DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are presented for examination.
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- 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims recite generating math-based variables, generating machine-learning based variables, and stacking variables to generate machine learning input, all of which are Mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)), and predicting a performance characteristic of the environment which is a mental process (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claims also recite adjusting an amount of power applied to heaters of a semiconductor processing system which result oriented “apply it” language – see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), which recites:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer,
examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to
recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim
limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on
how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the
result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly
more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power
Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743‐44 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414,
1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way
to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or
provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743
See also 2106.05(f):
Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to
modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific
steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML
documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations
provided only a result‐oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed
the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341‐42; 121
USPQ2d at 1947‐48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743‐44
(cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution
to an identified problem”))
The claim itself makes no attempt to explain what adjusting is performed. It is entirely result-oriented and covers "any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result."
The additional element of adjusting an amount of power applied to heaters of a semiconductor processing system merely uses the abstract idea in the context of adjusting power, and fails to provide any details on how it is accomplished. There is no description in either the claims or the Specification on the adjustment process. The inventive concept is not related to the adjustment process. There is no special way the adjustment is occurring, and the Specification discusses that the adjustment process is common practice (see paragraphs [0032] and [0048] of the Applicant’s Specification). Therefore, it appears that the goal of the invention is to accurately predict a performance characteristic, which is rooted in an abstract idea.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-20, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1, 8 and 21 claim a method, a method and a system. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of process, process, and machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A method of generating a digital twin of an environment comprising a semiconductor processing system that comprises a gas delivery system comprising one or more conduits and one or more heaters, the method comprising:
generating one or more mathematical-based variables based on a mathematical model of the environment and sensor data from one or more sensors of the environment (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi);
generating one or more machine learning-based variables based on a machine learning-based model of the environment and the sensor data (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi);
stacking the one or more mathematical-based variables and the one or more machine learning-based variables based on a meta-learning model to generate a machine learning input (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi) for predicting a performance characteristic of the environment (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
adjusting an amount of power applied to the one or more heaters of the semiconductor processing system based on the predicted performance characteristic.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves predicting a performance characteristic. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed it could be performed mentally. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present result-oriented “apply it” language. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “adjusting an amount of power applied to the one or more heaters of the semiconductor processing system based on the predicted performance characteristic” (result oriented “apply it” language – MPE 2106.05(f)(1)). The limitation recites the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting any detail on how it is accomplished. The claim itself makes no attempt to explain what adjusting is performed. It is entirely result-oriented and coverts "any attempt to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result."
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards result-oriented “apply it” language. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPE 2106.05(f)(1)).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claim 8 and 21 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 22-26 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 21-26 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome.
Rao and Huang teach a method of generating an environment comprising a semiconductor processing system that comprises a gas delivery system comprising one or more conduits and one or more heaters with a deep autoencoder (DAE) model with transfer learning designed to extract the generalized features of target order in the first stage to avoid over fitting. However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claims 1, 21)
“generating one or more machine learning-based variables based on a machine learning-based model of the environment and the sensor data;
stacking the one or more mathematical-based variables and the one or more machine learning-based variables based on a meta-learning model to generate a machine learning input for predicting a performance characteristic of the environment; and
semiconductor processing system based on the predicted performance characteristic”,
(claim 8)
“generating one or more machine learning-based variables based on a machine learning-based model of the environment and the sensor data;
stacking the one or more mathematical-based variables and the one or more machine learning-based variables based on a meta-learning model to generate a machine learning input, wherein the machine learning input includes a material deposit characteristic machine learning (MDCML) input, a sensor characteristic machine learning (SCML) input, a heater characteristic machine learning (HCML) input, or a combination thereof;
predicting a performance characteristic of the environment based on the machine learning input, wherein the performance characteristic of the environment includes an amount of material deposit within a conduit of the environment based on the MDCML input, a sensor state of the one or more sensors based on the SCML input, a heater state of a heater of the environment based on the HCML input, or a combination thereof; and the predicted performance characteristic”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights