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 .
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-25 are pending in this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites:
“discovering causal relationships between the observable variables based on the acquired observation data;”
“modifying the causal relationships according to constraint conditions to be applied between the observable variables to derive a causal structure of the observable variables in the substrate processing system;”
“generating a directed acyclic graph expressing the causal structure, using nodes indicating observable variables and edges indicating causal relationships between the nodes;”
“extracting one or more other observable variables having a direct causal relationship with one observable variable based on the derived causal structure;”
“generating a prediction model using the extracted one or more other observable variables as explanatory variables and the one observable variable as an objective variable”; and
“the constraint conditions include a condition that prohibits the edges from being drawn from a plurality of observable variables having collinearity to one observable variable.”
The limitation “discovering causal relationships between the observable variables based on the acquired observation data”, and “extracting one or more other observable variables having a direct causal relationship with one observable variable, based on the derived causal structure” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example “discovering” in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluating received observation data to determine relationships between variables associated with the data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of “modifying the causal relationships according to constraint conditions to be applied between the observable variables to derive a causal structure of the observable variables in the substrate processing system”; “generating a directed acyclic graph expressing the causal structure, using nodes indicating observable variables and edges indicating causal relationships between the nodes”; “generating a prediction model using the extracted one or more other observable variables as explanatory variables and the one observable variable as an objective variable” and “wherein the constraint conditions include a condition that prohibits the edges from being drawn from a plurality of observable variables having collinearity to one observable variable”, covers a mathematical concept. For example modifying a causal structure according to constraint conditions that prohibit collinearity to generate a directed acyclic graph requires plugging variables into one or more equations to determine the structural model and DAG. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical equations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device). The other additional elements “acquiring observation data corresponding to a plurality of types of observable variables from the substrate processing system to be monitored” and “outputting an alert or countermeasure information for the substrate processing system based on the derived causal structure and the observation data acquired from the substrate processing system” represent mere extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements represent mere data gathering steps and displaying or outputting results. 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. The claim 1 is 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 above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer amount 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 additional limitations, “acquiring observation data corresponding to a plurality of types of observable variables from the substrate processing system to be monitored” and “outputting an alert or countermeasure information for the substrate processing system based on the derived causal structure and the observation data acquired from the substrate processing system”, represent insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering that amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and specified at a high level of generality. Court decisions have held that mere data gathering steps and display/outputting results are not sufficient to overcome the essential abstract idea of the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 and Claim 18 are similarity rejected as Claim 1 above.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-16, 19-25 depend on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-16, 19-25 recite the same abstract idea practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation “designating the edges other than the most accurate edge as prohibited edges, to add the constraint condition”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element represents a mathematical equation of eliminating duplicate edges. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical equations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 2 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 3 recites the additional limitation “displaying the generated directed acyclic graph”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element represents an insignificant data gathering step. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the additional limitation “re-discovering the causal relationships between the observable variables on the constraint conditions to modify the causal structure”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 4 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 7-9 recite the additional limitation “complementing a node, which indicates a function form of a relationship between the observable variables, between the observable variables having the nonlinearity”; “displaying the node between the observable variables having the linearity and the node between the observable variables having the nonlinearity in different display manners”; and “displaying the relationship between the observable variables having the nonlinearity as a graph”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely associate the mental process with a particular data source or particular type of data. This limitation is merely an incidental or token additional to the claim that does not alter or affect the mental process steps performed. Claim 7 is ineligible.
Claims 11-15 recite the additional limitation “acquiring observation data corresponding to the explanatory variables from the observation system; and inputting the acquired observation data to the prediction model to predict observation data corresponding to the object” and “receiving an operation of selecting, from the displayed directed acyclic graph, nodes corresponding to one or more observable variables to be used as explanatory variables and a node corresponding to one observable variable to be used as an objective variable; and generating a prediction model using the one or more observable variables as the explanatory variables and the one observable variable as the objective variable, based on the received operation” and “extracting one or more other observable variables, which are candidates for a cause of a fluctuation in one observable variable, based on the derived causal structure; and outputting countermeasure information for suppressing the fluctuation in the one observable variable, based on the extracted other observable variables” and “extracting one or more other observable variables, which are candidates for a cause of a fluctuation in one observable variable, based on the derived causal structure; changing a display manner of nodes corresponding to the extracted one or more other observable variables; receiving an operation of narrowing down the candidates for the cause of the fluctuation from the nodes whose display manner has been changed; and outputting countermeasure information for suppressing the fluctuation in the one observable variable, based on the narrowed-down candidates for the cause of the fluctuation”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element represents a mathematical equation of generating a prediction model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical equations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 10-15 recite an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 16 recites the additional limitation “wherein the observation system is a substrate processing apparatus, and data set in the substrate processing apparatus and data measured in the substrate processing apparatus are acquired as the observation data”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely associate the mental process with a particular data source or particular type of data. This limitation is merely an incidental or token additional to the claim that does not alter or affect the mental process steps performed. Claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 19 recites the additional limitation “discovering the causal relationships by optimizing a linear regression coefficient between the observable variables through repetition of regression analysis and evaluation of independence of regression residuals, and drawing the edges between the nodes based on the optimized linear regression coefficient”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element represents a mathematical equation of implementing a linear regression coefficient algorithm to identify certain variables and data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical equations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 19 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 20 recites the additional limitation “changing at least one of a thickness and a color of the edge between the nodes, based on a degree of influence of one node on another node, and displaying the directed acyclic graph”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 4 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 21 recites the additional limitation “generating a determination model indicating whether or not a sensor value falls within an allowable range, based on the derived causal structure; generating a multi-dimensional table indicating a possible range for a setting value, using the determination model; and presenting a process window based on the multi-dimensional table”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element represents a mathematical equation of implementing a linear regression coefficient algorithm to identify certain variables and data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical equations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 21 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 22 recites the additional limitation “wherein a part of the relationships between the observable variables have nonlinearity, and the causal relationships including the nonlinearity are discovered using an algorithm that specifies whether or not a relationship is present without specifying a function form of the relationship”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element represents a mathematical equation of implementing a linear regression coefficient algorithm to identify certain variables and data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical equations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 22 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 23 recites the additional limitation “predicting observation data corresponding to the objective variable by inputting observation data acquired from the substrate processing system to the prediction model, and outputting an alert when the predicted observation data does not satisfy a reference value”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element represents a mathematical equation of implementing a linear regression coefficient algorithm to identify certain variables and data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical equations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 23 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 24 recites the additional limitation “estimating a cause of variation based on a comparison between an estimated result of the substrate processing system based on the derived causal structure and an actually measured value; and outputting countermeasure information for suppressing an influence of the estimated cause of variation”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 24 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 25 recites the additional limitation “the countermeasure information includes changing setting values of the substrate processing system, replacing consumable parts, or outputting predictions of failures or abnormalities”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim merely associates the mental process with a particular data source or particular type of data. This limitation is merely an incidental or token additional to the claim that does not alter or affect the mental process steps performed. Claim 25 is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim merely limits the mental process to a particular data source or particular type of data. Claim 25 is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENSEN HU whose telephone number is (571)270-3803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 PT.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/JENSEN HU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights