Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/189,913

WAFER ARTIFICIAL LEARNING AND DISCOVERY OBSERVER

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Mar 24, 2023
Examiner
LU, TOM Y
Art Unit
2667
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
844 granted / 965 resolved
+25.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
983
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 965 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
CTNF 18/189,913 CTNF 79627 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I). Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in light of the specification encompasses transitory signals. But, transitory signals are not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. non-statutory subject matter). See MPEP 2106(I). However, claims directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium may qualify as a manufacture and make the claim patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106(I). Therefore, amending the claims to recite a “ non-transitory computer-readable medium ” would resolve this issue. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al (“Chen” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2024/0144467 A1) . As per claim 1, Chen discloses a method (abstract), comprising: identifying, based on an indicator (figure 7: ratios of the signal level to the noise level), a subset of an input image of a semiconductor (figure 6: hot scan image on a wafer); generating, based on the subset of the input image, a composite defect image (S625 and S643: a machine leaning trained model image with optimal optical mode and filter) that represents a collection of pixels that are probabilistic drivers of a classification of the semiconductor defect (S625: the optical modes ranked based on the ratios of the signal level to the noise level; and the defects are classified in S642); identifying, via a coordinate system (paragraph [0029]: locations in a hot spot map), a set of potential defects of a first semiconductor (paragraph [0028]: the hot spot map obtained from a wafer design); generating, based on the coordinate system and the identified set of potential defects, tags of the first semiconductor (figure 5 and paragraphs [0035]-[0038]; the hot spot groups with dynamically mapped threshold regions are the claimed “tags”); generating, based on the tags of the first semiconductor, a potential defect image (figure 5: defect image 52 or 54); and comparing the potential defect image to the composite defect image to determine a classification of an actual defect represented by the potential defect image (S66 and S68: the actual defects are classified based on the alignment of the hot spot map and optimal filter). As per claim 8, see explanation in claim 1, see figure 1 in Chen for processor 130 and storage medium 120 in a hot spot defect detecting system 100. As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 1, the examiner notes Chen’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2-7 and 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM. 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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. /TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/189,913 Page 2 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/189,913 Page 3 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/189,913 Page 4 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/189,913 Page 5 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/189,913 Page 6 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/189,913 Page 7 Art Unit: 2667
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 24, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12749178
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PREDICTING NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE STATE
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12743767
3D OPTICAL SENSOR ALIGNMENT
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740721
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING BREATH RATE USING AN OPTICAL FLOW SENSING
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12739352
IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12725333
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PARAMETER IMAGING
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+3.6%)
2y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 965 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month