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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 12, element 152 is labeled “pressure correlation model.” This text label should be deleted and replaced with --temperature correlation model-- consistent with paragraph 70 and the same element in Figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: a data acquisition circuitry, a simulation execution circuitry and an optimization circuitry in claim 1, and a display control circuitry in claim 6. Each of these circuitry is disclosed as a computer programmed to perform the claimed functionality (Fig. 4, apparatus 140; par. 52).
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.
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 § 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 1-10 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. 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 data acquisition circuitry, a simulation execution circuitry and an optimization circuitry. As discussed above, this claim language is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Each of these circuitry is disclosed as a computer programmed to perform the claimed functionality (Fig. 4, apparatus 140; par. 52).
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because 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)).
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 2-5 and 7-9 depend from claim 1 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-5 and 7-9 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-5 and 7-9 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2021/0143037 to Smith et al. (Smith).
Claims 1 and 10
With regard to each of the circuitry recited in claim 1, Smith teaches a controller that can be a processor (par. 81).
With regard to a data acquisition circuitry configured 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; Smith teaches collecting the controlled pressures of pressure controllers, and measurements from pressure sensors and temperature sensors (Figs, 6, 7; pars. 70-72).
With regard to a simulation execution circuitry configured 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; Smith teaches a temperature control model, and a generate heat transfer gas pressure model that are used to calculate substrate temperature when during substrate processing (Fig. 7, steps 706, 712; pars. 75, 76).
With regard to an optimization circuitry configured to calculate a predicted value of the substrate processing result based on the process parameter including the calculated pressure; Smith teaches adjusts a temperature controller if the calculated temperature of the substrate does not correspond to a desired temperature (Fig. 7, steps 732; par. 77)
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) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0018500 to Porthouse et al. (Porthouse).
Claim 2
Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends. Smith does not teach that the simulation execution circuitry calculates 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.
Porthouse teaches determining a position of an exhaust valve which is correlated with a pressure in the processing volume (pars. 45-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify substrate processing, as taught by Smith, to include determining an exhaust valve position, as taught by Porthouse, because the substrate processing would have been improved when switching between processes with different flow rates (Porthouse, pars. 2, 3).
Claim 9
Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends. Further, Smith teaches that the substrate processing apparatus processes a plurality of substrates simultaneously by inserting a substrate holding portion configured to hold the substrates into the substrate processing apparatus (par. 36).
Smith teaches that the data acquisition circuitry acquires execution result data including an execution result of processing for the plurality of substrates based on the process parameter, and the temperature of the substrate processing apparatus (par. 50).
Smith teaches that the execution result of the substrate processing includes a value indicating in- plane uniformity of film thickness on the substrate formed by the substrate processing and inter-plane uniformity of film thickness between the plurality of substrates (pars. 28, 48).
Smith does not teach that the data acquisition circuitry acquires the opening degree of the pressure control valve.
Porthouse teaches determining a position of an exhaust valve which is correlated with a pressure in the processing volume (pars. 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify substrate processing, as taught by Smith, to include determining an exhaust valve position, as taught by Porthouse, because the substrate processing would have been improved when switching between processes with different flow rates (Porthouse, pars. 2, 3).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Porthouse as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of CN 107086189 to Fujino et al. (Fujino).
Claim 3
Smith and Porthouse teach all the limitations of claim 2 upon which claim 3 depends. Further, Smith teaches that the data acquisition circuitry acquires 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 (par. 76, variables and temperature of the substrate)
Smith does not teach that the simulation execution circuitry inputs 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 the opening degree of the pressure control valve that is predicted to approach the target value for the substrate processing result or that the first model represents a correlation between the opening degree of the pressure control valve and the execution result of the substrate processing
Porthouse teaches determining a position of an exhaust valve which is correlated with a pressure in the processing volume and using the position of the valve to control the pressure (pars. 45-47, 59, 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify substrate processing, as taught by Smith, to include determining an exhaust valve position, as taught by Porthouse, because the substrate processing would have been improved when switching between processes with different flow rates (Porthouse, pars. 2, 3).
Smith and Porthouse do not teach that the simulation execution circuitry inputs the execution result of the substrate processing and the sensor data of the temperature into a second model of the simulation model, and calculates a temperature of a heater of the substrate processing apparatus that is predicted to approach the target value for the substrate processing result, the optimization circuitry optimizes the process parameter based on the calculated opening degree of the pressure control valve and the calculated temperature of the heater and the second model represents a correlation between the temperature of the heater and the execution result of the substrate processing
Fujino teaches a heater being used to control temperature based on temperature information (pars. 79, 80 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify substrate processing combination, as taught by Smith and Porthouse, to include a heater for controlling temperature, as taught by Fujino, because then film uniformity would have been improved (Fujino, pars. 19).
Conclusion
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