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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites to acquire execution result data including an execution result of a substrate processing based on a process parameter including a pressure in a substrate processing apparatus, and including sensor data of the pressure in the substrate processing apparatus; to input the execution result data into a simulation model stored in a storage, and calculate a pressure in the substrate processing apparatus that is predicted to approach a target value for a substrate processing result; and to calculate a predicted value of the substrate processing result based on the process parameter including the calculated pressure to adjust the process parameter based on the predicted value of the substrate processing result, the substrate processing result including a value indicating at least one of a film formation result or an etching result. The claim limitations require acquiring data and using that data in a simulation model and for a calculation. The limitations are mathematical relationships and calculation and fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
The additional elements are a memory and a processor coupled to the memory.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of the memory and the processor amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason.
Claims 2, 9, 11 and 12 depend from claim 1 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2, 9, 11 and 12 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reason.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 3 is directed to an apparatus, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 3 recites to acquire execution result data including an execution result of a substrate processing based on a process parameter including a pressure in a substrate processing apparatus, and including sensor data of the pressure in the substrate processing apparatus; to input the execution result data into a simulation model stored in a storage, and calculate a pressure in the substrate processing apparatus that is predicted to approach a target value for a substrate processing result; and to calculate a predicted value of the substrate processing result based on the process parameter including the calculated pressure to adjust the process parameter based on the predicted value of the substrate processing result; to calculate an opening degree of a pressure control valve arranged in an exhaust pipe connected to the substrate processing apparatus as the pressure in the substrate processing apparatus, acquire the execution result data including the execution result of the substrate processing, the opening degree of the pressure control valve, and sensor data of a temperature in the substrate processing apparatus, input the execution result of the substrate processing and the opening degree of the pressure control valve into a first model of the simulation model, and calculates calculate the opening degree of the pressure control valve that is predicted to approach the target value for the substrate processing result, input the execution result of the substrate processing and the sensor data of the temperature into a second model of the simulation model, and calculate a temperature of a heater of the substrate processing apparatus that is predicted to approach the target value for the substrate processing result, optimize the process parameter based on the calculated opening degree of the pressure control valve and the calculated temperature of the heater, the first model represents a correlation between the opening degree of the pressure control valve and the execution result of the substrate processing, and the second model represents a correlation between the temperature of the heater and the execution result of the substrate processing. The claim limitations require acquiring data and using that data in a simulation model and for a calculation. The limitations are mathematical relationships and calculation and fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
The additional elements are a memory and a processor coupled to the memory.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of the memory and the processor amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Per step 2B, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason.
Claims 4-5, 7 and 8 depend from claim 3 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 4-5, 7 and 8 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 4-5, 7 and 8 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites a further additional element of a display control circuitry configured to display the predicted value of the substrate on a display. The display control circuitry is a computer programmed to perform the functionality of the circuitry similar to the circuitry recited in claim 1. The recitation of the circuitry or the programmed computer amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim limitations to display the predicted value of the substrate processing result on a display is insignificant post solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). When considered in combination the programmed computer and the display do not provide anything further than what is provided individually. Therefore the additional elements of claim 6 neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 6 are not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason. Further, outputting the results of an abstract idea in various manners has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 10 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a product, and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea similar to the abstract idea recited in claim 1.
The additional elements are a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of the non-transitory computer readable medium amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Per step 2B, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that claim 1 as originally filed is not merely directed to performing a mathematical calculation in the abstract, but rather to determining the predicted pressure value and the predicted substrate processing result associated with operation of the substrate processing apparatus. However, determining the predicted pressure value and the predicted substrate processing result associated with the operation of the substrate processing apparatus also require mathematical operations and are part of the abstract idea.
Applicant states that claim 1 as originally filed is integrated into a practical application because the predicted pressure value and the predicted substrate processing result are used to approach the target substrate processing result. Claim 1 recites a limitation to calculate a predicted value of the substrate processing result … to adjust the process parameter. This limitation indicates a purpose or intended use of the calculation, but does not claim any particular action.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 of claims 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights