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 . Claims 1-15 filed on 8/24/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-050631, filed on 8/24/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 8/24/2023 and 10/12/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/24/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 8/24/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the following limitations, “A method for determining an initial value of a parameter regarding flow control, which is primarily input into a mass flow controller when adjusting said mass flow controller, which includes:” and further,
“in said first step, said parameter of a mass flow controller is adjusted under a certain control condition,”.
Both the preamble and further limitation include the limitation of, “a mass flow controller”, which leads confusion as to whether they refer to the same mass flow controller or are to be interpreted as separate mass flow controllers. Please amend the claims to remove confusion as this can lead to potential 112b problems if not corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “in said fourth step, said initial value of said parameter corresponding to said control condition common with each other is determined based on said extracted data,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of generally determining an initial control value based on extracted data which is something that can reasonably be done in the human mind and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 additionally recites, “a first process to accumulate data in a server by performing a first step”, “in said second step, said data in which said parameter adjusted in said first step and said control condition are related with each other is stored in said server,”, “in said third step, said data having said control condition common with each other is extracted from said data stored in said server,”, and “in said fifth step, said initial value of said parameter, which is determined in said fourth step, is related with said common control condition and is stored in said server.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes a plurality of limitations which adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, claim 1 recites, “a second step individually for a plurality of mass flow controllers, and in said first step, said parameter of a mass flow controller is adjusted under a certain control condition,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally describes a step in actuating equipment to generate data which just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “a mass flow controller)” and “a server”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering mass flow control data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 7 and 14, include a step of re-determining a control value given stored data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is a limitation that can reasonably be performed using the human mind and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claims 8 and 15, each include limitations of raising an alarm given a specific condition, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply provides an alert without effecting any physical controlling elements of the system and thus merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claims 7 and 14, each include additional limitations of storing/retrieving data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, claims 2-5, 10-11, and 13, each include limitations describing various data parameters considered as well describing process of increasing/decreasing parameters by a certain quantity, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering mass flow control data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
***Examiner’s Note: dependent claims 6 and 12 each include limitations of utilizing the determined control parameter value that is determined from the process described in the independent claims which positively shows the abstract being utilized to operate and control a system which does represent more than just the abstract idea, and would overcome the current rejection if wholly incorporated into independent form.***
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US PGPUB 20100000608) in view of Shajii et al. (US PGPUB 2030236643).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9; Goto teaches; A method for determining an initial value of a parameter regarding flow control, which is primarily input into a mass flow controller when adjusting said mass flow controller, which includes: (Goto; at least paragraph [0010]; disclose determining an initial calibration flow characteristic for a mass flow controller)
a first process to accumulate data in a server by performing a first step and a second step individually for a plurality of mass flow controllers, and (Goto; at least paragraph [0010] and [0116]; disclose wherein the system and method includes performing calibration of a plurality of mass flow controllers using nitrogen, wherein the system records a plurality of flow rate measurements vs flow rate settings)
in said first step, said parameter of a mass flow controller is adjusted under a certain control condition, and (Goto; at least paragraphs [0010] and [0116]; disclose wherein a flow rate setting is adjusted under controlled conditions using nitrogen gas)
in said second step, said data in which said parameter adjusted in said first step and said control condition are related with each other is stored in said server, a second process to perform a third step, a fourth step and a fifth step, (Goto; at least paragraphs [0010], [0116], and [0143]; disclose storing the plurality of measured flow rate settings and subsequent flow rate measurements)
in said third step, said data having said control condition common with each other is extracted from said data stored in said server, (Goto; at least paragraph [0010]; disclose reading out the calibration gas data)
in said fourth step, said initial value of said parameter corresponding to said control condition common with each other is determined based on said extracted data, and (Goto; at least paragraphs [0116] and [0143]; disclose wherein the calibration gas data is generated which represents an initial baseline characteristic flow for each mass flow controller)
in said fifth step, said initial value of said parameter, which is determined in said fourth step, is related with said common control condition and is stored in said server. (Goto; at least paragraph [0010]; disclose storing the initial calibration flow data for each mass flow controller).
Goto appears to be silent on; “…a first process to accumulate data in a server…”;
However, Shajii teaches; “…a first process to accumulate data in a server…”; (Shajii; at least paragraphs [0114] and [0118]; disclose a mass flow controller system and method which is connected to a server which stores various operational parameter data (i.e. initial flow data as taught by Goto) wherein operators can access and make determinations based on the data (i.e. make determinations regarding initial parameter data) and further can provide input (i.e. set initial parameter data) through the information saved and provided from the server in the mass flow controller).
Goto and Shajii are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, mass flow controller systems and methods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of using a server connected mass flow controller as taught by Shajii with the known system of a mass flow controller setting system as taught by Goto in order to provide a system in which operator can gain access to data remotely from the mass flow controller and have access to remotely interact with it during diagnostic situations (see paragraph [0010]).
Regarding Claim 2; the combination of Goto and Shajii teach; The method according to Claim 1, wherein: said control condition includes a type of said mass flow controller, a kind of a fluid, and a bin size. (Goto; at least Fig. 6; paragraphs [0121] and [0124]; disclose wherein the system includes a plurality of types of mass flow controllers, a specific fluid type, and various flow ranges (i.e. bin)).
Regarding Claim 3; the combination of Goto and Shajii teach; The method according to Claim 1, wherein: said adjustment of said mass flow controller includes an adjustment of a flow sensor, said initial value of said determined parameter includes initial values of parameters regarding a zero point, span and linearity. (Goto; at least paragraphs [0012], [0017], and [0131]).
Regarding Claim 4; the combination of Goto and Shajii teach; The method according to of Claim 1, wherein: said adjustment of said mass flow controller includes an adjustment of a transient response, and said initial value of said determined parameter includes initial values of parameters regarding a proportional gain, an integral gain and a derivative gain. (Goto; at least paragraphs [0107] and [0210]).
Regarding Claim 5; the combination of Goto and Shajii teach; The method according to Claim 1, wherein: in said first step, said parameter which is primarily input into said mass flow controller when adjusting said mass flow controller is not an optimal value for said control condition, but is a provisional and generic default value with which said mass flow controller can be operated under a broad control condition. (Goto; at least paragraphs [0010]-[0011] and [0143]; disclose wherein the characteristic gas settings are just initial characteristics representing the flow characteristics of the respective mass flow controller that can then be used to operate with any variety of process fluids).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12; the combination of Goto and Shajii teach; The method of claim 1 comprising adjusting the mass flow controller used under a certain control condition, the adjusting comprising performing a third process that includes a sixth step, a seventh step and an eighth step, in said sixth step, said initial value of said parameter related with said control condition is read out from said server among said initial values of said parameters, in said seventh step, said initial value of said parameter read out in said sixth step is input into said mass flow controller, and in said eighth step, said parameter of said mass flow controller is adjusted under said control condition. (Goto; at least paragraphs [0010]-[0012]; disclose reading out the initial calibration characteristic and applying it to a mass flow controller during an operation using an operational gas to be used by the mass flow controller wherein the reference of Shajii discloses performing data acquisition using a server associated with a mass flow controller).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14; the combination of Goto and Shajii teach; The method according to Claim 6, which further includes a fourth process performing a ninth step, a tenth step and an eleventh step, in said ninth step, additional data in which said parameter of said mass flow controller adjusted in said eighth step is related with said control condition is stored in said server, in said tenth step, said data and said additional data having said control condition common with each other are extracted from said data and said additional data stored in said server, and in said eleventh step, an initial value of said parameter is re-determined based on said data and said additional data extracted in said tenth step and said initial value stored in said server is updated to said initial value, which is thus re-determined. (Goto; at least paragraphs [0010]-[0012]; disclose wherein the system and method includes applying the calibration settings to a specific gas, wherein the system can determine correction data based upon the mass flow controllers response to the specific gas, and further the system provides the updated correction data to the mass flow controller so that it operates appropriately using the specific gas).
Regarding Claim 10; the combination of Goto and Shajii teach; The system according to Claim 9, wherein: said system is configured so as to perform said second step by said processing unit executing a predetermined instruction according to said program when accuracy of said flow control by said mass flow controller has reached a predetermined target value as a result of performing said first step. (Goto; at least Fig. 15; paragraphs [0117] and [0122]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 13; the combination of Goto and Shajii teach; The system according to Claim 9, wherein: said system is configured so as to increase or decrease said parameter by a predetermined quantity by said processing unit executing a predetermined instruction according to said program in said first step. (Goto; at least Fig. 6; paragraph [0120]).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US PGPUB 20100000608) in view of Shajii et al. (US PGPUB 2030236643) in further view of Ono et al. (US PGPUB 20180286721).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15; the combination of Goto and Shajii appear to be silent on; The method according to Claim 6, further including: a twelfth step in which an alarm is raised when a difference between said initial value input into said mass flow controller in said seventh step and said parameter adjusted in said eighth step exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
However, Ono teaches; The method according to Claim 6, further including: a twelfth step in which an alarm is raised when a difference between said initial value input into said mass flow controller in said seventh step and said parameter adjusted in said eighth step exceeds a predetermined threshold value. (Ono; at least paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; disclose a mass flow monitoring system and method wherein then the difference between and adjusted parameter and an initial parameter differ by more than a threshold, providing an alarm).
Goto, Shajii, and Ono are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, mass flow controller systems and methods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of providing an alert when a condition exceeded a threshold as taught by Ono with the known system of a mass flow controller setting system as taught by Goto and Shajii in order to provide a system in which operators can be notified to react to an error condition (see paragraph [0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito et al. (US PGPUB 20170168509): disclose a system and method for determining a control response time between an expected time for a mass flow controller to achieve a flow rate and an actual time to achieve that, and updating control parameters to ensure the flow rate is met in the expected time.
Lull et al. (US PGPUB 20070215206): disclose a system and method for adjustment to PID mass flow controller wherein a set of test operating conditions are used to determine a response of a controller, and wherein once placed in operation, variations in the actual process fluid is compared to the test data and adjustments are made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117