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 § 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-16 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-16 recites at least one step or instruction for mental processes, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1-16 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A polishing method comprising:
generating spectra of reflected lights (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) from first measurement points located in a first location of a substrate (additional element) comprising a first structural element of a substrate (additional element) and a second measurement point (additional element) located in a second location of a substrate comprising a second structural element of the substrate (additional element) while polishing the substrate, the first structural element and the second structural element being different in surface structure, wherein the spectra are generated by a spectrometer (additional element) receiving the reflected lights from an optical sensor head (additional element) as the substrate is polished by a polishing head (additional element);
classifying the spectra (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), using a trained classification model, based on a shape of each spectrum into primary spectra belonging to a first group and a secondary spectrum belonging to a second group;
determining film thicknesses at the first measurement points of the substrate (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) from the primary spectra belonging to the first group; and
determining a film thickness at the second measurement point (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) corresponding to the secondary spectrum using the primary spectra belonging to the first group and without using the secondary spectrum belonging to the second group.
Specifically, Claim 8 recites
A polishing method comprising:
generating spectra of reflected lights (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) from first measurement points (additional element) located in a first structural element of a reference substrate (additional element) and second measurement points (additional element) located in a second structural element of the reference substrate (additional element) while polishing the reference substrate, the first structural element and the second structural element being different in surface structure, wherein the spectra are generated by a spectrometer (additional element) receiving the reflected lights from an optical sensor head (additional element) as the substrate is polished by a polishing head (additional element);
classifying the spectra (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), using a trained classification model, based on a shape of each spectrum into primary spectra belonging to a first group and a secondary spectrum belonging to a second group;
generating an estimated spectrum (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) that corresponds to the secondary spectrum and belongs to the first group, the estimated spectrum having a shape classified into a primary spectrum belonging to the first group and not having a shape belonging to the second group;
associating the primary spectra and the estimated spectra with film thicknesses (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
adding the primary spectra and the estimated spectrum as reference spectra to a database (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), the database having reference spectra including the primary spectra and the estimated spectrum;
generating a spectrum of reflected light from a substrate (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), while polishing the substrate;
determining a reference spectrum (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) having the closest shape to the shape of the spectrum of the reflected light from the substrate; and
determining a film thickness (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) associated with the determined reference spectrum.
Specifically, Claim 9 recites
A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polishing table (additional element) for supporting a polishing pad (additional element);
a polishing head (additional element)configured to press a substrate against the polishing pad to polish the substrate;
an optical sensor head (additional element) configured to emit light to first measurement points located in a first structural element of the substrate and a second measurement point located in a second structural element of the substrate and receive reflected lights from the first measurement points and the second measurement point as the substrate is polished by a polishing head (additional element); and
a processing system (additional element) comprising a memory (additional element) storing a trained classification model, the processing system configured to generate spectra of the reflected lights, the processing system being configured to:
classify the spectra (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), using a trained classification model, based on a shape of each spectrum into primary spectra belonging to a first group and a secondary spectrum belonging to a second group;
determine film thicknesses (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) at the first measurement points of the substrate from the primary spectra belonging to the first group; and
determine a film thickness (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) at the second measurement point corresponding to the secondary spectrum using the primary spectra belonging to the first group without using spectra belonging to the second group.
Specifically, Claim 16 recites
A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polishing table (additional element) for supporting a polishing pad (additional element);
a polishing head (additional element) configured to press a substrate against the polishing pad to polish the substrate;
an optical sensor head (additional element) configured to emit light to measurement points on the substrate and receive reflected lights from the measurement points; and
a processing system (additional element) comprising a memory (additional element) storing a trained classification model and a database and spectra of reflected lights from first measurement points located in a first structural element of a reference substrate and second measurement points located in a second structural element of the reference substrate, the first structural element and the second structural element being different in surface structure, the database containing reference spectra, the processing system being configured to:
classify the spectra of the reflected lights (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), using a trained classification model, based on a shape of each spectrum into primary spectra belonging to a first group and a secondary spectrum belonging to a second group;
generate an estimated spectrum (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) that corresponds to the secondary spectrum and belongs to the first group and does not correspond to the secondary spectrum belonging to the second group, the estimated spectrum having a shape classified into a primary spectrum belonging to the first group;
associate the primary spectra (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) belonging to the first group and the estimated spectra with film thicknesses;
add the primary spectra (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and the estimated spectrum as reference spectra to the database; and
determine film thickness (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) at the first measurement points from the primary spectra and at the second measurement points from the estimated spectrum.
Further, dependent Claims 2-7 and 10-15 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-7 and 10-15) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of:
Measurement points, structural elements, a spectrometer, an optical sensor head, a polishing head in independent Claims 1 and 8 and a processing system, polishing head, polishing table, optical sensor head, and polishing pad are generically recited chemical mechanical polishing elements in independent Claims 9 and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a chemical mechanical polisher, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, 9 and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a processing system as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-16 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a processing system, polishing head, polishing table, optical sensor head, and polishing pad
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed polishing system and computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the background of the specifications discusses how measurement points, structural elements, a processing system, polishing head, polishing table, optical sensor head, and polishing pad as common well understood, routine and conventional parts used in polishing systems (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Further Pg. 10, Lines 4-12 discusses examples of parts that may be used in the processing system and the description of the parts of the processing system are not fully described due to such components are well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processing system is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processing system. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are 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) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the polishing system method and polishing system apparatuses of Claims 1-16 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-16 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-16 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 October, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant's argument that the claimed apparatus addresses a concrete technological problem by classifying spectra based on shape using a trained model and determining film thickness at scribe lines (or other "problem" points) using reliable primary spectra from device regions, while expressly excluding the secondary spectrum at the scribe line, abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016) and MPEP 2106.05(a), wherein “[i]t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Here, the limitations “classifying the spectra...” is abstract ideas and not an additional element. The additional elements of "trained classification model" is merely a generically recited computer element used as a tool for executing the abstract ideas or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, applicant’s arguments in regards to the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The additional elements of the claim are all well understood, routine and conventional in polishing systems and the abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723