DETAIL ACTION
This Office action is in response to communication filed on 02/20/2026.
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 Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 02/20/2026 to the claims are accepted and entered. In this amendment:
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 8-9, 11, 14, and 22-26 have been canceled.
Claims 12-13, and 15-21 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-7 and 10 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/20/2026 regarding 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for the reasons stated below:
Applicant argues the claimed invention does not recite abstract ideas of Math concepts, Mental processes, or Human organization. Applicant amended claim 1 and referred to the specification, in paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0047], [0108], and [0132] with those disclosing “selectively adjusting the manufacturing process based on the electronic device controlling the one or more manufacturing devices according to the adjusted parameters to reduce defects in the additional semiconductor devices and improving performance of the manufacturing process." (for Step 2A – prong One). Applicant further argues in Step 2A – prong Two that claim 1 recites additional element that may integrate the claim into a practical application including improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Furthermore, applicant argues with Step 2B that claim 1 recites a control structure that adjusts manufacturing process parameters based on failure data and based on utilizing an exact test based on a binomial distribution to reduce or prevent an underestimation
issue and subsequently influences the manufacturing outcome of semiconductor devices, thereby enabling real-time quality control and process improvement. These
steps are not conventional, well-known, or routine and represent a meaningful technical
improvement over known methods of statistical data review or passive quality
assessment.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim 1 recites “performing an exact test based on a binomial distribution of the second failure data to determine whether the detection failure rate is abnormal” that falls into both mental processes (performing an exact test based on the detection failure rate is abnormal) and mathematical concepts (binomial distribution), and reciting adjusting manufacturing process which is a generic transformation because there is no specific details as to what is being done, and this process is conventional in the art, i.e., once abnormalities are found in the process, selective adjust of semiconductor devices is perform to reduce defects in additional semiconductor devices, therefore improving the performance of the manufacturing process. The above amended limitations fall into mental process and mathematical concept (Step 2A-Prong One). Claim 1 recites no any additional limitation that can integrate the claim into a practical application. Applicant refers to the specification paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0047], [0108], and [0132] that disclose improving performance of the manufacturing process." However, those paragraphs do not show any elements that are significant improving the manufacturing process. There is no specific limitation in the specification describing as to how “improving performance of the manufacturing process” is done (Step 2A-prong Two). Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B).
Please refer to the 101 rejection in the rejection section below for further details regarding the eligibility analysis.
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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as 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.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the
claims are directed to a process (claim 1), which is statutory category.
However, evaluating claim 1, under at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an Abstract ideas fall into the groupings of Mathematical concepts including “calculating a reference failure rate using the first failure data at a plurality of points in time included in the particular period; calculating a detection failure rate and a weighting, corresponding to second failure data at a detection time point after the particular period, using the reference failure rate; calculating an abnormality index based on multiplying the detection failure rate by the weighting; and comparing the abnormality index with an index corresponding to a control limit that is associated with stably controlling a failure rate” The combination of groupings of Math concepts and Mental processes including “performing an exact test based on a binomial distribution of the second failure data to determine whether the detection failure rate is abnormal; detecting whether the second failure data at the detection time point is abnormal, based on a result of the exact test and based on a result of the comparison of the abnormality index with the index corresponding to the control limit; and managing the second failure data such that the abnormality index falls within a controllable range.”
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claims
"integrate the abstract idea into a practical application" in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations of “obtaining first failure data based on tests performed on semiconductor devices at a particular period during a manufacturing process of the semiconductor devices” is a mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitations of “managing the second failure data includes programming processor of an electronic device to control one or more manufacturing devices using adjusted parameters of the manufacturing process in response to the exact test indicating that a detection second failure data at the detection time point is abnormal, and manufacturing additional semiconductor devices, based on the electronic device controlling the one or more manufacturing devices according to the adjusted parameters to manufacture the additional semiconductor devices according to the manufacturing process, and wherein the manufacturing of the additional semiconductor devices includes selectively adjusting the manufacturing process based on the electronic device controlling the one or more manufacturing devices according to the adjusted parameters to reduce defects in the additional semiconductor devices and improving performance of the manufacturing process,” appends generic equipment used for performing a generic transformation in manufacturing process and as explained in the MPEP: “A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). The claim recites no additional elements that could integrate the claim into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the
abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there is no additional element that makes the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional limitations as recited above in step 2A prong Two, are considered insignificant extra-solution activities that are not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is not eligible in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10 do not integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea and/or include additional limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, the dependent claims are ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 10 are considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art but as currently are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth in this Office action.
Please refer to the previous Office action for the examiner's statement of reasons for considering novel and non-obvious subject matter.
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 LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 PM-6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857