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 Arguments
I. Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I including claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Applicant’s also traverse the further species requirement between the species of Figure 9 and Figure 10. After carefully consider the arguments by the Attorney(s) for the Applicant(s) with respect to the further species requirement, the Examiner found them persuasive, therefore, the further species requirement is withdrawn.
3. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
4. Claim 8-20 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.
5. 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; and 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 of identifying a substrate carrier within a processing line of a substrate processing system, comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor of a first station of the processing line, 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 ...” 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 8 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
5.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 8 is directed to a method of identifying a substrate carrier, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
5.2.1. 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; and 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 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).
5.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, and do 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. (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 methods for identifying a substrate carrier).
5.3. 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 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method of identifying a substrate carrier within a processing line of a substrate processing system, comprising: obtaining a position of a first magnet of a carrier with a first position sensor of a first station of the processing line, 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 ...”, which are/is simply routine and 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 and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole does 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).
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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; and 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 of identifying a substrate carrier, 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 ...” 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:
12.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 15 is directed to a method of identifying a substrate carrier, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
12.2.1. 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; and 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).
12.2.2. 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, and do 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. (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 methods for identifying a substrate carrier).
12.3. 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 of identifying a substrate carrier, 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 ...”, which are/is simply routine and 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 and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole does 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).
13. 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.
14. 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) “wherein the respective widths of the junctions vary between a first and opposite second end of the row, with the respective widths having a maximum width near each of the first and second ends and with the respective widths having a minimum width between the maximum width near the first end and the maximum width near the second end”, 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. The 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. Therefore, there is no basis for obviousness.
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) teaches “a device compnsmg a process chamber which is arranged in a reaction housing and which gcan 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
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 Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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