DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are amended.
Objections to Claims 4 and 6 are withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment of the claim. A new claim objection is applied to amended claims 1, 7, and 8.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments of the claim. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is applied to amended claims 1-6.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mathematical calculation as they now recite receiving diagnostic computers that receive waveform data from semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses via a network.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. The claims recite generic computers that are connected to a generic semiconductor manufacturing apparatus. There is nothing in the claims that can be considered more than a drafting effort to link the abstract limitations to a broad technological area. There is no indication in the claim language what kind of data is being collected (i.e. what sort of sensor might be used) or what elements of the manufacturing apparatus might be monitored. Additionally, the claims do recite abstract limitations, as pointed out in the rejection below.
Applicant further argues that the receiving waveform data, separating the components, and calculating a deterioration degree cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. Although it is true that there could way of separating waveforms in complicated ways that would not be practically performed in the human mind (for example, real-time mathematical decomposition of complex signals via advanced transforms like a wavelet transformation), the claims do not include any more specific analysis than separating a waveform into unspecified components, which can practically be done with pen and paper, at least for simple cases as envisioned under BRI in light of the currently broad claim set. For at least these reasons, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that the claims do not seek to tie up the entirety of the relevant field, citing both McRo and Thales Visionix.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the claim stands, the only structure that is requires are computers connected via a network with generic semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses. Additionally, preemption is not a standalone test for patent eligibility. Preemption concerns have been addressed by the examiner through the application of the two-step framework. Examiner notes that a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. Regarding the alleged technological solution to a technological problem, although the claims may be linked to a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, the abstract idea of separate the received sensor sensor waveform data into a plurality of separated components each comprising one of a plurality of waveform change types, and calculate a deterioration degree on the basis of the plurality of separated component of each waveform change type is implemented by a generic algorithm on a generic computer. According to the Supreme Court decision Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp.") if an abstract idea is listed in the claim, the additional elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea itself.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0028] “the diagnosis device 2” should be -the diagnostic device 2-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, and similarly claim 7 and 8, is objected to because of the following informalities:
in lines 7-8 “each comprising one of” should be -each component comprising one of-.
in line 9 “a deterioration degree” should be -the deterioration degree-. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of diagnostic computers”. Although there is support for a plurality of computers, there is no support in the disclosure as originally filed for “diagnostic computers”. To overcome the rejection, the claim could be amended as – a diagnostic device comprising a plurality of computers-. Similarly claims 4 and 5 also recite “diagnostic computer” which should just be -computer-. Therefore claim 1 and further dependent claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 7 recites “a diagnostic platform comprising a plurality of diagnostic computers”. Although there is support for a plurality of computers, there is no support in the disclosure as originally filed for “a diagnostic platform” or “diagnostic computers”. To overcome the rejection, the claim could be amended as – a diagnostic device comprising a plurality of computers-, as in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “the diagnostic computer” in lines 6 and 9. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear whether the diagnostic computer is one of the “a plurality of diagnostic computers” recited in line 4. Therefore claim 1 and further dependent claims 2-6 are indefinite. Examiner suggests amendment the limitation to reach “each diagnostic computer” as in claim 7 to overcome the rejection.
Claim 4 which depends on claim 1 recites “perform a filtering process on time-series data of the calculated deterioration degree”. It is unclear how filtering would occur since there is no recitation of how the deterioration degree is related to or contains time series data in claims 1 or 4. Therefore claim 4 is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6, which depends on claim 1, recites “the plurality of diagnostic computers are each connected to one of the corresponding plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses via the network.” However claim 1 already recites “a plurality of diagnostic computers each configured to receive sensor waveform data from one of a corresponding plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses via a network”. Examiner notes that under BRI the transmittal of data from the semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses to the diagnostic computers indicates a connection between the apparatuses and computers. Therefore claim 6 does not further limit claim 1 and is an improper dependent claim. To overcome the rejection, applicant can cancel claim 6 or amend the claim to be further limiting.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
Claim 1. A diagnostic device for diagnosing whether or not maintenance of a part of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is needed by using a deterioration degree indicating a deterioration state of the part, the diagnostic device comprising:
a plurality of diagnostic computers each configured to receive sensor waveform data from one of a corresponding plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses via a network, wherein
the diagnostic computer is configured to separate the received sensor sensor waveform data into a plurality of separated components each comprising one of a plurality of waveform change types, and
wherein the diagnostic computer is further configured to calculate a deterioration degree on the basis of the plurality of separated component of each waveform change type.
Claim 7. A semiconductor equipment manufacturing system, comprising:
a diagnostic platform comprising a plurality of diagnostic computers each connected to a corresponding one of a plurality of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus via a network, each of the plurality of diagnostic computers of the diagnostic platform being configured to diagnose whether or not maintenance of a part of one of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses is needed using a deterioration degree indicating a deterioration state of the part,
wherein each diagnostic computer is configured to receive sensor waveform data from one of the corresponding plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses via the network,
separate an obtained sensor waveform into a plurality of separated components each comprising one of a plurality of waveform change types, and
calculate a deterioration degree on the basis of the plurality of separated component of each of the waveform change.
Claim 8. A diagnostic method for diagnosing whether or not maintenance of a part of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is needed using a deterioration degree indicating a deterioration state of the part, the diagnostic method comprising:
a step of separating an obtained sensor waveform into a plurality of separated components each comprising one of a plurality of waveform change types; and
a step of calculating a deterioration degree on the basis of the plurality of separated components of each of the waveform change types.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps. Separating waveform data into components, as is broadly recites, can be done with a pencil and paper. Calculating a deterioration degree can either be considered performing mathematics, if the calculation involves an equation or mathematical algorithm, or a mental step as it must involve some way, i.e. algorithm, of determining the degree of deterioration. Making a diagnosis based on the results of the separation is a decision which is a mental step.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims recite generic computers that are connected to a generic semiconductor manufacturing apparatus. There is nothing in the claims that can be considered more than a drafting effort to link the abstract limitations to a broad technological area. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because computers that receive data, a network, and a platform on which software is installed are considered a generic computer element and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Claims 2-5 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites a semiconductor manufacturing equipment systems and a network. The additional elements in the claims are recited in generality and represent insignificant field of use limitations that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018061842 (hereinafter Maruyama).
Regarding claim 8, Maruyama teaches a step of separating an obtained sensor waveform into a plurality of separated components
a step of calculating a deterioration degree (e.g. [0072] “The abnormal score calculation unit 206 uses the predicted values generated by the first predicted value generation unit 204 or the second predicted value generation unit 205 to calculate an abnormal score (i.e. calculate a deterioration degree), which is an indicator of whether or not there is an abnormality in the semiconductor manufacturing equipment 4. “) on the basis of the plurality of separated components of each of the waveform change types (e.g. [0037] “The anomaly detection device according to the first embodiment applies statistical modeling to summary values such as the average value (i.e. separated components of each waveform change type) of observed values, thereby estimating a state in which system noise and observation noise have been removed from the summary values of observed values.”, see also [0056] and [0063]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Maruyama, WO 2018061842 (hereinafter Maruyama).
Regarding claim 1, Maruyama teaches a computer configured to receive sensor waveform data from a corresponding of semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (e.g. see sensor waveform data in fig. 2A, e.g. [0015] “Figure 3 shows an example of the configuration of semiconductor manufacturing equipment information stored in the anomaly detection device according to the first embodiment.(i.e. the data that was received by the computer) …Figure 10 shows how the information processing by the anomaly detection program according to the first embodiment is specifically implemented using a computer.”) via a network (e.g. [0043] “The anomaly detection device 1 is connected to the remote server 3 via the network 2. The remote server 3 is connected to the monitored device, namely the semiconductor manufacturing equipment 4, which is the target of anomaly detection. An arbitrary number of sensors are installed in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 4, and predetermined parameters are measured each time a manufacturing process is performed in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 4. The measured parameters are sent to the remote server 3. The remote server 3 sequentially transmits the parameters received from the sensors of the semiconductor manufacturing equipment 4 to the anomaly detection device 1.”, see also [0154] and [0003]).
wherein the diagnostic computer is configured to separate the received sensor waveform data (e.g. see sensor waveform data Fig. 2A) into a plurality of separated components
wherein the diagnostic computer is further configured to calculate a deterioration degree (e.g. [0072] “The abnormal score calculation unit 206 uses the predicted values generated by the first predicted value generation unit 204 or the second predicted value generation unit 205 to calculate an abnormal score (i.e. calculate a deterioration degree), which is an indicator of whether or not there is an abnormality in the semiconductor manufacturing equipment 4. “) on the basis of the plurality of separated components of each waveform change type (e.g. [0037] “The anomaly detection device according to the first embodiment applies statistical modeling to summary values such as the average value (i.e. separated components of each waveform change type) of observed values, thereby estimating a state in which system noise and observation noise have been removed from the summary values of observed values.”).
Maruyama discloses the claimed invention and managing information about multiple monitored devices via a network (e.g. see [0097]), Maruyama does not explicitly disclose a plurality of diagnostic and a plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. This would provide the advantage that the diagnostic processes could be implemented over more devices.
Regarding claim 2, Maruyama teaches the limitations of claim 1. Maruyama further teaches wherein the plurality of separated components of each waveform change type comprises an offset component, a trend component, or a noise component (e.g. [0056] “Summary values (i.e. the plurality of separated components) include, for example, the mean of observed values, the mean of the variability of observed values, the standard deviation, the median, and the weighted average (i.e. plurality of waveform change types), which are used in conventional control charts.” And see Fig. 11 for waveform change types used in the control charts).
Regarding claim 3, Maruyama teaches the limitations of claim 1. Maruyama further teaches wherein the plurality of separated components of each waveform change type comprises a noise component (e.g. [0063] “The summary values generated by the summary value generation unit 202 still contain noise and observation errors even after preprocessing. Therefore, in this embodiment, the first prediction value generation unit 204 applies statistical modeling to estimate a true summary value, i.e., a prediction value, by removing noise (i.e. separated change type noise component) and observation errors from the summary value” .” And see Fig. 11 for waveform change types used in the control charts).
Regarding claim 4, Maruyama teaches the limitations of claim 1. Maruyama further teaches wherein the diagnostic computer is further configured to perform a filtering process on time-series data of the calculated deterioration degree (e.g. [0064] “For example, the first prediction value generation unit 204 estimates the state from the summary value (i.e. time-series data, see also [0004]) by applying a time series analysis method …the first prediction value generation unit 204 applies a prediction method using filtering such as a Kalman filter (filtering process on the time series data).“); and
calculate a threshold (e.g. [0074]) used for diagnosing whether or not the maintenance of the part of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is needed (e.g. [0004] “an abnormality prediction diagnostic device has been proposed that is configured to continue diagnosis even during maintenance of mechanical equipment” and [0045] “The anomaly detection device 1 is connected via a network 2 to a remote server 3 that continuously collects observed values from the semiconductor manufacturing equipment 4, thereby realizing online monitoring that continuously monitors the semiconductor manufacturing equipment 3 online. Therefore, the anomaly detection device 1 can detect anomalies in the semiconductor manufacturing equipment 3 in real time and notify the user.”)
on the basis of a distribution calculated using the deterioration degree on which the filtering process has been executed (e.g. [0074] “The anomaly score calculation unit 206 sets an arbitrary confidence interval (for example, 95%) of the predicted value as a threshold. Furthermore, the abnormal score calculation unit 206 may trim the calculated abnormal score and set an arbitrary probability of the distribution obtained by removing outliers as the abnormality judgment line, i.e., the threshold. Furthermore, the abnormality score calculation unit 206 may determine abnormality and normality in an unsupervised manner using machine learning such as a support vector machine, and set thresholds. Then, the detection unit 208 (described later) detects whether or not an abnormality exists depending on whether or not the summary value is within the set threshold.”).
Regarding claim 6, Maruyama teaches the limitations of claim 1. Maruyama further teaches a diagnostic computer connected to the corresponding semiconductor manufacturing apparatus via the network (e.g. see[0043], [0045]).
Maruyama discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of diagnostic and a plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. This would provide the advantage that the diagnostic processes could be implemented over more devices.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama in view of Matsushita et al., US 20070276528 (hereinafter Matsushita).
Regarding Claim 5, Maruyama teaches the limitations of claim 1. Maruyama further teaches estimate a distribution by machine learning using a normal distribution or using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method (e.g. [0069] “the second prediction value generation unit 205 generates prediction values by applying a prediction method using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method (MCMC) to the summary values” and [0060]“On the other hand, the second prediction value generation unit 205 generates prediction values from summary values using a prediction method based on the Markov chain Monte Carlo method (MCMC)… they can achieve more accurate estimations and are applicable to observational data that follows a non-normal distribution.“); and
calculate a threshold used for diagnosing whether or not an abnormality exists using the estimated distribution (e.g. see [0077] “(B) If the abnormal score falls outside the upper and lower thresholds indicated by the dotted lines, it is detected as an abnormality. In (B), the abnormal score falls outside the upper and lower thresholds in the area indicated by arrows X and Y. The area indicated by arrow X is where the anomaly score exceeds the upper threshold and is detected as an anomaly., see also [0085] and [0089]-[0094]).
Maruyama does not explicitly teach diagnosis whether or not maintenance is needed.
Matsushita teaches diagnosis whether or not maintenance is needed based on a calculated threshold used for diagnosing whether or not an abnormality exists (e.g. [0046] “The apparatus abnormality factor extraction apparatus 13 compares the value of the apparatus parameter as the abnormality factor with a predetermined maintenance warning threshold value, thereby checking whether to display a maintenance warning.” Examiner interprets a maintenance working as the system needing maintenance.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the teachings of Matsushita regarding determining whether maintenance is needed into the abnormality detection invention of Maruyama for the purpose of indicating when abnormalities indicate that repairs to a semiconductor manufacture systems are required. Therefore unexpected defects will not be lect uncorrected and product will not be defective (see Matsushita [0003]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 7, Maruyama teaches a diagnostic platform (e.g. [0015] and Fig. 1an anomaly detection device) comprising a diagnostic computer connected to
the diagnostic computer of the diagnostic platform being configured to diagnose whether or not an abnormality of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus exists using a deterioration degree indicating a deterioration state of the apparatus (e.g. [0046] “The apparatus abnormality factor extraction apparatus 13 compares the value of the apparatus parameter as the abnormality factor with a predetermined maintenance warning threshold value, thereby checking whether to display a maintenance warning.” Examiner interprets a maintenance working as the system needing maintenance.)
wherein the diagnostic computer is configured to receive sensor waveform data from the corresponding semiconductor manufacturing apparatus via the network apparatus (e.g. see sensor waveform data in fig. 2A, e.g. [0015] “Figure 3 shows an example of the configuration of semiconductor manufacturing equipment information stored in the anomaly detection device according to the first embodiment.(i.e. the data that was received by the computer) …Figure 10 shows how the information processing by the anomaly detection program according to the first embodiment is specifically implemented using a computer.”, see also [0043]),
separate an obtained sensor waveform into a plurality of separated components
calculate a deterioration degree (e.g. [0072] “The abnormal score calculation unit 206 uses the predicted values generated by the first predicted value generation unit 204 or the second predicted value generation unit 205 to calculate an abnormal score (i.e. calculate a deterioration degree), which is an indicator of whether or not there is an abnormality in the semiconductor manufacturing equipment 4. “) on the basis of the plurality of separated components of each of the waveform change types (e.g. [0037] “The anomaly detection device according to the first embodiment applies statistical modeling to summary values such as the average value (i.e. separated components of each waveform change type) of observed values, thereby estimating a state in which system noise and observation noise have been removed from the summary values of observed values.”, see also [0056] and [0063]).
Maruyama discloses managing information about multiple monitored devices via a network (e.g. see [0097]), Maruyama does not explicitly disclose a plurality of diagnostic and a plurality of semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. This would provide the advantage that the diagnostic processes could be implemented over more devices.
Furthermore, Maruyama does not explicitly teach diagnosis whether or not maintenance is needed.
Matsushita teaches diagnosis whether or not maintenance is needed based on a calculated threshold used for diagnosing whether or not an abnormality exists (e.g. [0046] “The apparatus abnormality factor extraction apparatus 13 compares the value of the apparatus parameter as the abnormality factor with a predetermined maintenance warning threshold value, thereby checking whether to display a maintenance warning.” Examiner interprets a maintenance working as the system needing maintenance.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the teachings of Matsushita regarding determining whether maintenance is needed into the abnormality detection invention of Maruyama for the purpose of indicating when abnormalities indicate that repairs to a semiconductor manufacture systems are required. Therefore unexpected defects will not be left uncorrected and product will not be defective (see Matsushita [0003]-[0006]).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2018061842 (3/10/23 IDS foreign patent document #10-
Teaches semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, sensor with time series, upper and lower thresholds, abnormality detection, removing noise to determine summary value, statistical modeling, average value (trend) and variation, filtering, residual between the predicted and summary values (noise)
US6421457 - Process Inspection Using Full and Segment Waveform Matching, a processor configured to recognize one of the reference waveforms as a golden waveform; and a comparator that compares the target waveform and the golden waveform, and compares the target waveform and the reference waveforms;
US 20220208532 -METHOD OF PLASMA PROCESSING A SUBSTRATE IN A PLASMA CHAMBER AND PLASMA PROCESSING SYSTEM, monitoring at least one parameter related to the plasma processing, determining a feature related to the at least one monitored parameter, and adjusting the power supply signal during the plasma processing to modify, in particular reduce, the feature.
WO 2010033761-SELF-DIAGNOSTIC SEMICONDUCTOR EQUIPMENT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE T RASTOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-0349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, TC2800 Director Patricia Bianco can be reached at 571-272-4940.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.
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights