CTNF 18/658,527 CTNF 93814 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. Claims 1-14 are pending, of which claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Application No. JP2023-083091 filed on May 8, 2023. Information Disclosure Statement The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 8, 2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes: Claim 1, line 2, insert “control” before “device”. Claim 9, line 4, replace “the case” with “a case”. Claim 12, line 9, replace “the case” with “a case”. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested. 35 USC § 112(f) Analysis The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as reciting means for performing a specified function. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Referring to independent claim 1, this claim recites the claim limitations “a controller device for controlling…the control device being configured to: store…, and …transmit...”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraph [0055] of the specification, as published, the “control device” will be construed as a computer including, for example, a processor such as a CPU, a memory, and so on, and has a storage and a controller. The recitations of claims 3, 4, 5, and 8 simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the control device of independent claim 1. Because the referred claim limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites, in part, “store module restriction information, the module restriction information indicating controllable modules corresponding to the detectors in units of the detector”. The meaning of “units of the detector” is unclear and indefinite. Upon review of the Specification, as published, Paragraph [0067] describes “The module restriction information indicates modules included in the coating and developing treatment apparatus 1, which are controllable modules corresponding to the terminal connection ports 120, in units of a detector, namely, in units of the terminal connection port 120 . Specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 6 , module restriction information IF1 indicates controllable modules corresponding to the ports of the intelligent hub 401 to which the terminal connection ports 120 are connected, for each port.” (Emphasis added) Also, Paragraph [0101] describes “Accordingly, by registering appropriate modules according to the positions of the terminal connection ports 120 in advance in units of the terminal connection port 120 in the module restriction information , specifically, by registering appropriate modules according to the positions of the terminal connection ports 120 connected to the ports in advance for each port, for example, the following can be suppressed.” However, neither portion of the Specification clearly defines the intended meaning of “units of a detector”. (Emphasis added) Is the intended meaning of “units of a detector” to be a port number? Or is the intended meaning to be a preset configuration of the detector? It is difficult to determine based on the lack of meaning of the term in the Specification. Other portions of the Specification repeat the claimed recitations or the description as provided in Paragraphs [0067] and [0101]. The Office respectfully recommend that “units of the detector” be amended to clarify its intended meaning. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. In addition, independent claim 1 recites, in part, “a plurality of detectors for detecting the operation terminal connected to the terminal connection ports, the terminal connection ports also serving as the detectors or the detectors being provided around the terminal connection ports ,…in a case of the operation terminal being connected to one of the terminal connection ports and the operation terminal being detected via the corresponding detector , transmit screen information about the operation screen to the connected operation terminal based on the module restriction information”. (Emphasis added) The corresponding detector referring to a corresponding detector associated with the one of the terminal connection ports? If so, the claim previously recites that the terminal connection ports include a plurality of detectors, where the detectors are provided around the terminal connection ports. So is the one of the terminal connection ports connected to the operation terminal include only one detector? If such is the case, how can one detector be provided around the terminal connection port? The published specification describes in Paragraph [0089] “In the case where the operation terminal 201 is connected to one of the terminal connection ports 120 and the operation terminal 201 is detected via the corresponding detector, the transmitter 312 transmits the screen information including the information indicating the controllable modules corresponding to the detector used for the detection, to the connected operation terminal 201, based on the module restriction information.” Paragraph [0133] describes “The terminal connection ports 120 also serve as the detectors for detecting the operation terminal 201 connected to the terminal connection ports 120. Instead of this, the detector may be provided around the terminal connection port 120, separately from the terminal connection port 120. The detector may be, for example, an RFID reader. Further, the detector may be detecting radio from the operation terminal 201, in which case it may detect the operation terminal connected to the terminal connection port 120 with the intensity of the detected radio. Further, a terminal connection port for serial communication may be provided as the detector, around the terminal connection port 120 separately from the terminal connection port 120 for LAN.” However, such portions do not clarify how a single detector can be around the terminal connection port. It is unclear and indefinite the intended scope of the recitations. Further, the last recitation of independent claim 1 further recites “the screen information including information indicating the controllable modules corresponding to the detector used for the detection”. Previously, the claim recites “the module restriction information indicating controllable modules corresponding to the detectors in units of the detector”. Is “information” recited in the last recitation the same as the “module restriction information”? Also, is “the detector used for the detection” the same as “the corresponding detector” previously recited in the claim? It is unclear the intended scope of the last recitation. Regarding claim 2, this claim recites “the controllable modules corresponding to the terminal connection ports are recorded in units of the terminal connection port in the module restriction information; and”. For similar reasons as those provided in independent claim 1, the intended scope of “the terminal connection ports are recorded in units of the terminal connection port” is unclear. It is not clear what is meant by “units of the terminal connection port”. Also, the claim recites “in the case where the operation terminal is connected to one of the terminal connection ports, the screen information including information indicating the controllable modules corresponding to the terminal connection port to which the operation terminal is connected…”. Is the “information” in the “screen information” the same as the “information” in the “screen information” recited in independent claim 1? Further, is “the terminal connection port” the same as the “one of the terminal connection ports” recited in independent claim 1? Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. Regarding claim 3, this claim recites “the control device is connected to the operation terminal connected to the terminal connection port via a relay device”. Is “the terminal connection port” the same as the “one of the terminal connection ports” recited in independent claim 1? The claim also recites “the module restriction information indicates controllable modules corresponding to the relay connection ports for each of the relay connection ports; and in the case where the operation terminal is connected to one of the terminal connection ports , …”. (Emphasis added) Are “controllable modules” and “one of the terminal connection ports” the same as those recited in independent claim 1 or are they different? Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. Regarding claim 4, this claim recites “in the case where the operation terminal is connected to one of the terminal connection ports and the operation terminal is detected via the corresponding detector,…” Is “one of the terminal connection ports” the same as the “one of the terminal connection ports” recited in independent claim 1? If such is the case, appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. Further, as the claim also recites “the corresponding detector”, the Office respectfully recommends that any changes made to this feature in independent claim 1 be also made to claim 4. Regarding claim 5, this claim recites “the plurality of relay connection ports include a dedicated relay connection port; and the control device stores specific item information, the specific item information indicating a specific item being an item controllable only by using the operation terminal connected to the dedicated relay connection port via the terminal connection port among control items of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, for the dedicated relay connection port; and in a case where the operation terminal is connected to the dedicated relay connection port via the terminal connection port, other screen information indicating the specific items is transmitted to the operation terminal connected to the dedicated relay connection port via the relay device, based on the specific item information.” (Emphasis added) For the feature of claim 5 reciting, “the plurality of relay connection ports include a dedicated relay connection port”, is a dedicated relay connection port to be included in each of the plurality of the relay connection ports or is it only one dedicated relay connection port for all of the plurality of relay connection ports? The intended scope of these recitations is unclear. In addition, is “the terminal connection port” the same as the one recited in independent claim 1 or is it different? With respect to “the specific items”, the claim previously recites “a specific item being an item controllable only by using the operation terminal…” So if there is “a” specific item, how can “the specific items” be transmitted? Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. Regarding claim 6, this claim recites “wherein in a case where a plurality of the operation terminals are connected to the terminal connection ports, the module controlled via the operation terminal connected first is excluded from the information on the controllable modules included in the screen information when the screen information is transmitted to the operation terminal connected later , based on the module restriction information.” (Emphasis added) Independent claim 1 does not recite the operation terminal connected first nor the operation terminal connected later. Is it the intent for the operation terminal connected first to be one of “a plurality of the operation terminals” and the operation terminal connected later to be another of “a plurality of the operation terminals”? If such is the case, clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. Regarding claim 7, this claim recites “wherein in a case where a plurality of the operation terminals are connected to the terminal connection ports, an operation on the operation terminal connected later related to the module controlled via the operation terminal connected first is disabled.” (Emphasis added) Independent claim 1 does not recite the operation terminal connected first nor the operation terminal connected later. Is it the intent for the operation terminal connected later to be one of “a plurality of the operation terminals” and the operation terminal connected first to be another of “a plurality of the operation terminals”? If such is the case, clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. Regarding claim 9, this claim recites “in the case where the operation terminal is connected to one of the terminal connection ports and the operation terminal is detected via the corresponding detector , the connected operation terminal displays the operation screen based on the screen information.” Is “one of the terminal connection ports” the same as the “one of the terminal connection ports” recited in independent claim 1? If such is the case, appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. Further, as the claim also recites “the corresponding detector”, the Office respectfully recommends that any changes made to this feature in independent claim 1 be also made in claim 9. Regarding independent claim 10, this claim recites similar features as those recited in independent claim 1. As a result, independent claim 10 is rejected for same reasons as those presented above. Regarding claims 11-14, these claims similar limitations as corresponding claims 2-5, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as presented above. As the Office is unable to clearly appreciate the intended scope of the claims as presented, a prior art search cannot be thoroughly conducted. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Publication No. 2014/0369793 A1 to Hall et al. describes a substrate loading device is provided. The substrate loading device comprises a frame, and a substrate transport container support. The frame is adapted for connecting the device to a substrate processing apparatus. The frame has a transport opening through which substrates are transported between the device and processing apparatus. The substrate transport container support is connected to the frame for holding at least one substrate transport container. The transport container support comprises a cover, at least one detector, and a member. The cover covers at least a portion of the support on which the at least one substrate transport container is seated. The cover has a resiliently flexible section. The at least one detector is connected to the cover for detecting a presence of the least one transport container on the support. The member is connected to the flexible section of the cover to move as a unit with the flexible section. The member cooperates with the detector causing the detector to detect the presence of the transport container on the support. Paragraph [0029] provides that load ports or load port modules 24 (one or more in number as will be described further below) are located on one or more of the sides of the front section providing the interface between the front section and FAB. The load port modules may have closable ports 300 forming a closable interface between the EFEM interior and exterior. As seen in FIG. 1, the load port modules may have a support area for a substrate transport container T. A secondary holding area may also be provided under the support area, where transport containers may be temporarily buffered. The transport container support area may allow automated movement of the transport container T supported thereon to a final or docked position. Proper placement of the transport container T on the support area, before movement, may be detected and verified with detection switches integral to the cover or casing of the support area. KR 101855854 B1 to Choi describes a computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as: a connector unit connected to a connection port provided in a PC or a data storage device to which an external device is connected; a connection detecting unit for detecting whether the connector unit is connected to the connection port; A controller for generating a data output signal and detecting position information by determining that the connection port is opened when a signal indicating that the connector is not connected to the connection port is received from the connector, And a communication unit for transmitting data outgoing signals and location information generated from the control unit to a relay server or an administrator terminal through wire / wireless communication. Here, the connector unit may include a power ground connected to the PC or a connection port provided in the data storage device so as to be electrically connected. In addition, the connector portion may further include a ground shield surrounding the power ground. For example, the connection detecting unit may detect whether a current supplied from the power supply unit flows through the connector unit to the connection port side, and detect whether the connector unit is connected to the connection port. Alternatively, the connection detecting unit may detect whether or not the current supplied from the PC or the data storage device flows through the connection port to the connector portion, and detect whether the connector portion is connected to the connection port. The data security module may further include warning sound generating means for generating a warning sound when the data leakage signal is received from the control unit. For example, the connector portion may include a first connector portion connected to the connection port, and a second connector portion detachably coupled to the first connector portion and separated from the first connector portion, And a second connector unit connected to the control unit so that when the manager transmits a locking signal to the control unit through the communication unit using the relay server or the manager terminal, And a physical locking means for preventing the second connector portion from being detached from the connector portion. US Patent Publication No. 2014/0325094 A1 to Nakanishi describes an information processor is capable of expanding a function by connecting an external device therewith. The information processor comprises a detector, an acquisition module, and a transmitter. The detector is configured to detect a connection with the external device. The acquisition module is configured to acquire, when the detector has detected the connection with the external device, graphical user interface (GUI) information to be used for providing a GUI of the external device from the external device. The transmitter is configured to transmit the GUI information to an operation terminal device capable of providing the GUI. JP 2001338854 A to Okoshi describes a plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses 1a to 1c are installed in a semiconductor manufacturing factory using a semiconductor manufacturing system having an online facility, the console unit 2 controls the plurality of apparatuses. You only need one. Normal operations are performed from the host computer 31 through the online communication cable 30. At the time of an assist request or maintenance, the operator selectively connects the console unit 2 to, for example, the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 1a, and performs assistance and maintenance while checking the operation and state of the apparatus from the console unit 2. According to the present embodiment, a single console section is shared by a plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses, thereby realizing a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus having a console function without having a console section. Compared to a case where a console unit is provided in each of a plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses, the number of console units in the entire semiconductor manufacturing system can be reduced, which can greatly contribute to reduction in apparatus cost, downsizing of the apparatus, energy saving, and the like. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0072906 A1 to Li et al. describes in Paragraphs [0016]-[0027] that limiting amplifier LA inside the receiver RX comprises a linear equalizer CTLE, an optical modulation amplitude loss of signal module OMA LOS, a received signal strength indicator module RSSI LOS, a multi-rate clock data recovery module CDR, a signal bypass ByPass, and a fiber channel mode rate decision module FC_mode_Rate_decision, a data selector MUX, a monitor clock MONITOR CLOCK and an output buffer CML_BUFF with de-emphasis; an input terminal of the 28 G transimpedance amplifier 28G_TIA is connected to a positive terminal of the photodiode PD through a chip pin PINA, a negative terminal of the photodiode PD is connected to a chip pin PINK, two output terminals of the 28 G transimpedance amplifier 28G_TIA are respectively connected to two input terminals of the linear equalizer CTLE and two input terminals of the optical modulation amplitude loss of signal module OMA LOS; the 28 G transimpedance amplifier 28G_TIA outflows RSSI monitoring current to received signal strength indicator module RSSI LOS; control signal output terminals of both the optical modulation amplitude loss of signal module OMA LOS and the received signal strength indicator module RSSI LOS are respectively connected to a control terminal of the linear equalizer CTLE, a control terminal of the output buffer CML_BUFF with de-emphasis and a chip pin RX_LOS; an output terminal of the linear equalizer CTLE is respectively connected to an input terminal of the multi-rate clock data recovery module CDR, an input terminal of the signal bypass ByPass and an input terminal of the fiber channel mode rate decision module FC_mode_Rate_decision; a control signal of the fiber channel mode rate decision module FC_mode_Rate_decision is output to one of a control port of the multi-rate clock data recovery module CDR and a control port of ByPass; a data signal output terminal of the multi-rate clock data recovery module CDR is connected to an input terminal of the data selector MUX; a data signal output terminal of the signal bypass ByPass is connected to another input terminal of the data selector MUX; an output terminal of the data selector MUX is connected to an input terminal of the output buffer CML_BUFF with de-emphasis; a clock output terminal of the multi-rate clock data recovery module CDR is connected to an input terminal of the monitor clock module MONITOR CLOCK; the positive and negative output terminals of the monitoring clock module MONITOR CLOCK are respectively connected to chip pins MCLKP and MCLKN; two output terminals of the output buffer CML_BUFF with de-emphasis are respectively connected to chip pins OUTP and OUTN . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/658,527 Page 2 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/658,527 Page 3 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/658,527 Page 4 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/658,527 Page 5 Art Unit: 2117
Prosecution Insights