CTNF 18/690,326 CTNF 81461 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 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claim 10 recites “a secure computing method comprising steps of receiving…integrating…outputting…” which is a process. Step 2A, Prong One: the claim recites an abstract idea as follows: Claim 10 recites the steps of “receiving…integrating…and outputting…” which falls within the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), i.e. mental process and mathematical calculation. The steps “receiving…integrating…and outputting…” encompass “observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion” which can be performed in the human mind. The step “outputting the integrated parameters in a concealed form” encompasses an insignificant extra solution. The step “receiving…” encompasses data gathering/observation. The step “integrating…” encompasses mathematical calculation. The recited steps in claim 10 are all data gathering and are not performed by any particular device. The recited semiconductor manufacturing device is not particular device. The steps are interpreted as being performed by a computer (similar to claim 11) and the computer is not a particular device. Instead, it is a tool used to perform the abstract idea. Further, the recited steps which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts" in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii). The recited steps in claim 1 when viewed as a whole recites a mental process per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A),(B), (C) and (D). Step 2A, Prong Two: Practical Application? No. The recited steps in claim 9 are merely data gathering and are not performed by any particular device. The recited semiconductor manufacturing device is not particular device. The steps are interpreted as being performed by a computer (similar to claim 11) and the computer is not a particular device. Instead, it is a tool used to perform the abstract idea. The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The “(outputted) integrated parameters in a concealed form” is insignificant extra solution. There are no details of how to adjust or maintain the parameter. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole or in ordered combination does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into any particular practical application. The claim when viewed as a whole does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does it affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Instead, the claim appears to monopolize the abstract idea itself for any purpose or in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. It can cover anything that could be done in the field of information processing system Further, claim 9 when viewed as a whole or in ordered combination does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2. Claims 1, Claim 1’s preamble recites “a computing securing method” (even if the computing is by performed a computer) in which the computer-implementation only recites the abstract idea being performed by a computer or processor that is recited at such a high level of generality and they cannot be considered to indicate a particular machine, or even to identify a particular field-of-use or technological environment. The claim is therefore directed to the abstract idea, and would monopolize it across a broad range of practical applications, rather than being integrated into a particular practical application. The recitation of a general-purpose computer used merely as a tool to perform the abstract is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f), for instance). Claim 1 recites a secure computing system, claim 5 recites a semiconductor manufacturer server, claim 9 recites an information processing system and claim 11 recites a non-transitory recording medium which do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via a computer and processor. In other words, the system claims and the medium claim are no different from the method claim 9 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the system and product claim recite generic computer components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Claim 2 adds a limitation which is insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The step is performed by a processor which is not a particular machine and instead the processor is recited as a tool used to perform the abstract idea. Claim 3 adds a limitation which is insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The step is not performed by a particular machine. The device recited in the claim is not a particular device. It is a field of use device. Claim 4 adds a limitation which is a mathematical calculation merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. Claim 6 adds which is insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The limitation when viewed as whole or ordered combination does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into any particular practical application as required in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). 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, 3, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonetabi et al. (hereinafter “Yonetabi”)(WO 2020/148998) and Haga et al. (WO 02089189)(hereinafter “Haga”) . Regarding claim 10, and similar claims 1, 9, 11, discloses a secure computing system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: a non-transitory recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute: receiving concealed parameters of a plurality of models generated for a plurality of semiconductor manufacturers, each of the plurality of models (models at Pages 7 and 8). integrating the plurality of concealed parameters through secure computation (Page 7 for integration device and Page 32, last Paragraph); and outputting the integrated parameters in a concealed form (Pages 6 and 7, outputting). However, Yonetabi does not explicitly disclose “ach of the plurality of models being used for analysis related to predictive maintenance of a semiconductor manufacturing device”. Haga teaches “ach of the plurality of models being used for analysis related to predictive maintenance of a semiconductor manufacturing device” (Page 2: a vendor-side server owned by an administrator performing the above-mentioned operations; and a line network connecting the factory-side client and the vendor-side server so as to enable two-way communication. The factory-side client includes a data collection unit that collects status information of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, transmits the collected status information to the vendor-side server via the network, and transmits information transmitted from the vendor-side server. A transmission / reception unit for receiving, wherein the vendor-side server is configured to determine whether a corresponding semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is abnormal or abnormal based on the status information. A judgment unit for judging a quasi-abnormality; a database unit in which maintenance information on semiconductor manufacturing equipment is stored; receiving the status information from the factory side client and providing information or instructions to the factory side client; A remote maintenance system for semiconductor manufacturing equipment, characterized by comprising a transmission / reception unit for transmitting the data. According to such a configuration, since data can be transmitted and received bidirectionally between the factory client and the vendor server, remote management of the semiconductor manufacturing equipment becomes possible. Also, based on the status information, an error or sub-error of the device is determined and the maintenance information is stored. By performing data search using the database part that has been set up, even if a failure occurs, the cause of the failure can be specified quickly and accurately). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify Yonetabi 's invention using Yonetabi's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim to perform data search using the database part that has been set up, even if a failure occurs, the cause of the failure can be specified quickly and accurately (Page 2). Regarding claim 3, Yonetabi and Haga disclose everything as applied above. In addition, Haga teaches wherein the models are models that output necessity of maintaining a part in the semiconductor manufacturing device when a parameter related to an operating status of the semiconductor manufacturing device is input (Haga: Pages 3 and 5) . Conclusion Claims 4-9 are patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “integrate the plurality of concealed parameters through associative learning using the secure computation” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants. Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “the secure computation is secure distributed computation” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants. Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “input a parameter updated from a parameter of the stored model through associative learning using secure computation in a concealed form, restore the input parameter; and perform analysis related to predictive maintenance of the semiconductor manufacturing device, with the model updated by applying the restored parameter to the stored model” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants. Claims 6-8 depend from claim 5 and therefore are also patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bowden et al. (USPAP. 20160292652) discloses methods and systems for predicting part reliability in energy infrastructure are disclosed. One such method includes collecting a time-series history of failures for each failure mode of a plurality of failure modes occurring in one or more energy infrastructure assets of an energy infrastructure. The method also includes fitting a failure model to each failure mode within the plurality of failure modes, and calculating a mean time between failures and a variance associated with failure time as a function of time. The method further includes calculating times of changes in each of a plurality of preventative and mitigative barriers and interrelationships among barriers to determine a schedule of inspection, maintenance, and repair activities, based on a cost of the associated activity and the failure model for each failure mode as a function of time when time series data sets representative of the associated barrier are included as process inputs (Abstract; Pars. 26-32). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM. 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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. /PHUONG HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 May 29, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/690,326 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights