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 .
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 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 1-5, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
10. (Currently amended) A system, comprising
(a)memory and a processing device coupled to the memory, wherein the processing device is configured to:
(b)receive time trace sensor data associated with a substrate processing procedure, wherein the substrate processing procedure comprises two or more sets of processing conditions, and wherein a first set of processing conditions and a second set of processing conditions of the two or more sets of processing conditions each include one or more operations performed repeatedly;
(c)separate a first portion of the time trace sensor data corresponding to the first set of processing conditions into a first plurality of cycle data, wherein each of the first plurality of cycle data is associated with one or more operations that are performed repeatedly;
(d)separate a second portion of the time trace sensor data corresponding to the second set of processing conditions into a second plurality of cycle data, wherein each of the second plurality is associated with one or more operations performed repeatedly;
(e)process the first plurality of cycle data and the second plurality of cycle data to generate summary data, wherein the summary data is associated with individual cycles of the first plurality of cycle data and the second plurality of cycle data; and
(f)provide, to a user, an alert that is based on the summary data associated with one or more of the individual cycles.
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed towards a system, or apparatus, a statutory category.
Step 2A - prong one: Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea under the “mental processes” grouping because the claim is directed towards collecting, analyzing data, and displaying the results. Limitation (a) above merely recites a memory and processor. Limitation (b) recites a data gathering step of collecting trace data. Limitations (c)-(e) recite analyzing the collected data by separating the data and then producing summary data. Limitation (f) provides an alert to the user, merely a form of displaying data. But for the memory and processor limitations, the claim recites the steps of collecting, analyzing and displaying the results of the collected data, similar to the mental processes concepts identified in MPEP 2106.04(a) III. The claims are recited at a high level of generality and use the computer as a tool to perform a mental process. The claims could practically be performed in the human mind by observation/judgment/opinion but for the generic computer, similar to the claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Step 2A - prong two: No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any practical improvement to the manufacture based on the summary results. Claim 11 further recites that a subset of the data is identified as steady state. Again, broad enough that the step encompasses performance in the human mind. Claim 12 recites elements related to the field of use, that the data is collected from process gas and depositing material on a substrate. Claim 13 recites that the collected data is repeated for at least 50 cycles, which is merely collecting more data. Claim 14 recites that the summary data is a statistical metric, basically a mathematical computation which could be accomplished via pen and paper. Claim 15 recites GUI elements for presenting the data recites providing visual distinctions between the cycle data, merely reciting further display details and not a practical application. Claim 16 recites that the substrate process is for generating a 3d NAND memory device. This is merely restricting the abstract idea to a field of use. Claim 17 merely recites further data identification steps and also do not recite a practical application because the claim merely further recites data association.
Step 2B: No, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered either alone or in combination. The additional elements besides the processor and memory identified as abstract mental processes are identified above. The claim recites separating data and generating summary data to display, which is not significantly more because the claims are recited at a high level of generality and computing statistical metrics based on collected data is well understood, routine and conventional as shown in the prior art cited (Yamartino). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 21 is patent eligible because it recites that a corrective action step is taken based on the summary data associated with the one or more of the individual cycles. Which is 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamartino US 2006/0155410 A1.
Yamartino teaches:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving time trace sensor data associated with a substrate processing procedure [acquiring chamber model data 110],
wherein the substrate processing procedure comprises two or more sets of processing conditions, [Fig. 1A 120 – steady state and adjustment] and
wherein a first set of processing conditions and a second set of processing conditions of the two or more sets of processing conditions each include one or more operations performed repeatedly; [Fig. 1B 114 – Acquiring chamber data from more than one run of a chamber]
separating a first portion of the time trace sensor data corresponding to the first set of processing conditions into a first plurality of cycle data, [Fig. 2 steady state during 210 and 220]
wherein each of the first plurality of cycle data is associated with one or more operations that are performed repeatedly; [Fig. 1B 114 – Acquiring chamber data from more than one run of a chamber]
separating a second portion of the time trace sensor data corresponding to the second set of processing conditions into a second plurality of cycle data, [Fig. 2 adjustment state 222 and 230]
wherein each of the second plurality is associated with one or more operations performed repeatedly; [Fig. 1B 114 – Acquiring chamber data from more than one run of a chamber]
processing the first plurality of cycle data and the second plurality of cycle data to generate summary data, wherein the summary data is associated with individual cycles of the first plurality of cycle data and the second plurality of cycle data; [para. 0085, “This statistical variation is represented in the example of FIG. 3 as curves 340 positioned above and below the score curve 310. The curves 340 can be standard deviations, for example .+-.3.sigma.. As such the curves 340 can effectively represent an envelope or range of operation of a chamber relative to the model.”] and
providing, to a user, an alert that is based on the summary data associated with one or more of the individual cycles. [warning 156 and para. 0101, “In other portions of the phases the subject chamber score 450 extends outside of the statistical variation traces 440, as shown by sections 454. The sections 454 indicate that the subject chamber has a problem that may require adjustment or faulting of the chamber.” And para. 0107, “The step of issuing a warning 156 can occur when the results of the chamber comparison show that the subject chamber is deviating from the chamber model such that is approaching a margin of operation and is tending towards a system fault. Such margins can be any of a variety of limits including the statistical variations of the chamber model, derivations thereof, or some predefined limit.”]
Yamartino teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one steady-state portion of the time trace sensor data, wherein at least a portion of the summary data is based on the steady-state portion. [para. 0095, “Depending on the particular subject chamber, the fault detection infrastructure can include a variety of sensors and indicators used for monitoring the operation of the chamber.” And paras 0076-0077 multivariate model created for steady-state portion]
Yamartino teaches:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising performing a cycle associated with the first plurality of cycle data, wherein performing the cycle associated with the first plurality of cycle data comprises: supplying a first process gas to a processing chamber for depositing a first material on a surface of a substrate; evacuating the first process gas from the processing chamber; supplying a second process gas to the processing chamber for depositing a second material on the surface of the substrate; and evacuating the second process gas from the processing chamber. [para. 0076, “As described herein, the acquired variables can include chamber conditions such as temperature, pressure, gas flow, source power, bias power, valve settings, and the like.”]
Yamartino teaches:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning a first set of index values to each of the first plurality of cycle data; and assigning a second set of index values to each of the second plurality of cycle data, such that the first set of index values and the second set of index values comprise a unique identifier for each cycle data of the first and second pluralities of cycle data. [para. 0079, “As noted for the present invention, the phases are further divided into at least one transition or stabilization portion and at least one steady-state portion and the multivariate analysis is performed on each of these portions separately. As a result, separate models for each portion of each recipe phase are provided.”]
Yamartino teaches:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting a GUI element, the GUI element comprising:an indication of summary data associated with one or more cycles of the first plurality of cycle data and one or more cycles of the second plurality of cycle data; and a visual distinction between each indication. [para. 0107 – warning 156 and curves 340]
Yamartino teaches:
9. The method of claim1,wherein separating the first portion of the time trace sensor data associated with the first set of processing conditions into the first plurality of cycle data comprises identifying two or more operations of a cycle based on sensor data values associated with the two or more operations. [para. 0043, “With split-phase modeling of the present invention, the fault detection model can include separate sub-models which are derived from the adjustment and steady-state portions of the process phase. This provides more accurate model than those achievable by prior whole-step modeling approaches.”]
Regarding claims 10-15 and 17-20, these system claims and CRSM claims are rejected on the same grounds and rationale as corresponding method claims above because they recite the execution of the method steps and storage of the method steps above.
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 4, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamartino US 2006/0155410 A1 in view of Zhang et al. US 2021/0233775 A1.
Yamartino does not teach the following limitation, however, Zhang teaches:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the first material comprises silicon oxide, and wherein the second material comprises silicon nitride. [Fig. 3A 300 and Fig. 4A 400]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Zhang with those of Yamartino. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Zhang teaches that silicon oxide and silicon nitride materials can be used in a semiconductor etching process which utilizes steady state temperature states. (See para. 0005 and 0018).
Zhang teaches:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the substrate processing procedure is to generate a three-dimensional NAND memory device, and wherein each layer of the NAND device is associated with one of the individual cycles. [para. 0012, “….etching 3D-NAND flash memory devices”]
Regarding claim 16, this system claim recites the generation of a 3D NAND device and is rejected on the same ground and rationale as method claim 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The additional amendments do not appear to overcome the prior art rejection (Yamartino). The additional limitation “wherein the summary data is associated with individual cycles of the first plurality of cycle data and the second plurality of cycle data” appears to be taught by the Yamartino reference because the data collected on an individual cycle(s) is displayed for both steady state and transition data. (See Fig. 2 202, 204 and 206). The alert, “associated with one or more of the individual cycles” also appears to be taught by Yamartino because para. 0096 teaches, “In this manner faults or behavioral deviations in the operation of the chamber can be detected as, or soon after, they occur, allowing the automated system to stop the chamber from processing more wafers.” Thus, the warning or fault can occur after one individual cycle if abnormal data is detected.
The remarks directed towards the dependent claims (pg. 9 remarks 5/19/26) under 35 USC 103 merely assert patentability via dependence and are unpersuasive because they are conclusory.
Newly amended claim 21 is patent eligible and if incorporated into each independent claim would overcome the outstanding 101 rejection.
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 GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights