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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 14, 2026 has been entered.
The July 14, 2026 filing included an amendment which amended claims 10, 12 and 16; and canceled claim 11.
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 and 12-16 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 and 12-15) 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_image1.png
180
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The amended limitation setting forth that the operation parameter is calculated by a controller is considered 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/controller component to calculated the operation parameter.
The claims only recite limitations which can be performed by hand such as acquiring data, making calculations and creating a graph from the data. With regards to claims 10 and 12-15 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 July 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not 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 14 related to the benefits of the method of displaying and monitoring the cryopump as claimed and notes that by arranging the values as claims the invention “enables complex and casually-related operating conditions of a cryopump system to be conveyed more efficiently within a display space”. While this may be true the underlying benefit of the invention is that the information is arranged on the display in a manner that is easier for the user to readily understand certain conditions. The limitations represented by these amendments, while beneficial, do not change or effect in anyway the underlying display such as by posting the results quicker or with better color.
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.
In the last full paragraph of page 14 the applicant makes reference to the Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.I. v. LG Electronics Inc case. This citation was not found persuasive since it provided that there was a “technological improvement in the functioning of a user interface” which is a different fact pattern that the instant application which provides data in a manner easier for the applicant to understand.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morizumi discloses a cryopump monitoring device and in Figs.2 and 6 values for three cryopumps are displayed together
Conclusion
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
August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights