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 Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 29 May 2026 have been full considered.
Applicant argues generally against the conclusion of the grounds of rejection without asserting a particular error in the grounds aside from pointing to, without detail, a “specific technological solution for monitoring, diagnosing, and responsively controlling one or more substrate processing apparatuses in response to detected problems of the one or more substrate processing apparatuses.” The issue is that the recited solution for monitoring, diagnosing, and responsively controlling is not technological but rather is abstract, conclusions that Applicant does not challenge. An abstract solution cannot itself provide an improvement to technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Applicant pointing to Examiner’s statement of novelty is not persuasive. The only technology recited is insignificant data gathering and output for the recited abstract process to determine what will solve the problem of the substrate processing apparatus, which is not a technological solution but rather mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of fixing a problem. Indeed, the claims are entirely silent as to how to control the one or more substrate processing apparatuses having the problem to solve the problem. The claims, explicitly reciting the idea of solving the problem without reciting details of how the problem is solves, fails to recite an improvement to technology. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Applicant pointing to BASCOM is not persuasive. The only recited additional elements are generic data gathering and generic control. There is no explanation in the disclosure of how the gathered data is gathered at all, much less in an unconventional way. There is no explanation of how the substrate processing apparatuses are controlled at all, much less in an unconventional way. Everything not abstract is recited at such a high level of generality that it is clear that the elements are merely part of the overall mere instruction to apply the exception in the context of a substrate processing apparatus. See Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology.”).
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 1-12 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, “determine one or more selection candidate data among the plurality of data based on the specific indicator,” 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, “determining” 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, “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, “calculate a priority of the determined one or more selection candidate data based on the specific indicator, the priority of the determined one or more 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 has been 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 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, “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, “traces log information of the identified data that indicates 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, “tracing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a visual arrangement of the log information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “checks whether the problem of the one or more substrate processing apparatuses is solved based on the traced log information of the identified data,” 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, “checking” encompasses a person observing the visual arrangement of log information. 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 abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis 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 plurality of data including process condition data and sensor detection data of the one or more substrate processing apparatuses, and the specific data including a number of selections and selection date/time for each data that indicates a status of the one or more 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. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
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(g).
The additional element, “output the determined one or more selection candidate data for monitoring the one or more substrate processing apparatuses on a display according to the priority of the determined one or more selection candidate data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “responsively controlling the one or more substrate processing apparatuses having the problem based on a result of checking whether the problem is solved until the problem is solved, thereby monitoring the status of the one or more substrate processing apparatuses,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of solving the problem with the substate processing apparatuses because the outcome of controlling the substrate processing apparatuses until the problem is solved is recited without details of how solving the problem is accomplished, and is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant computer implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 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, “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 plurality of data including process condition data and sensor detection data of the one or more substrate processing apparatuses, and the specific data including a number of selections and selection date/time for each data that indicates a status of the one or more 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 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, “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 determined one or more selection candidate data for monitoring the one or more substrate processing apparatuses on a display according to the priority of the determined one or more 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).
The additional element, “responsively controlling the one or more substrate processing apparatuses having the problem based on a result of checking whether the problem is solved until the problem is solved, thereby monitoring the status of the one or more substrate processing apparatuses,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the element is solely described in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
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 abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis 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 abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis 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.
As per claims 11 and 13:
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the process condition data includes a power supplied to a heater, a temperature of the heater, a pressure of a processing chamber, a type of processing gas, a flow rate of the process gas, and an RF power supplied to the one or more substrate processing apparatuses,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular type or source of data to manipulate. 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 process condition data includes a power supplied to a heater, a temperature of the heater, a pressure of a processing chamber, a type of processing gas, a flow rate of the process gas, and an RF power supplied to the one or more substrate processing apparatuses,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the element is solely described in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
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 12 and 14:
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the sensor detection data includes detection values of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, and a plasma emission monitor,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular type or source of data to manipulate. 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, the sensor detection data includes detection values of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, and a plasma emission monitor,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the element is solely described in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
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.
Prior Art
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
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 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