereinafter Pressmall) and further in view of Meyer et al. US 2008/0319555 (hereinafter Meyer).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hager and Pressmall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Hager and Pressmall does not explicitly teach: the output apparatus determines whether or not to update the first software installed in the first control apparatus to the second software based on a difference between data corresponding to the third signal and data corresponding to the fourth signal.
However, Meyer teaches: the output apparatus determines whether or not to update the first software installed in the first control apparatus to the second software based on a difference between data corresponding to the third signal and data corresponding to the fourth signal ([0033]-[0035] - - generating a report listing differences of outputs of the current and new versions, user determines whether or not to switch to the new version based on the report).
Hager, Pressmall and Meyer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to control system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Hager and Pressmall, and incorporating determining whether or not to update the software based on output differences of the current and new versions, as taught by Meyer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to ensuring a new version of an application is functioning in a real environment, as suggested by Meyer ([0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116