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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 6 each recite “output one or more selection candidate data among the plurality of data on a display based on the specific indicator” and “output the one or more selection candidate data on the display according to the priority of the selection candidate data.” It is unclear whether this requires them to be separate displaying acts, or whether they can be the same displaying act. For the purposes of examination, they can be the same act.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1 and 6:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “calculating a specific indicator indicating the status of the substrate processing apparatus by using at least one of the specific data,” as drafted, covers a calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “based on a number of selections of each data selected from the specific data stored in the table, calculating a first indicator indicating a selection frequency of each data selected from the specific data,” as drafted, covers a calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “based on selection date/time of each data selected from the specific data stored in the table, calculating a second indicator indicating a latest selection frequency of each data selected from the specific data,” as drafted, covers a calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “based on a number of selections of each set of the sets including the multiple data that are selected among the one or more specific data stored in the table, calculating a third indicator indicating a selection frequency for each of the sets,” as drafted, covers a calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “calculating the specific indicator based on at least one of the first, second, and third indicators,” as drafted, covers a calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “a priority of the selection candidate data is calculated based on the specific indicator, the priority of the selection candidate data being calculated based on an average value of the first indicator, the second indicator and the third indicator,” as drafted, covers a calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “when at least one of the one or more selection candidate data is selected an input by a user based on the priority of the selection candidate date, the at least one of the one or more selection candidate data input by the user is identified as data that is capable of solving the problem of the substrate processing apparatus,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which selection candidate data is capable of solving the problem of the substrate processing apparatus. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “whether the problem of the substrate processing apparatus is solved based on the traced log information of the identified data is checked,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “tracing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a visual arrangement of the log information, and “checking” encompasses a person observing the visual arrangement. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “the one or more substrate processing apparatuses is controlled based on a result of checking whether the problem of the one or more substrate processing apparatuses is solved until the problem is solved, thereby checking the status of the one or more substrate processing apparatuses,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “controlling” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how to use the substrate processing apparatuses. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “acquire one or more specific data among a plurality of data about the one or more substrate processing apparatuses when a problem occurs in the one or more substrate processing apparatuses, the specific data including a number of selections and selection date/time for each data that indicates a status of the substrate processing apparatus, and one or more sets each including multiple data and a number of selections of each of the sets when the multiple data are selected among the one or more specific data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is mere data gathering activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The additional element, “output one or more selection candidate data among the plurality of data on a display based on the specific indicator,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The additional element, “generate a table in which the specific data including the number of selections and the selection date/time for each data of the plurality of data, and the number of selections of each of the sets are stored,” is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is mere data gathering activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The additional element, “output the one or more selection candidate data on the display according to the priority of the selection candidate data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As an ordered combination, the invention limits collecting information (“acquiring specific data…”), analyzing it (“calculating a specific indicator [] using at least one of the specific data”), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (“displaying selection candidate data [] based on the specific indicator”) to data relating to a substrate processing apparatus. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “acquire one or more specific data among a plurality of data about the one or more substrate processing apparatuses when a problem occurs in the one or more substrate processing apparatuses, the specific data including a number of selections and selection date/time for each data that indicates a status of the substrate processing apparatus, and one or more sets each including multiple data and a number of selections of each of the sets when the multiple data are selected among the one or more specific data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “output one or more selection candidate data among the plurality of data on a display based on the specific indicator,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “generate a table in which the specific data including the number of selections and the selection date/time for each data of the plurality of data, and the number of selections of each of the sets are stored,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “output the one or more selection candidate data on the display according to the priority of the selection candidate data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 7:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein when the at least one of the one or more selection candidate data is selected from a data selection screen,” is insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention limits collecting information (“acquiring specific data…”), analyzing it (“calculating a specific indicator [] using at least one of the specific data”), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (“displaying selection candidate data [] based on the specific indicator”) to data relating to a substrate processing apparatus. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein when the at least one of the one or more selection candidate data is selected from a data selection screen,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect user input. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 8:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein each time the data for indicating the status of the substrate processing apparatus is selected from the data selection screen, the specific indicator indicating the status of the substrate processing apparatus is calculated,” as drafted, covers a calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “each time the specific indicator is calculated, the one or more selection candidate are output based on the specific indicator,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention limits collecting information (“acquiring specific data…”), analyzing it (“calculating a specific indicator [] using at least one of the specific data”), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (“displaying selection candidate data [] based on the specific indicator”) to data relating to a substrate processing apparatus. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “each time the specific indicator is calculated, the one or more selection candidate data extracted from the plurality of data are output based on the specific indicator,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4 and 9:
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein when the data selection screen is closed, the log information of the identified data that indicates the status of the substrate processing apparatus is displayed,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention limits collecting information (“acquiring specific data…”), analyzing it (“calculating a specific indicator [] using at least one of the specific data”), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (“displaying selection candidate data [] based on the specific indicator”) to data relating to a substrate processing apparatus. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein when the data selection screen is closed, log information of the data that indicates the status of the substrate processing apparatus is displayed,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 10:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “a specific indicator indicating a status of at least one of the plurality of substrate processing apparatuses is calculated by using at least one of the specific data,” as drafted, covers a calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The recited judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the specific data are acquired among a plurality of data about a plurality of substrate processing apparatuses capable of communicating with each other via a network, the specific data including a number of selections and selection date/time for each data that indicates a status of each of the substrate processing apparatuses, and one or more sets each including multiple data and a number of selections of each of the sets when the multiple data are selected among the one or more specific data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is mere data gathering activity, selecting a particular source of data, and selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “the selection candidate data are output based on the calculated specific indicator,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention limits collecting information (“acquiring specific data…”), analyzing it (“calculating a specific indicator [] using at least one of the specific data”), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (“displaying selection candidate data [] based on the specific indicator”) to data relating to a substrate processing apparatus. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either individually or as a combination when viewing the claim(s) as a whole.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more.
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or field of use, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the specific data are acquired among a plurality of data about a plurality of substrate processing apparatuses capable of communicating with each other via a network, the specific data including a number of selections and selection date/time for each data that indicates a status of each of the substrate processing apparatuses, and one or more sets each including multiple data and a number of selections of each of the sets when the multiple data are selected among the one or more specific data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “the selection candidate data are output based on the calculated specific indicator,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach calculating specific indicators of data exposed by a substrate processing apparatus based on a selection frequency, latest selection frequency, or selection frequency for a set of exposed data, and displaying selection candidate data selected from the exposed data based on the calculated specific indicators. The prior art does not describe suggesting a particular parameter of an industrial process for monitoring based on a user history of having selected the parameter for monitoring, much less especially in a substrate processing apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights