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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 04/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 8-27 are still pending.
3. Claims 1-7 were cancelled due to a restriction requirement by the Examiner.
4. Claims 21-27 are new.
5. Applicant's amendments to claims and new claims are accepted because do not introduce new matter pursuant to MPEP 2163.
6. The drawings filed on 06/03/2024 have been accepted.
II. Objections
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been maintained.
8. Page 7-8, the Applicant that “Rather, claim 8 now expressly recites: "selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object." Similarly, amended claim 15 now expressly recites: "selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and performing the selected processing operation on the object by use of a processing station of the processing line."”.
The Examiner respectfully considers that new added limitations “selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object” do not make the claims patent eligible pursuant to the 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
8.1. Argument in support to response to number 8 above.
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e]the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art"). The Supreme Court has identified additional elements as mere instructions to apply an exception in several cases. For instance, in Mayo, the Supreme Court concluded that a step of determining thiopurine metabolite levels in patients’ blood did not amount to significantly more than the recited laws of nature, because this additional element simply instructed doctors to apply the laws by measuring the metabolites in any way the doctors (or medical laboratories) chose to use. 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The Supreme Court also discussed this concept in an earlier case, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), where the claim recited a process for converting binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numbers. The Court found that the claimed process had no meaningful practical application except in connection with a computer. Benson, 409 U.S. at71-72, 175 USPQ at 676. The claim simply stated a judicial exception (e.g., law of nature or abstract idea) while effectively adding words that "apply it" in a computer. Id. ...
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. ...
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir.2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")). ...
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir.2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016).See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea. ...
(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir.2015) (The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result). See also O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854) (finding ineligible a claim for "the use of electromagnetism for transmitting signals at a distance"); The Telephone Cases, 126U.S. 1, 209 (1888) (finding a method of "transmitting vocal or other sound telegraphically ... by causing electrical undulations, similar in form to the vibrations of the air accompanying the said vocal or other sounds," to be ineligible, because it "monopolize[d] a natural force" and "the right to avail of that law by any means whatever.").
In contrast, limitations that confine the judicial exception to a particular, practical application of the judicial exception may amount to significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, in BASCOM, the combination of additional elements, and specifically "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end‐users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user" where the filtering tool at the ISP was able to "identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account," were held to be meaningful limitations because they confined the abstract idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional claim elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), or, more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following analysis: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity; and (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The independent claims of the instant application recite “selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object” (hereinafter mentioned as “Result/Outcome”), which are no more than instructions to implement the judicial-exception/abstract-idea, as a result/outcome.
With regards to (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The selection of a processing operation based on the identity of the carrier and operating the first station as claimed is simply the recitation of a solution with no restriction on how the Result/Outcome is accomplished, and no description of any mechanisms for accomplishing said Result/Outcome.
With regards to (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The independent claims of the instant application invoke a computer because a controller performs the select the process or operation to be performed after “determining an identity of the carrier” that is part of the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (see paragraph [0111] of the specifications by the Applicant(s)), which is a general purpose computer (see paragraph [0062] of the specifications by the Applicant(s)). Additionally, the “first station” and the “carrier” are machinery used as tools in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process related to a semiconductor process equipment used to convey semiconductor substrates (see paragraph [0001] of the specifications by the Applicant(s)), and executes judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
With regards to (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The independent claims of the instant application generically recite an effect of the judicial-exception/abstract-idea or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect. For instance, the independent claims recite “determining an identity of the carrier”, then, “selecting a processing operation ... based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object” without details to restrict on how the determination of the identity, selection of the operation, operating the first station are done and no description of any mechanism for the same. Consequently, the aforesaid result is disassociated from any method by which the said claimed selection and operation are accomplished, and only states the Result/Outcome of the application of the judicial-exception/abstract-idea. In a general way, the instant independent claims are similar to Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir.2015), where “The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes “the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result”.
Therefore, the Examiner has concluded that the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is not integrated into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, and/or, the additional elements individually and in combination as whole do not recite significantly more than a judicial-exception/abstract-idea in Step 2B. Furthermore, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words equivalent (selection and operation) to "apply it" and they are no more than instructions to implement the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible neither under Step 2A Prong Two nor under Step 2B.
9. Page 8-11, the Applicant(s) argues that “The amended claims are directed to the operation of a particular substrate processing environment using particular physical components. ... These are not merely nominal references to a technological field. Rather, these claims use the sensed magnet-position information to identify which physical carrier is present and then use that identification to control what physical processing operation is performed on the object carried by that carrier. ... The Application further explains that carrier identity may be used to determine process parameters used in the processing region, and that tracking carrier identity helps ensure that the correct process is performed in a processing station. ... The amended claims also are not directed merely to insignificant extra-solution activity. The Office Action characterized obtaining magnet positions and other structural features as mere data acquisition. See Office Action, p. 3 and 6. However, the amendments to claims 8 and 15 go beyond data gathering. The claimed methods now use the identified carrier information to select a process for the object and to operate the station to conduct that process. This is a substantive use of the information in the control of a physical processing system. It is therefore materially different from merely gathering data, displaying a result, or generally linking an idea to a technological environment ... Applicant also respectfully submits that the Office Action does not adequately support its repeated assertion that the additional claim elements are "well-understood, routine, or conventional." See Office Action, p. 4-11. The Office Action states in conclusory fashion that the additional elements include generic microprocessors, sensors, and data acquisition, and generally refers to "the prior art made of record below and on the IDS." However, MPEP § 2106.05(d) makes clear that a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an element, or combination of elements, is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and that such determination must be expressly supported in writing. ... Indeed, the Office Action itself acknowledges that "[t]he prior art of record does not teach the limitations of the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps relative to 'determining an identity of the carrier based on the distance between the first magnet and second magnet' above in the independent claims," and further states that "[t]herefore, there is no basis for obviousness. These limitations add concrete structural, positional, and station-specific implementation details that further tether the claims to particular substrate-processing equipment and to the physical operation of that equipment, rather than to any abstract idea in the air. ... xxxxxx ... ”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea set forth in the rejection below, are simply well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, therefore, do not amount to significantly more and fall in the concept of extra-solution activities and a field of use pursuant to the MPEP sections 2106.05(b) III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE; 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity; and 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
9.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 9 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, or, if the additional elements.
With regards to the particularity of a machine, the instant application does not claim a particular machine, it simply claims a two magnets, carrier, position sensor and substrate processing system with a high degree of generality that could not be considered a particular devices. For example, most of the systems and methods for processing a substrate have said devices (see Perlov et al. Patent No.: US 6,468,353, column 9, lines 55-67, hereinafter mentioned as “Perlov”), (see Grunes et al. Pub. No.: US 2001/0041121, paragraph [0057] and [0006], hereinafter mentioned as “Grunes”), and (see Raatz Pub. No.: US 2021/0249291, abstract and paragraph [0087] and Figs. 7A-7B).
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity, the instant application, the independent claims simply recite the additional claim elements “A method, comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor of a first station of a processing line of a substrate processing system, wherein the carrier is one of a plurality of carriers disposed in the processing line; obtaining a position of a second magnet of the carrier with the first position sensor; ... selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object” (hereinafter together mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”), which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the substrate processing industry.
The prior art supports that additional elements are extra solution activities (Pre-solution and Post-solution) as follows:
The independent claim(s) recites the limitation(s) “obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor of a first station of a processing line of a substrate processing system, wherein the carrier is one of a plurality of carriers disposed in the processing line; obtaining a position of a second magnet of the carrier with the first position sensor” (see Raatz, abstract and paragraph [0087] and Figs. 7A-7B).
The independent claim(s) further recites the limitation(s) “determining a distance between the first magnet and the second magnet of the carrier based on the obtained position of the first magnet and the obtained position of the second magnet” (see Grunes, paragraph [0057] and [0006]), (see Raatz, abstract and paragraph [0087] and Figs. 7A-7B), and (see Perlov, column 9, lines 55-67, hereinafter mentioned as “Perlov”).
Furthermore, the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps and its application can not be the reasons for allowance because it makes the claim ineligible.
Furthermore, the claim(s) at issue as a whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities in a general way with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Therefore, the independent claim(s) simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to the substrate processing system, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the substrate processing system that is performed using well well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element or combination of elements fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
9.2 SECOND Argument in support to response to number 9 above.
2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." … Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98 … Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) …
In summary, the MPEP and the courts have found that simply linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not sufficient for the claims to be eligible.
In the instant application, the abstract-idea/judicial exception above mentioned is simply linked to the substrate processing system. Therefore, the limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use, which in a general way is similar to Parker v. Flook where the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm is linked to chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in which the court found the claims ineligibles under 101.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole do not amount to more than estimating the result of an endurance test using conditions that are algorithms/equations themselves, using a general purpose processor that performs machine learning tasks such as executing said abstract-idea/judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the abstract-idea/judicial are mathematical algorithms and formulas and is not implemented into a practical application but simply linking it to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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.
10. Claim 8-27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
11. Claim 8 is directed to “determining a distance between the first magnet and the second magnet of the carrier based on the obtained position of the first magnet and the obtained position of the second magnet; determining an identity of the carrier within the first station based on the distance between the first magnet and second magnet”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor of a first station of a processing line of a substrate processing system, wherein the carrier is one of a plurality of carriers disposed in the processing line; obtaining a position of a second magnet of the carrier with the first position sensor ... selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 8 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
11.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 8 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
11.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 8 recites: “determining a distance between the first magnet and the second magnet of the carrier based on the obtained position of the first magnet and the obtained position of the second magnet; determining an identity of the carrier within the first station based on the distance between the first magnet and second magnet”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
11.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 8 does not claim a particular machine because the magnets, sensors, carriers, first station, object and substrate processing system are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the controller of the specifications is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the substrate processing context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine any improvement in the substrate processing technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in the substrate processing technologies, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for substrate processing).
11.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 8 recites the additional element(s) “A method comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor of a first station of a processing line of a substrate processing system, wherein the carrier is one of a plurality of carriers disposed in the processing line; obtaining a position of a second magnet of the carrier with the first position sensor ... selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below, on the IDS and response 9 above). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
12. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 10 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 11 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
15. Claim 12 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
16. Claim 13 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
17. Claim 14 depends on claim 8, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
18. Claim 15 is directed to “determining a distance between the first magnet and the second magnet of the carrier based on the obtained position of the first magnet and the obtained position of the second magnet; determining an identity of the carrier based on the distance between the first magnet and second magnet”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method, comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor, wherein the carrier is one of a plurality of carriers disposed in a processing line of a processing system; obtaining a position of a second magnet of the carrier with a second position sensor ... selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 15 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
18.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 15 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
18.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 15 recites: “determining a distance between the first magnet and the second magnet of the carrier based on the obtained position of the first magnet and the obtained position of the second magnet; determining an identity of the carrier based on the distance between the first magnet and second magnet”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
18.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 15 does not claim a particular machine because the magnets, sensors, carriers, first station, and object are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the controller of the specifications is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to manufacturing, testing and utilizing semiconductors, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
18.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 15 recites the additional element(s) “A method, comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor, wherein the carrier is one of a plurality of carriers disposed in a processing line of a processing system; obtaining a position of a second magnet of the carrier with a second position sensor ... selecting a processing operation for an object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to perform the selected processing operation on the object” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below, on the IDS and response 9 above). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
19. Claim 16 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
20. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 that depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
21. Claim 18 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
22. Claim 19 depends on claim 18 that depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
23. Claim 20 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
24. Claim 21 is directed to “determining a distance between the first magnet and the second magnet of the carrier based on the obtained position of the first magnet and the obtained position of the second magnet; comparing, ... , the distance to a stored group of identification distances associated with respective carriers of the plurality of carriers; determining, ... , an identity of the carrier within the first station based on the comparison; determining, ... , an object positioned on the carrier based on the determined identity of the carrier”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor of a first station of a processing line of a substrate processing system, wherein the carrier is one of a plurality of carriers disposed in the processing line; obtaining a position of a second magnet of the carrier with the first position sensor; ... with a controller of the processing line ... selecting, with the controller, a processing operation for the object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to conduct the selected processing operation on the object” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 21 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
24.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 21 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
24.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 21 recites: “determining a distance between the first magnet and the second magnet of the carrier based on the obtained position of the first magnet and the obtained position of the second magnet; comparing, ... , the distance to a stored group of identification distances associated with respective carriers of the plurality of carriers; determining, ... , an identity of the carrier within the first station based on the comparison; determining, ... , an object positioned on the carrier based on the determined identity of the carrier”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
24.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 21 does not claim a particular machine because the magnets, sensors, carriers, first station, object and substrate processing system are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the controller is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the substrate processing context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine any improvement in the substrate processing technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in the substrate processing technologies, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for substrate processing).
24.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 21 recites the additional element(s) “A method comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor of a first station of a processing line of a substrate processing system, wherein the carrier is one of a plurality of carriers disposed in the processing line; obtaining a position of a second magnet of the carrier with the first position sensor; ... with a controller of the processing line ... selecting, with the controller, a processing operation for the object positioned on the carrier based on the identity of the carrier; and operating the first station to conduct the selected processing operation on the object” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below, on the IDS and response 9 above). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
25. Claim 22 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 22 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
26. Claim 23 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 23 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
26. Claim 24 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 24 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
27. Claim 25 depends on claim 24 that depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 25 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
28. Claim 26 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 26 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
29. Claim 27 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 27 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 27 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Hudgens (Pub. No.: US 2023/0085667, which was provided with the previous office action) teaches “systems and methods relating to a transfer chamber for an electronic device processing system. The transfer chamber includes a magnetic levitation platform, having a magnetic levitation track disposed along a length of the transfer chamber and configured to generate a magnetic field above the track.” (Abstract).
b) Sunugatov (Pub. No.: US 2021/0407831, which was provided with the previous office action) teaches “A semiconductor wafer mapping apparatus comprising a frame forming a wafer load opening communicating with a load station for a substrate carrier disposed to hold more than one wafers vertically distributed in the substrate carrier for loading through the wafer load opening, a movable arm movably mounted to the frame so as to move relative to the wafer load opening and having at least one end effector movably mounted to the movable arm to load wafers from the substrate carrier through the wafer load opening” (Abstract).
c) Berger (Pub. No.: US 2021/0296150, which was provided with the previous office action) teaches “systems and methods relating to a transfer chamber for an electronic device processing system. The transfer chamber can include a first magnetic levitation track having a face-up orientation and a second magnetic levitation track spaced from the first magnetic levitation track and having a face-down orientation” (Abstract).
d) WRIGHT (Pub. No.: US 2021/0222292, which was provided with the previous office action) teaches “method is conducted in a single phase and the substrate is treated for a chosen period of time under controllable conditions to effect either etching of the chosen film or deposition of tungsten on the chosen film.” (Paragraph [0029]).
e) Heuken (Pub. No.: US 2004/0152219, which was provided with the previous office action) teaches “a device comprising a process chamber which is arranged in a reaction housing and which can be heated especially by supplying heat to a substrate holder, comprising a gas inlet for the admission of gaseous starting material, whereby the decomposition products thereof are deposited on a substrate maintained by a substrate holder to form a layer, also comprising at least one sensor acting upon the inside of the process chamber for determining layer properties” (Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights