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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of February 26, 2026 which amended claims 10-12 and 14-16.
Claim Objections
The amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth claim objections.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 4 and 5 “based on the first measurement parameter such that the first measure measurement parameter follows a target value” should be “based on the first measurement parameter and the first measure measurement parameter follows a target value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yokodo et al (USPN 11,713,912).
With regards to claims 10 and 15, Yokodo et al discloses in Fig. 5 a time-series graph of a first measurement parameter (HIGH PRESSURE, PH from the high pressure line 65), a second measurement parameter (LOW PRESSURE, for claim 15, PL for the low pressure line 66) and an operation parameter (second cooling stage temperature, i.e. the temperature of stage 35 of the expander 14) which have all been displayed in the same time series graph with the time axes aligned. Thus, the final “displaying a time-series graph…” has clearly been performed and in order to make and plot the three varying parameters the time-series data for each parameter would have been acquired, since the graphs could not have been made without the acquisition (the first two steps are performed).
With regards to the limitation: “wherein the operation parameter is determined based on the first measurement parameter which is controlled ”; this limitation describes how the acquired data of the operation parameter originated. The step of controlling the first parameter to follow a target value so that the operation parameter is varied or determined is not positively claimed and does not further limit the claimed invention. Nevertheless, Yokodo et al discloses that the high pressure fluid provided from the compressor 12 (see Fig. 2) drives the expander via chamber 30 and thus the temperatures generated by the expander are related to and dependent/determined by the high pressure fluid. Further, the high pressure fluid is controlled to follow a target value since the bypass passage is controlled in response to a “set pressure” (see discussion from col. 6 line 59 to col. 7 line 37 and col. 8 lines 34-48).
With regards to claim 11 as set forth above Yokodo et al discloses the invention of claim 10. In Fig. 5 the three parameters are displayed with their time axes aligned. Thus the Y-axis of the displayed parameters are aligned and the target value (labeled in the annotated Fig. 5) and a limit value (limit value is not defined and can be randomly assigned, see the annotated Fig. 5), which are numbers that are represented along the respective Y-axis of each parameter, (that is the target and limit values are present along the aligned Y-axis). Further, the displaying includes displaying the time-series graph of the first measurement parameter (labeled in the annotated figure below) in a first display area (labeled in the annotated figure below; the areas maybe relatively randomly assigned) and the time-series graph of the operation parameter (labeled in the annotated figure below) in a second display area (labeled in the annotated figure below), wherein the target value of the first measurement parameter is displayed (labeled in the annotated figure below) at a first edge portion (labeled in the annotated figure below) of the first display area and a limit value (labeled in the annotated figure below) of the operation parameter is displayed at a second edge portion (labeled in the annotated figure below) of the second display area, wherein the first display area and the second display area are arranged such that the first edge portion of the first display area and the second edge portion of the second display area are adjacent (labeled in the annotated figure below) to each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokodo et al.
With regards to claim 12, as set forth above Yokodo et al discloses the invention of claim 11. However, Yokodo et al do not disclose: wherein the target value of the first measurement parameter is displayed at a lower edge portion of the first display area and the limit value of the operation parameter is displayed at an upper edge portion of the second display area.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the values and the areas as desired for a particular application because Applicant has not disclosed that arranging the values in the time-series graph provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention, i.e., the monitoring of the cryopump, to perform equally well with the values, limits and areas arranged in the display however most desired by a user or observer because the arrangement of the data in the display is a personal preference related to a particular application of objective which does not affect or change the underlying data or display as long as the time axes of the various graphed data remains aligned as already set forth in parent claim 10.
Therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Yokodo et al to obtain the invention as specified in the claim(s).
Claim(s) 16, 13 &14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokodo et al in view of Kanada (USPAP 2022/0088802).
With regards to claim 16, as set forth above Yokodo et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the method is performed by a cryopump monitoring program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium.
However, Kanada discloses a monitoring system for machine apparatus (see the abstract) which displays time-series graphs of multiple parameters (see Figs. 9A, 10 and 11 especially) and discloses that the monitoring method can be performed by a monitoring program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium (see [0080]).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a monitoring program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, as taught by Kanada, to perform a monitoring method such as disclosed by Yokodo et al since utilizing programs executed by a processor are well known mechanisms for accomplishing monitoring functions such as creating time series graphs of acquired data. Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means (such as a computer program) to replace manual activity (such as plotting data in a graph) which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
With regards to claims 13 and 14 as understood, as set forth above Yokodo et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed but do not disclose that providing a mark displaying diagnosis of the cryopump system has been performed (claim 13) or that the displaying is done in response to “an input operation designating the mark” (claim 14).
Kanada discloses a monitoring method (see title) for machine apparatus that creates time-series graphs of acquired data and includes a mark (the dashed ovals and the labels in Fig. 9A; and the cycle number representations of Fig. 9A along with the diagnostic information of Fig. 9B; and the symbols N or A at the top of each cycle in Fig. 10); further, in response to an input operation designating the mark (see paragraph [0065] which discusses that a user can change data extraction conditions, which is broadly an input operation designating a mark, to select data for certain situations, such as stops; As described at paragraphs [0066] thru [0068] this results in diagnostic information being displayed, such as in Fig. 9B; or the various marks with diagnosis of normal or abnormal state in Fig. 10).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a mark and to display diagnosis as taught by Kanada in the time-series graphs of Yokodo et al in order to indicate and point out important and/or abnormal events or conditions.
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.
Claim(s) 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a monitoring method including the steps of acquiring various data and creating time-series graphs of the data (claims 10-15) and a computer program for performing such a monitoring method (claim 16). The limitations in the method and software claims are directed to a judicial exception because the steps set forth represent an abstract idea in the form of either a mathematical relationship or a mental process. If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretations, covers mathematical formulas, equations and calculations but for the recitations of the generic computer components (claim 16) and the generic recitation of apparatus limitations (the data being related to a cryopump), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the data collection and graph creation are recited at a high-level of generality and it has been noted that:
PNG
media_image2.png
180
883
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims only recite limitations which can be performed by hand such as acquiring data and creating a graph from the data. With regards to claims 10-15 these steps may be performed by hand which a piece of paper and a pencil and with regards to claim 16 a generically set forth computer component is set forth as performing the method.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In particular, the time-series graphs created impose no limitation on the cryopump from which the data originated. The recited method steps and functions are limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application since they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the gathering or acquiring of the data is an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). These limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and the extra-solution of gathering of data that is related to a cryopump. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent extra-solution activity and the use of a processor to perform the mathematical calculations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments related to the rejections under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Yokodo et al as set forth in section C) of the Remarks section, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant on pages 10 and 11 argues that Yokodo et al discloses that the cooling temperature is measured by sensors and thus does not disclose that temperature being determined based on the high pressures. First, the examiner notes in the second step of the method, i.e., “acquiring time-series data of an operation parameter of the cryopump system, wherein the operation parameter is determined based on the first measurement parameter such that the first measurement parameter follows a target value”, the “wherein…” limitation merely describes the origin of the acquired data. The steps of generating the acquired and using the variables in control scenarios before they are acquired have not been positively claimed. Therefore, these arguments and the arguments that other variables such as the frequency should be the operation parameter is not found persuasive. Second, the applicant seems to be interpreting “determined” in a much more limited fashion, such as requiring a calculation. The term “determined” has a much broader scope than argued. From the Meriam-Webster Dictionary “determine is defined as:
PNG
media_image3.png
70
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Yokodo et al the high pressure clearly determines the second stage cooling temperature since the high pressure fluid flow from the compressor (12, see Fig. 2) is used to drive the expander and thus the pressure determines the temperature generated by the expander when determined is considered under a broadest reasonable interpretation. The above arguments are made against the rejections under 35 USC 103 and therefore these arguments are also not found persuasive.
With regards to the arguments presented against the rejection under 35 USC 101 these arguments are not found persuasive. The applicant again presents arguments at page 13 that the “wherein…determined…” limitation specifically limits the claimed invention and situations such as addressing the heat loads to the cryopump are specifically addressed. These limitation are not found in the claims however. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Lastly, the applicant argues that the claims be considered as a whole in light of the specification and drawings and that when this is done “the claims integrate the concept into a practical application (improving a specific graphical user interface (GUI) for a cryopump monitor)”. While the examiner notes that simply providing a generic GUI in the claims would not result in the claims being integrated into a cryopump system it is observed that the claims do not even include a GUI as part of a positively claimed cryopump system. The claims only set forth the method of gathering related data that came from a cryopump system and graphing them. For the above reasons the abstract idea set forth in the claims has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
April 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights