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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit” in claim 20 – The Specification does not describe a structure associated with the “control unit”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, “control unit” lacks a structural description in the Specification as required under 35 USC 112(f) and therefore lacks written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, “control unit” renders the claim indefinite because there is no structure defined in the Specification as required under 35 USC 112(f) and therefore it is unclear what constitutes the control unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10-11, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaga (US20130260039A1) in view of Kim (WO2020017702A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takenaga teaches a prediction apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein:
the at least one processor acquires setting value data indicating at least one actual setting value of a controlled object and physical quantity data indicating a plurality of actual physical quantities of a plurality of actual products obtained by controlling the controlled object (¶52-54, parameters are indicating for setting values according to the recipe and physical quantities of the wafers, such as thickness, are measured);
the at least one processor calculates, using the setting value data and the physical quantity data, a plurality of prediction values obtained by predicting a plurality of predicted physical quantities in at least one predicted product on a basis of at least one adjusted setting value that adjusts control of the controlled object (¶56-57, Figures 9-10A – The temperature data and measured film thickness are used to calculate new temperature values which predict whether the new film thickness will be within the proper range);
the at least one processor calculates the plurality of prediction values using a learning model generated by machine learning using the setting value data and the physical quantity data as learning data (¶56-57, Figures 9-10A – The temperature data and measured film thickness are used to calculate new temperature values which predict whether the new film thickness will be within the proper range, ¶58-61 describes the model used which can be considered a learning model generated by machine learning using the setting value data and the physical quantity data as learning data because the models correlate the setting value data and the physical quantity data and constitutes a model which has “learned” the correlation);
the at least one processor evaluates the plurality of prediction values on a basis of a predefined reference (¶56-57, Figures 9-10A – The temperature data and measured film thickness are used to calculate new temperature values which predict whether the new film thickness will be within the proper range);
the at least one processor selects, as a recommended setting value, any one of a plurality of setting values for which all the plurality of prediction values meet the predefined reference (¶56-57, Figures 9-10A – The temperature data and measured film thickness are used to calculate new temperature values which predict whether the new film thickness will be within the proper range); and
the at least one processor outputs the recommended setting value (¶56-57, Figures 9-10A – The temperature data and measured film thickness are used to calculate new temperature values which predict whether the new film thickness will be within the proper range).
Takenaga does not teach wherein the at least one processor calculates each of a plurality of indexes indicating reliabilities of the plurality of prediction values on a basis of a standard deviation obtained by a probability model handled in the machine learning.
Kim teaches wherein the at least one processor calculates each of a plurality of indexes indicating reliabilities of the plurality of prediction values on a basis of a standard deviation obtained by a probability model handled in the machine learning (see at least “Tech Solution” – “A prediction data calculation step of calculating prediction data for the measurement data by the kernel function and the M memory data; A weighted standard deviation calculation step of calculating a weighted standard deviation by receiving the prediction data, memory data positioned for each weighted region, weights for each weighted region, and a total number of valid numbers according to the weighted values; And an uncertainty that determines the reliability of the prediction data based on the uncertainty calculated by calculating the uncertainty by multiplying the weighted standard deviation by the t-distribution value according to the reference reliability value determined by the user with the total number of validity values according to the weight as the degree of freedom. Characterized in that the calculation step.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of Takenaga such that the at least one processor calculates each of a plurality of indexes indicating reliabilities of the plurality of prediction values on a basis of a standard deviation obtained by a probability model handled in the machine learning in order to provide more accurate modeling and to characterize the uncertainty of the predictions with the output.
Takenaga does not teach wherein the recommended setting values are selected on a basis of the plurality of indexes.
Kim teaches generating an index indicating the reliability of the prediction value (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Takenaga to include selecting the recommended setting value on the basis of the plurality of indexes calculated for the prediction values in order to provide a recommended setting value which confidently results in the intended change in the system.
Regarding claim 4, Takenaga as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, further comprising:
the at least one processor extracts a change rate of the at least one actual setting value and a change rate of the plurality of actual physical quantities from the setting value data and the physical quantity data, and the at least one processor generates the learning model in which the change rate of the at least one actual setting value is input and the change rate of the plurality of actual physical quantities is output (see Figure 4, which presents the film thickness change per temperature change model, i.e. a rate of film thickness change with rate of temperature change. The change rate for temperature can be said to be input and the change rate for film thickness output because mathematically an output of film thickness is the change rate of film thickness according to temperature change multiplied by the temperature change plus the original film thickness).
Regarding claim 10, Takenaga as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor outputs each of the plurality of prediction values together with the plurality of indexes (see rejection of claim 1, where uncertainty, i.e. the indexes, are provided with output in order to provide more accurate modeling).
Regarding claims 11, Takenaga as modified teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, wherein:
The at least one processor changes the at least one adjusted a setting value in order to search for a searched setting value at which all the plurality of prediction values satisfy the predefined reference, and the at least one processor selects the searched setting value as the recommended setting value (see Figure 6 – The temperature is adjusted until the film thicknesses satisfy a reference and then the temperature which provides the correct film thickness within each range is utilized, see ¶55-57).
Regarding claims 14, Takenaga as modified teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, wherein the controlled object is
a heater for adjusting a temperature in a furnace for heat-treating a plurality of wafers, and the plurality of actual physical quantities of the plurality of actual products is a film thickness to be formed on the plurality of wafers (¶55-57).
Regarding claim 17, Takenaga as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, wherein at least one of the plurality of predicted physical quantities in the at least one predicted product is a predicted film thickness to be formed on each of the plurality of wafers disposed in the furnace (¶67).
Regarding claims 18-19, the apparatus of Takenaga as modified according to claim 1 performs the method of claim 18 under normal operation and provides the components of claim 19 as it is performed on a computer, see Figure 2.
Regarding claim 20, Takenaga as modified according to claim 1 teaches a control apparatus comprising:
a control unit, wherein the control unit controls the controlled object according to the recommended setting value of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaga (US20130260039A1) in view of Kim (WO2020017702A1), further in view of Ichimura (US20180090152A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Takenaga as modified teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4, but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the learning model by Gaussian process regression.
Ichimura teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the learning model by Gaussian process regression (¶66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the at least one processor in Takenaga to generate the learning model using Gaussian regression in order to provide an accurate, effective learning model.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) and rejections related thereto under 35 USC 112(a)-(b), all are obviated by the amendment except for that of claim 20 which still contains the term “control unit”.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Takenaga under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are moot because no such rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Takenaga in view of Ichimuri as they apply to the amended subject matter are moot because Ichimuri is not used to cure any deficiencies of Takenaga related to the subject matter argued by Applicant.
With respect to Takenaga in view of Kim, Applicant is directed to the rejection herein. Takenaga discloses selecting a recommended setting value which leads to meeting the predefined reference, but does not do so on the basis of the plurality indexes. Kim’s disclosure is sufficient to render doing so on the basis of the plurality of indexes, as the indexes are defined in the claim, prima facie obvious.
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 SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights