DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/01/2025 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1, 3, 6-7 and 10-14 have been amended. Regarding Claims 2, 4-5,8-9, and 15: cancelled.
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, 3, 6-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1, 3, 6-7 and 10-14 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 1, 3, 6-7 and 10-14 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); each of claims 13-14 fall within category of process.
Regarding Claims 1 and 6
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of diagnosis of the state.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
A diagnostic apparatus that makes a diagnosis of a state of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus by using first time-series waveform data acquired from a sensor group of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, the diagnostic apparatus comprising:
a processor coupled with a connection interface, wherein the connection interface is configured to receive waveform signals output from a plurality of sensors provided in communication with the connection interface,
wherein the processor is configured to
obtain and store a plurality of the waveform signals received via the connection interface to form the first time-series waveform data;
determine a masking period including a rising time of the first time-series waveform data or a falling time of the first time-series waveform data(mathematical: figs 7, 9&21);
convert the first time-series waveform data of the determined masking period into a predetermined value(mathematical & mental: figs 7, 9&21, [0159]);
output the converted first time-series waveform data is output as second time-series data; and
determine an anomalous value the diagnosis of a state of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is made on the basis of the second time-series data(mathematical & mental:[0086],[0107], [0164]), and
the masking period is a time at which a difference of the first time-series waveform data between adjacent sampling times becomes greater than a standard deviation of the difference([0081]-[0086], [0160-0164]).
The italicized limitations above represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “makes a diagnosis of a state [..];determine a masking period [..]; convert the first time-series waveform data [..]; determine an anomalous value [..];the masking period is a time at which a difference [..] ” are combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “by using first time-series waveform data acquired from a sensor group of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus; receive waveform signals output from a plurality of sensors provided in communication with the connection interface; output the converted first time-series waveform data is output as second time-series data; obtain and store a plurality of the waveform signals received via the connection interface to form the first time-series waveform data ” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “A diagnostic apparatus; a processor coupled with a connection interface, wherein the connection interface is configured ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The 3rd additional element is “a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, sensors”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic semiconductor system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above three, the “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 is an additional element that is, i.e. “sensor, diagnostic apparatus, a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus ”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claim 6 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claim 6, the elements amount to mere use of a generic semiconductor system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d)..
Regarding Claims 10 and13-14
Claims 10 and 13 contains language similar to claims 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 10 and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Regarding Claims 3 and 7
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claims 3 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea of diagnosis of the state.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
A diagnostic apparatus that makes a diagnosis of a state of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus by using first time-series waveform data acquired from a sensor group of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, the diagnostic apparatus comprising:
a processor coupled with a connection interface, wherein the connection interface is configured to
receive waveform signals output from a plurality of sensors provided in communication with the connection interface,
wherein the processor is configured to obtain and store a plurality of the waveform signals received via the connection interface to form the first time-series waveform data;
determine a masking period including a rising time of the first time-series waveform data or a falling time of the first time-series waveform data;
convert the first time-series waveform data of the determined masking period into a predetermined value;
determine a feature quantity of the masking period is determined;
output the converted first time-series waveform data is output as second time- series data;
add determined feature quantity to the second time-series data; and
determine an anomalous value diagnosis of a state of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is made on the basis of the second time-series data to which the feature quantity is added, and
wherein the feature quantity is determined on the basis of a time difference between a time at which a first difference becomes greater than a standard deviation of the first difference and a time at which a second difference becomes greater than a standard deviation of the second difference,
the first difference is a difference of the first time-series waveform data between adjacent sampling times, and
the second difference is a difference of reference time-series data between adjacent sampling times..
The italicized limitations above represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determine a masking period [..]; convert the first time-series waveform data[..]; determine a feature quantity [..]; output the converted first time-series waveform data[..]; add determined feature [..]; determine an anomalous value diagnosis of a state[..], and wherein the feature quantity is determined on the basis of a time difference [..] of the second difference, the first difference is a difference [..] between adjacent sampling times, and the second difference is a difference of reference time-series data between adjacent sampling times ” are combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2), see [0080]-[0089]. Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 3 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “receive waveform signals output from a plurality of sensors provided in communication with the connection interface, wherein the processor is configured to obtain and store a plurality of the waveform signals received via the connection interface to form the first time-series waveform data” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “A diagnostic apparatus; a processor coupled with a connection interface, wherein the connection interface is configured ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The 3rd additional element is “a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, sensors”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic semiconductor system which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above three, the “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 3 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 is an additional element that is, i.e. “sensor, diagnostic apparatus, a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus ”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 14
Claims 11-12 and 14 contains language similar to claims 3 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-12 and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 13-46.The Applicant argus that amended Claims are not directed to abstract idea and also eligible under step 2B.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because claims limitations represent combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, (see figs 7, 9&21, [0080]-[0089],[0107], [0164], [0081]-[0086], [0160-0164] of current application PG Pub ). In view of the the “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Park et al. (US 20230056595) disclose a method and device for predicting an anomaly in a manufacturing process.
b) Konashi (US 2023/0252038) disclose A time-series data processing system 100 according to the present invention includes a comparison unit 121 configured to compare a feature amount of each of pieces of partial time-series data in a plurality of specific periods at different positions on a time axis in first time-series data and a feature amount of each of pieces of partial time-series data in a plurality of periods located in correspondence with a positional relationship among the plurality of specific periods in second time-series data, and a detection unit 122 configured to detect a specific state in the second time-series data based on a result of the comparison.
c) Hzawa (US 2022/0413480) disclose A time series data processing system according to the present invention includes a learning unit configured to learn so as to generate a model that takes, of time series data measured from a measurement target, boundary period time series data that is time series data of a boundary period between a normal period and an anomalous period as an input and outputs a teaching signal determined by a preset function in accordance with change of time of the boundary period time series data. The normal period is a period in which the measurement target is determined to be in a normal state. The anomalous period is a period in which the measurement target is determined to be in an anomalous state.
d) Togwa (US 2022/0253461) disclose A time-series data processing apparatus according to the present invention includes: a generating unit configured to generate a generator having learned so as to generate state information representing a state of time-series data having a predetermined time width in accordance with a label given to the time-series data; a state information generating unit configured to generate, by using the generator, state information representing a state of division time-series data obtained by dividing the time-series data by a shorter time width than the predetermined time width; and a classifying unit configured to classify a plurality of division time-series data based on state information of the plurality of division time-series data.
e) Sadazuka (US 2021/0181732) disclose a control method includes obtaining, in a first period, a measurement value related to mechanical equipment in a first state, specifying a period in which the mechanical equipment is in an operating state in the first period, by using the measurement value and profile information of the measurement value corresponding to a time when the mechanical equipment is in the operating state, and extracting, as data for machine learning, a feature value based on the measurement value corresponding to the specified period which is in the first period and in which the mechanical equipment is in the operating state.
f) Pan et al. (US 2021/0066141) disclose anomaly detection and remedial recommendation techniques for improving the quality and yield of microelectronic products are provided. In one aspect, a method for quality and yield improvement via anomaly detection includes: collecting time series sensor data during individual steps of a semiconductor manufacturing process; calculating anomaly scores for each of the individual steps using a predictive model; and implementing changes to the semiconductor manufacturing process based on the anomaly scores. A system for quality and yield improvement via anomaly detection is also provided.
g) Ishikawa (US 2020/0393812) disclose The extraction unit determines an optimal warping path from the composite sequence and a reference sequence, which is an example of the composite sequence acquired in advance, by a dynamic time warping method. The extraction unit identifies a start point and an end point of a specific subsequence based on the optimal warping path and the start point and end point of the subsequence of the reference sequence. The extraction unit extracts a specific subsequence based on a start point and an end point of the specific subsequence.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857