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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1-7 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Referring to claims 1, 3,4,6-7, “in regard to …” is unclear. It is unclear how this recitation limits the scope of any of the device, method or medium claims.
Referring to claims 1, 3,6-7, “a plurality of combinations each…” is unclear. The examiner respectfully asks, combinations of what, and how do these combinations limit the scope of any of the device, method or medium claims?
Referring to claims 1, 3,6-7, “that are predicted based on …” is unclear. The examiner respectfully asks, what is predicted,- the degrees of deviation, some pieces of information?
Referring to claim 1,6,7, the indefinite claim language is “predicted based on an invariant relationship between the two different processing information pieces in each of the plurality of combinations and the plurality of actually collected respective processing information pieces”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (predicted based on an invariant relationship between the two different processing information pieces in each of the plurality of combinations and the plurality of actually collected respective processing information pieces) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure/steps recited in the claim, i.e., the device or processor, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or step or is simply a result of operating the device/method/medium in a certain manner.
Referring to claim 1,6,7, the indefinite claim language is “in regard to a plurality of processing information pieces representing operations or states related to a process for a substrate in the substrate processing apparatus, a plurality of combinations each of which includes two different processing information pieces being defined”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (in regard to a plurality of processing information pieces representing operations or states related to a process for a substrate in the substrate processing apparatus, a plurality of combinations each of which includes two different processing information pieces being defined) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure/steps recited in the claim, i.e., the device or processor, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or step or is simply a result of operating the device/method/medium in a certain manner.
Referring to claim 3, the indefinite claim language is “each combination includes a first processing information piece and a second information processing piece, in regard to each combination, the first processing information piece that is predicted based on the second processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and the invariant relationship is generated as a first prediction processing information piece, and a degree of deviation between the generated first prediction processing information piece and the first processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus is calculated as a first deviation degree, in regard to each combination, the second processing information piece that is predicted based on the first processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and the invariant relationship is generated as a second prediction processing information piece, and a degree of deviation between the generated second prediction processing information piece and the second processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus is calculated as a second deviation degree”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (each combination includes a first processing information piece and a second information processing piece, in regard to each combination, the first processing information piece that is predicted based on the second processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and the invariant relationship is generated as a first prediction processing information piece, and a degree of deviation between the generated first prediction processing information piece and the first processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus is calculated as a first deviation degree, in regard to each combination, the second processing information piece that is predicted based on the first processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and the invariant relationship is generated as a second prediction processing information piece, and a degree of deviation between the generated second prediction processing information piece and the second processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus is calculated as a second deviation degree) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure/steps recited in the claim, i.e., the device or processor, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the device in a certain manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the following:
1,6,7. An assistance device/method/medium storing program causing a computer to execute an assistance process that assists a maintenance work for a substrate processing apparatus,
in regard to a plurality of processing information pieces representing operations or states related to a process for a substrate in the substrate processing apparatus, a plurality of combinations each of which includes two different processing information pieces being defined,
the assistance device/method/program comprising:
a processor that acquires deviation degree information representing respective degrees of deviation between a plurality of processing information pieces that are actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and a plurality of respective processing information pieces that are predicted based on an invariant relationship between the two different processing information pieces in each of the plurality of combinations and the plurality of actually collected respective processing information pieces, and generates assistance information related to a maintenance work for the substrate processing apparatus based on the deviation degree information.
2. The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein
the substrate processing apparatus includes a plurality of components related to the plurality of processing information pieces,
the processor determines one or a plurality of components subject to the maintenance work from among the plurality of components based on the deviation degree information as one or a plurality of maintenance subject components, and
the assistance information includes information representing the one or plurality of maintenance subject components determined by the subject determiner.
3. The assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
each combination includes a first processing information piece and a second information processing piece,
in regard to each combination, the first processing information piece that is predicted based on the second processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and the invariant relationship is generated as a first prediction processing information piece, and a degree of deviation between the generated first prediction processing information piece and the first processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus is calculated as a first deviation degree,
in regard to each combination, the second processing information piece that is predicted based on the first processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and the invariant relationship is generated as a second prediction processing information piece, and a degree of deviation between the generated second prediction processing information piece and the second processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus is calculated as a second deviation degree,
the processor acquires a plurality of first deviation degrees that are respectively calculated in regard to the plurality of combinations, and a plurality of second deviation degrees that are respectively calculated in regard to the plurality of combinations as the deviation degree information, and
extracts one or a plurality of combinations having the first deviation degrees exceeding a predetermined first threshold value, and one or a plurality of combinations having the second deviation degrees exceeding a predetermined second threshold value, and
in regard to each of the one or plurality of extracted combinations, determines one or a plurality of components commonly related to a first processing information piece and a second processing information piece included in the combination as the one or plurality of maintenance subject components.
4. The assistance device according to claim 2, wherein in regard to each of the determined one or plurality of maintenance subject components, the processor acquires information related to a state of the maintenance subject component that changes over time as temporal component information, and calculates a necessity value indicating a degree of necessity of the maintenance work for the maintenance subject component based on the acquired temporal component information, and determines which one of a plurality of predetermined necessity levels the calculated necessity value belongs to, and causes the assist information to include information about a predetermined maintenance work for the maintenance subject component according to the determined necessity level.
5. The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein
each substrate processing apparatus is a substrate cleaning device that cleans a substrate using a cleaning liquid, and
the plurality of processing information pieces include at least one of an amount of cleaning liquid supplied to a substrate, a temperature of the cleaning liquid supplied to the substrate and a concentration of the cleaning liquid supplied to the substrate.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a device/processor/program nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device/processor/program language, acquiring information and generating information in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually calculating or thinking about acquiring information and generating information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – device/processor/program. The device/processor/program is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of device/processor/program amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0285613 to Asai, supplied by applicant.
Asai teaches the following:
1,6,7. An assistance device/method/medium storing program causing a computer to execute an assistance process that assists a maintenance work for a substrate processing apparatus (paragraphs 2 to 5 and 133 and figures 1 to 3, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15),
in regard to a plurality of processing information pieces representing operations or states related to a process for a substrate in the substrate processing apparatus, a plurality of combinations each of which includes two different processing information pieces being defined (see steps S101 to S105 in figure 15 and corresponding paragraphs 144 to 149),
the assistance device/method/program comprising:
a processor that acquires deviation degree information representing respective degrees of deviation between a plurality of processing information pieces that are actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and a plurality of respective processing information pieces that are predicted based on an invariant relationship between the two different processing information pieces in each of the plurality of combinations and the plurality of actually collected respective processing information pieces (see steps S106 to S109 in figure 15 and corresponding paragraphs 150 to 155; see steps S101 to S105 in figure 15 and corresponding paragraphs 144 to 149), and generates assistance information related to a maintenance work for the substrate processing apparatus based on the deviation degree information (see figure 13 and corresponding paragraphs 115 to 130).
2. The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the substrate processing apparatus includes a plurality of components related to the plurality of processing information pieces, the processor determines one or a plurality of components subject to the maintenance work from among the plurality of components based on the deviation degree information as one or a plurality of maintenance subject components, and the assistance information includes information representing the one or plurality of maintenance subject components determined by the subject determiner (see figure 8 disclosing the health information for different parts of the substrate processing device 1 based on different "processing information pieces").
3. The assistance device according to claim 2, wherein each combination includes a first processing information piece and a second information processing piece, in regard to each combination, the first processing information piece that is predicted based on the second processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and the invariant relationship is generated as a first prediction processing information piece, and a degree of deviation between the generated first prediction processing information piece and the first processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus is calculated as a first deviation degree, in regard to each combination, the second processing information piece that is predicted based on the first processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and the invariant relationship is generated as a second prediction processing information piece, and a degree of deviation between the generated second prediction processing information piece and the second processing information piece actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus is calculated as a second deviation degree, the processor acquires a plurality of first deviation degrees that are respectively calculated in regard to the plurality of combinations, and a plurality of second deviation degrees that are respectively calculated in regard to the plurality of combinations as the deviation degree information, and extracts one or a plurality of combinations having the first deviation degrees exceeding a predetermined first threshold value, and one or a plurality of combinations having the second deviation degrees exceeding a predetermined second threshold value, and in regard to each of the one or plurality of extracted combinations, determines one or a plurality of components commonly related to a first processing information piece and a second processing information piece included in the combination as the one or plurality of maintenance subject components (see figure 8 disclosing the health information for different parts of the substrate processing device 1 based on different "processing information pieces").
4. The assistance device according to claim 2, wherein in regard to each of the determined one or plurality of maintenance subject components, the processor acquires information related to a state of the maintenance subject component that changes over time as temporal component information, and calculates a necessity value indicating a degree of necessity of the maintenance work for the maintenance subject component based on the acquired temporal component information, and determines which one of a plurality of predetermined necessity levels the calculated necessity value belongs to, and causes the assist information to include information about a predetermined maintenance work for the maintenance subject component according to the determined necessity level (paragraph 116-120).
5. The assistance device according to claim 1, wherein each substrate processing apparatus is a substrate cleaning device that cleans a substrate using a cleaning liquid, and the plurality of processing information pieces include at least one of an amount of cleaning liquid supplied to a substrate, a temperature of the cleaning liquid supplied to the substrate and a concentration of the cleaning liquid supplied to the substrate (paragraphs 40, 41, 122).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are statutory under 101. The examiner disagrees. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a device/processor/program nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device/processor/program language, acquiring information and generating information in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually calculating or thinking about acquiring information and generating information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – device/processor/program. The device/processor/program is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of device/processor/program amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., focusing on the invariant relationships in regard to the plurality of different types of physical quantities) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., generating prediction data of each physical quantity using invariant relationships in regard to a plurality of different types of physical quantities) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). There is no claimed method step or program or processor configured to generate prediction data. The claim recites a processor configured to acquire deviation data, not configured to generate any prediction. The claims recite a prediction in a vacuum, and it is not clear what apparatus/step is intended to be further limited in scope by this recitation, or if the recitation is performed by some other structure or step that is not claimed.
Applicant argues Asai fails to teach a processor that "acquires deviation degree information representing respective degrees of deviation between a plurality of processing information pieces that are actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and a plurality of respective processing information pieces that are predicted based on an invariant relationship between the two different processing information pieces in each of the plurality of combinations and the plurality of actually collected respective processing information pieces, and generates assistance information related to a maintenance work for the substrate processing apparatus based on the deviation degree information." The examiner disagrees. Asai teaches “the comparison part 313 a uses a band generated based on the master data serving as the criterion for determination of a monitoring target device data (device state monitoring data) and compares the device data value acquired in the step S101 with the band. Specifically, the comparison part 313 a compares whether or not the device data value exceeds an upper limit value or a lower limit value set as the band”; wherein “In the step S106, the counting part 313 b counts the number of deviation points determined in the step S104 based on the comparison result stored in the storage part 215 h. In step S107, the determination part 313 c compares the count value counted in the step 106 with a predetermined threshold value. When the count value is equal to or smaller than the threshold value, the process proceeds to step S108. When the count value is larger than the threshold value, the process proceeds to step S109.”; wherein “band generation part 312 generates a band based on standard data set by the setting part 311, an upper limit designated value and a lower limit designated value. The band used herein refers to a range determined by giving a width to a waveform by standard data (for example, master data of the master apparatus 1(0) in data of a standard apparatus). Specifically, the band refers to a range determined by designating an upper limit value and/or a lower limit value based on values of data points constituting the standard data.” (see steps S106 to S109 in figure 15 and corresponding paragraphs 150 to 155; see steps S101 to S105 in figure 15 and corresponding paragraphs 144 to 149; see figure 13 and corresponding paragraphs 115 to 143), which reads on a processor that "acquires deviation degree information representing respective degrees of deviation between a plurality of processing information pieces that are actually collected from the substrate processing apparatus and a plurality of respective processing information pieces that are predicted based on an invariant relationship between the two different processing information pieces in each of the plurality of combinations and the plurality of actually collected respective processing information pieces, and generates assistance information related to a maintenance work for the substrate processing apparatus based on the deviation degree information."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
