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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1,5 and 7 have overcome each and every objection set forth in the previous office action mailed on 05/15/2026. Therefore the objections for claims 1,5 and 7 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment for claims 1,5,6 and 7 and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s argument for claim 1 regarding that neither in combination nor individually Kobayashi et al. and Ericsson et al. teach dynamically generating and synchronizing apparatus screen data among multiple terminals logged into the same
semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, or providing a message posting and browsing function within the apparatus screen data itself has been fully considered but in moot in view of newly cited reference, Regan (US 20040260753 A1) in combination with cited prior art of record Kobayashi et al. Newly cited reference Regan explicitly teaches multiple registered users logged into the same computer (semiconductor apparatus in view of Kobayashi et al.) in [0008]. One registered logged in user can send an instant message to another logged in registered user such that the two users communicate with each other privately in real time using the same computer as shared by the users as taught in [0018] and [0022]. Only the registered users logged into the same sharing computers can communicate, not any other users from different computers or not registered to the sharing computer. Each of the users are provided with message input area on the screen as taught in [0028] and [0031]. As such Regan teaches dynamically generating and synchronizing apparatus screen data among multiple terminals logged into the same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, or providing a message posting and browsing function within the apparatus screen data itself. Kobayashi et al and Regan are analogous art because they from the same from the same field of endeavor that is multiple users logged into the same computer or apparatus.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a control device
controlling a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus including local operation terminal
displaying an apparatus screen of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and one
or more remote operation terminals displaying the apparatus screen logged into the
same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus as taught by Kobayashi et al. by
applying the known technique of initiating a chat session between the logged in users of
the operational terminals such as multiple registered user logged into the same computer (same semiconductor apparatus in view of Kobayashi et al.) to yield predictable results of real time communication between the registered logged in users of the same computer/semiconductor apparatus thus protecting the private nature of conventional instant messaging while minimizing the disruptiveness of instant messaging to accommodate shared use of a multi-user computer as taught by Regan in [0009].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 10 recites the limitation, “…analyze operation type command data for the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus received from the first user, and to provide graphical notification data inducing a message posting to the second user within the message input area of the apparatus screen data when the operation type command data matches a pre-stored specific error flag…”, but there is no such recitation on the specification. The specification is silent about analyzing any message and provide graphical notification that the message command data matches a pre-stored specific error. In [0051] and [0062] of the specification, it is recited that when one of the either remote or local users wants to shutdown the computer/device, the control device encourages notification by a chat function to either of the users to communicate between the users. However, it is not same as analyzing the command data to notify as error flag. It is not mentioned that shutdown command is a pre-stored error flag. It is not clear from the specification under what circumstances or control commands in the chat will identify as errors. As such there is lack of written description of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al.1 (US 20220066418 A1) in view of Regan (US 20040260753 A1).
The teachings of Kobayashi et al. as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by reference to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi et al. teaches, a control device for controlling a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (controller controlling the semiconductor
manufacturing device, [0005]) including a local operation terminal displaying an apparatus screen of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and one or more remote operation terminals displaying the apparatus screen (".... a controller
configured to control the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus based on an
operation received from a user by the local operation terminal and the remote operation
terminal that display the apparatus screen ... ", [0005]), the control device comprising:
a memory (the control device has a memory, [0031]); and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute a process for controlling the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (the control device has a CPU having processors connected to memory to execute programs-process, [0018] and [0031]),
wherein the process includes:
determining, in real time, a login state of the local operation terminal and at least one of the remote operation terminals to the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (" ... The controller includes a login state managing unit that manages a simultaneous login state from the local operation terminal and the remote operation terminal ... ", [0005], both the local and remote user are logged into the same manufacturing apparatus as taught in [0021]-[0022]), when determined that the local operation terminal and the at least one of the remote operation terminals are logged into the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (“…The login processing unit 32 performs a login processing for a login request from the local operation terminal 12 and the remote operation terminals 20. The screen data acquisition request receiving unit 34 receives a screen data acquisition request from, for example, an application program (hereinafter, simply referred to as an “application”) installed in the local operation terminal 12 and the remote operation terminals 20…”, [0037], that is display apparatus screen to the local and remote operators once determined local and remote operators are logged in), and registering the local operation terminal and the at least one of the remote operation terminals as a terminal group linked to the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (“…The user that operates the local operation terminal 12 and the remote operation terminals 20 may control the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 10 by operating the apparatus screen…”, [0038] that is the local user and the remote user logged into the same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus can view the apparatus screen and control the semiconductor apparatus using the viewed apparatus screen, see also [0040]).
Kobayashi et al. does not teach the details of providing a message input area and a message posting area in the apparatus screen of each of the local operation terminal and the at least one of the remote operation terminals registered as the terminal group, updating data of the apparatus screen to display, in real time, a
message input by either a first user operating the local operation terminal or a second user operating the at least one of the remote operation terminals in the message posting area of each apparatus screen and to share the message among the local operation terminal and the at least one of the remote operation terminals. However, Kobayashi et al. teaches multiple users are logged into the same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and working at the same time as taught in [0055] and [0056] but there is no scope of communication between the logged in users.
Regan teaches, providing a message input area and a message posting area in the apparatus screen of each of the local operation terminal and the at least one of the remote operation terminals registered as the terminal group (Both the users (buddies from the friend list) are logged into the same multi-user computer. Instant messaging area is displayed in the screens of the logged in users with a keyboard such that each logged in user (buddy) can privately message the other logged in user, [0008], [0028] and [0031]),
updating data of the apparatus screen to display, in real time, a message input by either a first user operating the local operation terminal or a second user operating the at least one of the remote operation terminals in the message posting area of each apparatus screen and to share the message among the local operation terminal and the at least one of the remote operation terminals (“…One of numerous personal computer type applications or features available on multi-user computer 100 is instant messaging. Instant messaging is a computer communication format in which two users communicate with each other privately in real time over a computer network. Successive messages in the sequence of communications between the users are displayed automatically when received at each user's computer2. A user will commonly have a list of "friends" or "buddies" who are other users with whom the user exchanges instant messages. When a user logs in, an instant messaging system will typically notify the user of which "friends" or "buddies" are also logged in and available for instant messaging…”, [0019]), and
synchronously transmitting the updated apparatus screen data to the local operation terminal and the at least one of the remote operation terminals such that the inputted message is displayed and shared in real time in the message posting area of the terminals belonging to the terminal group3 (each of the logged in user (buddy as identified in the friend list) exchange message with each other in real time while the sequences of messages displayed in the computer screen (apparatus screen) of each of the user, [0019], [0028] and [0040]).
Kobayashi et al and Regan are analogous art because they from the same from the same field of endeavor that is multiple users logged into the same computer or apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a control device
controlling a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus including local operation terminal
displaying an apparatus screen of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and one
or more remote operation terminals displaying the apparatus screen logged into the
same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus as taught by Kobayashi et al. by
applying the known technique of initiating a chat session between the logged in users of
the operational terminals such as multiple registered user logged into the same computer (same semiconductor apparatus in view of Kobayashi et al.) to yield predictable results of real time communication between the registered logged in users of the same computer/semiconductor apparatus thus protecting the private nature of conventional instant messaging while minimizing the disruptiveness of instant messaging to accommodate shared use of a multi-user computer as taught by Regan in [0009].
Regarding claim 2, combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the control device according to claim 1. In addition, Kobayashi et al. teaches, wherein the
local operation terminal is within a clean room in which the semiconductor
manufacturing apparatus is installed (local operation terminal is installed at the
semiconductor manufacturing apparatus installed in the clean room, [0018],[0019] and
[0021]), and the remote operation terminal is outside the clean room (remote
operational terminals are installed outside the clean room while being connected to the
same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus installed in the clean room, [0018]-[0019]
and [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the control device according to claim 1. In addition, Regan teaches, wherein the processor provides the function of posting and browsing of the message by a plurality of threads (the messages posted by the users are displayed on a portion of the screen and of each user and the messages can fade in or fade out to be clear to each of the users when needed. That is the users can scroll through the messages/threads, [0037] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the control device according to claim 1. In addition, Regan teaches, wherein the processor suggests (pre-authored replies, [0029]), to the first user operating the local operating terminal, the posting of the message to the second user operating the remote operating terminal (when one of the logged in user selects a pre-authored reply, that reply is posted and displayed to the computer screen in real time to other logged in user, [0019], [0029] and [0030]), according to a type of an operation received from the first user operating the local operating terminal (when both the logged in users are watching X, the pre-authored reply is tailored to according the information related to X and when selected by one of the logged in user, the tailored pre-author replied is posted and displayed to the other logged in user, [0028] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the
claimed control device controlling a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus. Therefore
together they teach the control method comprising the control device controlling a
semiconductor manufacturing apparatus performing all the functional limitations of the
control device controlling a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus as taught in claim
1.
Regarding claim 7, combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the
claimed control device controlling a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus. Therefore
together they teach a semiconductor manufacturing system performing all the functional
limitations of the control device controlling a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus as
taught in claim 1. Claim 7 has additional limitation which is taught by Kobayashi et al., a
control device configured to control the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus
based on an operation received from a first user operating the local operation
terminal and a second user operating the remote operation terminal (" ... As a
result, in the semiconductor manufacturing system 1 in FIG. 1, the different apparatus
screens are independently displayed simultaneously on the local operation terminal 12
and one or more remote operation terminals 20 that are logged in to the controller of the
same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 10, and it is possible to control the
semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 10 from the different apparatus screens ... ",
[0023]), each of the local operation terminal and the at least one of the remote
operation terminals displaying the apparatus screen ("… As a result, in the
semiconductor manufacturing system 1 in FIG. 1, the different apparatus screens are independently displayed simultaneously on the local operation terminal 12
and one or more remote operation terminals 20 that are logged in to the controller of the
same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 10…", [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the control device according to claim 1. In addition, Regan teaches, wherein the processor ([0018]) is configured to generate a plurality of independent thread data structures within the message posting area (successive messages in a sequence (threads) are generated and displayed to the logged in users, [0019]), and to distinguish and continuously update and regenerate messages for each of the plurality of independent threads (the sequence of messages are faded out in each of the logged in users screen, but when one users sends a message to another user, the sequence of messages fade in that is sequence of messages show up in each of the logged in users’ screens, [0019], [0037] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the control device according to claim 1. In addition Kobayashi et al. teaches, wherein the processor (the control device has a CPU having processors connected to memory to execute programs-process, [0018] and [0031]) is configured to analyze operation type command data for the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus received from the first user (“In step S24, the controller 30 determines, based on the operation information received from the local operation terminal 12 or the remote operation terminal 20 that is operated by the logged-in user, whether or not the execution instruction4 to the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 10 according to the operation information is possible…”, [0070] see also [0071]), and to provide graphical notification data inducing a message posting to the second user within the message input area (instant messaging window on either of the logged in users’ screen in view of Regan as taught in [0028]) of the apparatus screen data when the operation type command data matches a pre-stored specific error flag (when the command issued by the remote operator cannot be executed, the command is identified as error and the local operator is notified on the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus screen about the error processing, [0070] and [0077]).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al.5 (US 20220066418 A1) in view of Regan (US 20040260753 A1) and Narayan et al. (US 20240305598 A1).
Regarding claim 4 combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the
control device according to claim 3. In addition, Kobayashi et al. teaches, where the
first and second users are logged into the same semiconductor manufacturing
apparatus, (multiple users from local and remote operational terminals are logged into
the same semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, [0022] and [0023]).
Neither in combination nor individually Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach
the details of receiving an operation to delete the threads from a first user operating the
local operation terminal or a second user operating the at least one of the remote
operation terminals. However, Regan teaches to have real time messaging session
between one user to another user logged into the same multi-user computer as taught in [0019].
On the other hand, Narayan et al. teaches, wherein the processor (message exchange engine) receives an operation to delete the threads from a first user operating the local operation terminal or a second user operating the at least one of the remote operation terminals (the users within the same organization can post and send message threads and also request to delete any message thread sent by the user, [0031], [0035] and [0082]).
Kobayashi et al., Regan and Narayan et al. are analogous art because
they are from the same field of endeavor that is managing multiple users logged into the
same computer/network.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effect filing date of the claimed
invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device configured to
provide function of posting and browsing message between first and second user as
taught by combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan by applying the known
technique of providing the function of deleting a message thread by the user as taught
by Narayan et al. to yield predictable results of adding an additional feature which is deletion of message thread on top of posting messages for smooth communication
between the users.
Regarding claim 9, combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan teach the control device of claim 8.
Neither in combination nor individually, to, upon receiving a deletion command input signal for a specific thread from either the first user or the second user, collectively delete the specific thread data structure from the apparatus screen data of all terminals belonging to the terminal group in real time to regenerate the apparatus screen data.
However Regan teaches to have real time messaging session between one user to another user logged into the same multi-user computer as taught in [0019].
On the other hand, Narayan et al. teaches, wherein the processor (message exchange engine) is configured to, upon receiving a deletion command input signal for a specific thread from either the first user or the second user (the users within the same organization can post and send message threads and also request to delete any message thread sent by the user, [0031],[0035] and [0082]), collectively delete the specific thread data structure from the apparatus screen data of all terminals belonging to the terminal group in real time to regenerate the apparatus screen data (“… At 702, a user request is received from a first messaging system to delete or modify a message that was previously transmitted to a message thread. After a message is posted by a user of the first messaging system to the message thread, the user can submit a modification to the message or request to delete the message6…, [0082]).
Kobayashi et al., Regan and Narayan et al. are analogous art because
they are from the same field of endeavor that is managing multiple users logged into the
same computer/network.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effect filing date of the claimed
invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device configured to
provide function of posting and browsing message between first and second user as
taught by combination of Kobayashi et al. and Regan by applying the known
technique of providing the function of deleting a message thread by the user as taught
by Narayan et al. to yield predictable results of adding an additional feature which is deletion of message thread on top of posting messages for smooth communication
between the users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR06 (KR 100936006 B1) teaches a system where a multiple users can login to a same computer. The computer has several modes of operation particularly the duplication mode in which one user can be notified about harmful usage of resources used by the another user logged into the same computer as taught in page in 8. Also one user wishes to shut down the computer, without any obstacle to others registered users, the system logs off the user while other users can still be using the computer as taught in page 12.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am -12:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMINI SHAH can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Cited prior art of record.
2 Updating the computer screen display in real time to display the messages exchanged between the two logged in users sharing the same multi-user computer. The two users are buddies from the friend list (registered group) allowed to share the same multi-user computer.
3 A list of friends or buddies sharing the same multi-user computer when logged in can exchange messages between each other in real time, [0019], [0027] and [0028].
4 Analyzing operation type command issued by either of the local or remote computer.
5 Cited prior art of record.
6 Delete single message or the entire message thread. Each of the solutions are obvious variation of each other. To someone of ordinary skill in the art it will be obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions as identified above with a reasonable expectation of success, MPEP.2143.I.(E).
Prosecution Insights