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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2023 and 02/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an acquisition part, a classification part, first selection part, second selection part in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Although the specification does not clearly recite the structure of an acquisition part, a classification part, first selection part, second selection part in claim 21. They are interpreted/understood to be as a processor or equivalent.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10-21 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.
Independent claim 10 and 21, recite “selecting parameters having a large effect on the result data based on a threshold value for each of the plurality of groups; and selecting parameters highly correlated with the result data by correlation analysis between the parameters selected in the step of (d). It is unclear from the above recitation as what condition to be considered a large effect and highly correlated parameter. For the purpose of examination examiner considers large effect as a predicted value of input parameters and the best solution parameters as highly correlated input parameter.
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 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 10 recites:
A parameter selection method for causing a computer to execute processing steps including:
(a) acquiring a plurality of parameters in measurement data of a plurality of sensors regarding a process in a substrate processing apparatus and result data of the process corresponding to the measurement data;
(b) classifying the acquired parameters into a plurality of groups by a specific clustering method;
(c) selecting parameters having a large effect on the result data based on a threshold value for each of the plurality of groups;
(d) repeating the step of (c) in a tournament format between the groups for the parameters selected for each of the groups; and
(e) selecting parameters highly correlated with the result data by correlation analysis between the parameters selected in the step of (d).
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall 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 claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (process).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered 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 limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of “(a) acquiring a plurality of parameters in measurement data of a plurality of sensors regarding a process in a substrate processing apparatus and result data of the process corresponding to the measurement data (is considered to be a mathematical step);
(b) classifying the acquired parameters into a plurality of groups by a specific clustering method (is considered to be a mathematical step and mental step);
(c) selecting parameters having a large effect on the result data based on a threshold value for each of the plurality of groups (is considered to be a mathematical step and mental step);
(d) repeating the step of (c) in a tournament format between the groups for the parameters selected for each of the groups (is considered to be a mathematical step and mental); and
(e) selecting parameters highly correlated with the result data by correlation analysis between the parameters selected in the step of (d) (is considered to be a mathematical step and mental step).
These mental and mathematical steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 21.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 10, the additional elements/steps are: sensors, substrate processing apparatus. The above additional elements/steps are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A parameter selection method…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In claim 21, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 10. The additional elements/steps (an acquisition part, a classification part, first and second selection part) are recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “An information processing device…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 11-20 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 10 and 21 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claim 10 and 21.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)/ (a) (2) as being anticipated by Ohmori et al (US 20190295827 A1) herein after “Ohmori”.
Regarding claim 1, Ohmori teaches a parameter selection method for causing a computer to execute processing steps including:
acquiring a plurality of parameters in measurement data of a plurality of sensors regarding a process in a substrate processing apparatus and result data of the process corresponding to the measurement data (para [0072] The sensor system 204 is a system that acquires the sensor data indicating a device state of the semiconductor processing apparatus 201. The sensor system 204 is a collection of sensors
para [0073] The database 205 stores values of various input parameters set by the device control system 202, values of output parameters which are processing results from the semiconductor processing apparatus 201, and monitor data and sensor data acquired by the monitoring system 203 and the sensor system 204.);
From above paragraph examiner views the database stores or acquires a plurality of parameters in sensors data (i.e., measurement data) regarding a process in a semiconductor (i.e., substrate) processing apparatus and output or result data of the semiconductor processing corresponding to the sensor (i.e., measurement) data.
classifying the acquired parameters into a plurality of groups by a specific clustering method (para [0074] The automatic control system 206 searches a solution that satisfies the target with the use of the data stored in the database 205…. The automatic control system 206 includes a target setting controller 261, an autonomous search system 262, and an unstable operation detection system 263.
[0076] The autonomous search system 262 acquires the contents input to the target setting controller 261 and sets a divided area obtained by dividing the control range of searchable input parameters into two or more regions for one or more parameters.;
Examiner views division (i.e., classifying) of the acquired parameters into a plurality of groups by dividing the control range of searchable input parameters into two or more regions (i.e., specific clustering method) for one or more parameters.
selecting parameters having a large effect on the result data based on a threshold value for each of the plurality of groups (para [0096] Then, the identification unit 403 identifies the existence area of the value of the input parameter which is the predicted value from the search area. Specifically, for example, in FIG. 1, when the target value is the value y12 of the output parameter, the predicted value corresponding to the target value y12 is the values of the input parameter X1 and X2 identified by a contour line of the target value y12 in FIG. 1. Therefore, the identification unit 403 specifies the existence areas A1, A2, A3, A8, and A9 of the values of the input parameters X1 and X2 identified by the contour lines of the target value y12 from the search area A.);
Examiner views the predicted value as selected for input parameter X1, X2 that has large effect on the result or output parameter based on the target or threshold value y12 for each of the plurality of regions or groups A1-A9.
repeating the step of (c) in a tournament format between the groups for the parameters selected for each of the groups (para [0123] The search device 300 estimates the divided area in which the solution exists (Step S509). Then, if the output data within the area estimated to have the solution has already been acquired (Yes in Step S5090A), the search device 300 identifies the best solution OS2 from among the estimated divided areas, and stores the identified best solution OS2 in the database 205 (Step S510). Also, if there is a solution, when the output data in the estimated area has not been obtained (NO in Step S5090A), the search device 300 performs an autonomous search within the estimated area (Step S5060A), acquires the output data in the estimated area in which the solution exists, that is, the search result, and stores the search result in the database 205 (Step S5070A).
para [0124] Specifically, in the first estimation method, for example, the search device 300 substitutes the target value of the output parameter given in Step S501 into the predictive model obtained in Step S508, thereby estimating the input data (value of the input parameter) which is the solution satisfying the target value of the output parameter. … For example, when the predictive model is a function indicating the input and output relationship of FIG. 1, if y6 is given as the target value of the output parameter, three divided areas of A1, A4, and A7 are estimated as the divided areas in which the solution exists are estimated. If output data has not been acquired in each of the divided areas A1, A4, and A7, Steps S5060A and S5070A are executed as described above.); and
Here examiner views the step c (i.e., check for the regions with best solutions) is repeated for each region in Fig. 1 by comparing input parameter and output result between the regions A1-A9 (i.e., tournament format) for the parameters selected for each region A1-A9. Regions A1, A4, A7 are predicted to have solution when y6 is selected as the target value of the output parameter.
selecting parameters highly correlated with the result data by correlation analysis between the parameters selected in the step of (d). (para [0121] As a method of analyzing the relationship of the input and output data, a regression analysis that can deal with multiple inputs and multiple outputs such as a neural network, a support vector regression, and a regression using kernel method. A statistical analysis such as a correlation analysis, a principal component analysis, and a multiple regression analysis can be used.
[0124] Specifically, in the first estimation method, for example, the search device 300 substitutes the target value of the output parameter given in Step S501 into the predictive model obtained in Step S508, thereby estimating the input data (value of the input parameter) which is the solution satisfying the target value of the output parameter.
Para [0125] In Step S510, the search device 300 identifies, according to the output data that has already been acquired, a divided area in which output data equal to the target value y6 exists, a divided area in which there is the output data in which a difference or a divergence between the output data and the target value is smaller than an allowable value (allowable value given in S501), or a divided area in which there is the output data closest to the target value y6, and determines the identified divided area as an area in which the best solution OS2 is present (hereinafter referred to as identified divided area). When multiple divided areas that can be the identified divided area are identified, the search device 300 determines all of those divided areas as the divided areas in which the best solution OS2 exists.)
In above paragraphs examiner views selecting best solution parameters (i.e., highly correlated input) with the result data (i.e., output) by predictive model (i.e., regression or correlation analysis) between the parameters selected in the step of (d). for regions A1-A9.
Claim 21 is rejected as claim 10 above having same claim limitations.
Regarding claim 19 Ohmori teaches the parameter selection method of claim 10, Ohmori teaches wherein in the step of (c), the parameters are selected by using one of a filter method, a wrapper method, and a built-in method (para [0118] Specifically, for example, the search device 300 selects a value of the input parameter that satisfies the search condition for each divided area, and provides a value of the selected input parameter to the semiconductor processing apparatus 201.). Here examiner views selecting parameters which only satisfies the condition as using a filter method.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmori in view of Miwa et al (US 20070142957 A1) herein after “Miwa”.
Regarding claim 20, Ohmori teaches the parameter selection method of claim 14, wherein in the step of (b), the acquired measurement data are classified into the plurality of groups by the specific clustering method (para [0074] The automatic control system 206 searches a solution that satisfies the target with the use of the data stored in the database 205…. The automatic control system 206 includes a target setting controller 261, an autonomous search system 262, and an unstable operation detection system 263.
[0076] The autonomous search system 262 acquires the contents input to the target setting controller 261 and sets a divided area obtained by dividing the control range of searchable input parameters into two or more regions for one or more parameters.;
Examiner views division (i.e., classifying) of the acquired parameters into a plurality of groups by dividing the control range of searchable input parameters into two or more regions (i.e., specific clustering method) for one or more parameters., the classified measurement data are normalized while excluding the measurement data that lacks the result data and the measurement data that has a predetermined lacking value or more (para [0324] In the same groove or line, an average value, a variance, and a standard deviation (line width roughness (LWR)) when the line width (any one of (1t) to (6t), according to the measurement definition) is measured at multiple points can be used as the processed shape data.
(para [0183] The exclusion data is a value of the input parameter that should not be given to the predictive model.),) Here standard deviation use as the normalizing data for a given groove or line while excluding measurement data that lacks result or output data. and
Ohmori does not clearly teach multicollinearity of the normalized measurement data is reduced based on a correlation coefficient between the parameters.
Miwa teaches multicollinearity of the normalized measurement data is reduced based on a correlation coefficient between the parameters (Miwa -para [0042] In other words, the CPU 40 eliminates any parameter having at least a given value of multicollinearity from the first parameters, and sets the first parameters to the second parameters (step S72). Para 0043] Next, the CPU 40 obtains the yield from the memory device 55. The CPU 40 performs the correlation analysis with the second parameters set to explanatory variable and the yield set to the objective variable to calculate the correlation function. ).
Here examiner views the CPU eliminates or reduces the multicollinearity of the normalized data based on the correlation analysis (correlation coefficient) between the parameters.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Miwa into Ohmori for the purpose of eliminate the multicollinearity of normalized data based on a correlation analysis so that reliability of the selective or predictive method can be improved.
Allowable Subject Matter
There are no prior art rejections for claims 11-18. However, examiner cannot comment on their allowability until the rejections under 35 USC, 112 (b) and 101 are adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yabuki US 20170083605 A1 discusses data selection using clustering method.
Chen et al US 20180239340 A1 discusses detecting abnormal equipment in semiconductor processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863