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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on September 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: : “use” (paragraph 0004, line 7) should be – user --; “an” (paragraph 0014, line 2) should be – a --..
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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. Such claim limitation(s) information processing section (claim 1), a support processing section (claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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 § 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of “inputting the alarm generation information acquired by the information acquisition section in response to the generation of the alarm to a learning model that has learned by machine learning a correlation between the alarm generation information and the support information for dealing with generation of the alarm” (inputting information into an algorithm, mathematical concept). Claim 10 recites an abstract idea of “dealing with generation of the alarm when the alarm generation information is acquired in response to generation of the alarm in the information acquisition processing” (the step is recited at a high level of generality and covers an acknowledgment of the alarm, mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Acquiring alarm generation information is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Acquiring alarm generation information and perform polishing process on substrates are directed to routine and conventional features known in the industry (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 and their respective dependent claims 2-9 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 2024/0394575) in view of Hayashi et al. (CN 103247560).
The applied reference Murata has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 10, Murata discloses an inference apparatus (5; paragraph 0039) comprising:
a memory (914); and
a processor (912) configured to perform;
an information acquisition processing (500, paragraph 0088) of acquiring
alarm generation information (acquire crack occurrence state information, Abstract, lines 2-4) including at least alarm-type information (device state information, Abstract, lines 5-7) and substrate information (crack state of substrate, Abstract, line 4),
the alarm-type information indicating a type of alarm that is generated in a
substrate processing device (crack information is generated while polishing by polishing unit, Abstract, lines 5-6) including module (227’s) and is configured to perform polishing process on substrates (Abstract, lines 6-7),
an inference processing (crack occurrence process, Abstract, lines 7-8) of
inferring support information (identification of a process that causes a crack in the substrate, Abstract, lines 7-9) for dealing with generation of the alarm when the alarm generation information is acquired in response to generation of the alarm in the information acquisition processing (crack occurrence process for identifying a process that causes a crack in the substrate, Abstract, lines 7-9).
However, Murata does not disclose substrate-location information, the substrate-location information indicating a location state of the substrates in the modules when the alarm is generated.
Hayashi et al. discloses substrate-location information (detecting … a position of the substrate, Abstract, line 4), the substrate-location information indicating a location state of the substrates in the modules when the alarm is generated (detecting … a position of the substrate, Abstract, line 4, while detecting early failure, Abstract, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Murata with substrate-location information as disclosed by Hayashi et al. for the purpose of indicating a location state of the substrates in the modules when the alarm is generated.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-9 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein an information processing apparatus (5) comprising inputting the alarm generation information acquired by the information acquisition section in response to the generation of the alarm to a learning model that has learned by machine learning a correlation between the alarm generation information and the support information for dealing with generation of the alarm (claim 1) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murata discloses an information processing apparatus (5) comprising:
an information acquisition section (500) configured to acquire alarm generation information (acquire crack occurrence state information, Abstract, lines 2-4) including at least alarm-type information (device state information, Abstract, lines 5-7) and substrate information (crack state of substrate, Abstract, line 4), the alarm-type information indicating a type of alarm that is generated in a substrate processing device (state of polishing unit, Abstract, lines 5-6) including modules (modules 227’s) and is configured to perform polishing process on substrates (Abstract, lines 6-7),
a support processing section configured to generate support information corresponding to the alarm by inputting the alarm generation information acquired by the information acquisition section in response to the generation of the alarm to a learning model (process that inputs the crack occurrence state information to a learning model 11 in response to the occurrence of the crack in the substrate, Abstract, lines 10-12).
Murata further discloses the learning model (11) has been generated by machine learning that causes the learning model (11) to learn a correlation between the crack occurrence state information and crack occurrence process information indicating the process that causes the crack in the substrate (Abstract, lines 12-17).
However, Murata does not disclose a learning model that has learned by machine learning a correlation between the alarm generation information and the support information for dealing with generation of the alarm.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew 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 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 October 9, 2026
