DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/17/2025. The claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 19, & 20 is/are in independent form.
Response to Arguments
I) Persuasive Arguments – Against the 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9 filed 10/17/2025, with respect to amended independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The outstanding 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
II) Non-persuasive Arguments: Against 35 USC 101 (Abstract Idea)
Applicant's following arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to outstanding 101 rejection applicant argues that the amended claims 1, 19, & 20 recite an improvement in a technical field, namely identifying anomalies during coating a semiconductor manufacturing processes. More specifically, applicant argues:
The claims are directed to an improvement in a technical field, specifically the technical field of identifying anomalies during semiconductor manufacturing processes… when viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because amended claim 1 is directed to an improvement in the technical field of identifying anomalies during semiconductor manufacturing processes… Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the Section 101 rejections of claims 1, 19, and 20, as well as the Section 101 rejection of claims 2-18, which each depend on claim 1” (Remarks, pages 8- 9).
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04 states in part:
The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were "‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection." Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all"); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even "just discovered" judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that "without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’" Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 ("Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry."). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was "new". Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim
(Emphasis added).
In the instant claim 1, there are no any additional claim elements whatsoever besides the judicial exceptions. That is, in claims 1 & 19, all elements of the claim can be practically performed in human’s mind at most with the aid of pen and paper. In claim 20, other than using of generic memory and a processor, all elements of the claim 20 are mental processes since they can be practically performed in human’s mind. The memory and processor are merely used computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea. Applicant’s reply does not challenge Office’s prior determining of these claim elements as abstract idea. The fact that these abstract ideas are new and novel does not make them patentable unless they provide a practical application since MPEP 2106.04 clearly states groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Examiner notes and agrees that the claims provide improvement over conventional methods of identifying these anomalies required large amounts of data storage as argued in page 8 of the Remarks. However, even the improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and hence cannot be patentable per MPEP 2106.04. Here, applicant’s improvement is realized by the improved abstract idea but not by the additional elements or combination of additional elements. Here, the claimed invention’s the improvement is an improvement of the abstract idea in the technological field of a coating a substrate, but not the improvement of the technology as argued. Again, the claim does not have any additional elements to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that which “claim 1 recites additional elements that, when viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because amended claim 1 is directed to an improvement in the technical field of identifying anomalies during semiconductor manufacturing processes” (Remarks, page 8). Examiner notes that the reply fails to point any limitations of the claim that constitute an additional element per the Alice/Mayo test. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are deemed not persuasive. The outstanding 101 rejections are respectfully maintained.
Note: Examiner and applicant’s attorney discussed, on 02/06/2026 and after, ways to amend independent claims to overcome the outstanding 101 rejections such as by incorporating subject matter from Spec, para. 049. However, on 02/13/2026, applicant’s attorney informed the examiner that no approval from client was secured for further the proposal.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1 in line 13, the word “and” after “second values” should be removed since this limitation is not the last limitation in the claim.
As to dependent claims 2- 18, they are also objected to because they also carry the same deficiency of the claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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- 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“Abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1: For convenience, the claim is reproduced below.
1. A method of extracting a feature of measurement data using a computing apparatus, the method comprising:
[a] identifying the measurement data obtained during a process of coating a substrate of a semiconductor;
[b] identifying target data related to the measurement data, the target data indicating a selected coating height;
[c] performing a computation on the measurement data based on the target data;
[d] extracting a plurality of first values by applying a max pooling layer to the computed measurement data;
[e] extracting a plurality of second values by applying a min pooling layer to the computed measurement data;
[f] extracting a plurality of third values related to a feature of the measurement data using the plurality of first values and the plurality of second values; and
[g] identifying an anomaly that occurred during the process based on the plurality of third values; and
[h] providing information for inspection of the process based on a region where the anomaly was identified.
Upon applying Alice/Mayo test:
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a process with series of steps, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites the limitations [a] to [h] that are considered an abstract idea based exception because they can be practically performed in human’s mind, at most with the aid of pen and paper, via user’s observation, evaluation, and judgement on the measurement data and the target data.
Applicant’s fig. 1 & associated texts describe how applicant’s steps [a] to [h] that are realized using downsampling technique and these steps can be summarized as follows. Firstly, as part of “measurement data obtained during the process” of limitation [a], do not require data samples 980 pieces as in the specification. Secondly, suppose coating a substrate of a semiconductor process obtains 24 data samples in a day (during 24 hours period), human mind can read and write all of them in a piece of paper. Human mind also can observe expected/target coating heights for the same period of time and can decide to filter out noisy samples if some of them are outliers as part of performing a computations on the measurement data based on the target data (limitations [a] to [c]). Human mind also can extract few (like 5) max sample high measurements and also extract remaining few (like 5) samples for minimum measurements (limitations [d] to [e]). See applicant’s fig. 4 and 5. Now, human mind can take average or difference of max 5 samples and min 5 samples to generate 5 third sample values (limitation [f]). Thus, calculated 5 mean values of max pooling and min pooling (third values) can be observed and can be compared with some baseline values/curve to determine anomaly location [limitation [g]). Human mind can write down/memorize (limitation [h]) or provide information for inspection of the coating a substrate by identifying an anomaly thereon. All of the limitations [a] to [h] of the claim 1 can be practically performed in human’s mind. Accordingly, the claim recites “Mental Processes” category of the abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional element at all. Again, all of the limitations of the claim 1 are abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim has nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea, the claim does not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, there is nothing to add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19,
1. Step 1, Yes. This claim is to a computer readable medium; hence is one of the four statutory category in step 1.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim 19 recites similar subject matters as that in limitations [a] to [h] of the claim 1. Hence, all of the limitations of the claim 19 can be practically performed in human’s mind for the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. The claim 19 recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional element(s). Accordingly, the claim has nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea the claim does not recite any additional element(s). Accordingly, there is nothing to add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20,
1. Step 1: Yes. This claim is to a computing apparatus with a processor and a memory. Hence, the claim is one of the four statutory category.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites similar subject matter as that of the claim 1’s limitations [a] to [h] other than stating they are being executed by a processor and a memory. Thus, the limitations of the claim 20 cover performance of the limitations in mind (for the same reasons as in claim 1) but for the recitation of generic computer components, namely a processor and a memory. That is, other than reciting “processor is configured to” (line 5) nothing in the claim preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element of “a memory in which a computer-readable instruction is stored” and “a processor connected to the memory”. The processor and memory in all these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Put differently, mere using of the processor and memory in the claim goes nothing beyond implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, additional elements individually or in combination do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor a memory to perform both identifying, performing computations, all three extracting steps, and identifying an anomaly, and provide information for inspection amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2- 18, these claims depend on claim 1, and therefore recite the same abstract idea discussed above in claim 1. These claims add new limitations. However, these all limitations also can be practically performed in human’s mind hence still recite abstract idea. These claims do not recite any new additional elements. Accordingly, claims 2-18 also fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. These claims are not patent eligible under 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1- 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
As to claims 1, 19, & 20:
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
1) Prior cited Zheng (CN 111950575 A) teaches a device for fall detection (an anomaly) by obtaining several acceleration data of a patient and computing max pooling and min pooling to the obtained acceleration data (Fig. 2 & associated texts). However, Zheng fails to teach its measurements are obtained during a process of a coating a substrate of a semiconductor. Examiner also agrees with applicant’s argument of “Zheng and Gray do not appear to describe measurement data associated with a process for manufacturing a semiconductor, target data related to that process, identifying an anomaly in a process for manufacturing a semiconductor, and providing information for inspection of the process for manufacturing the semiconductor.” (Remarks, page 9).
2) Newly discovered Ogawa (JP 2008212921 A, see attached FOR document) teaches a method for extracting a feature of measurement data using a computation apparatus [“A data processor 5 for discrimination and a display 6 for displaying the measured height profile are provided.”] comprising: identifying the measurement data [“then the height profile of the coating film is measured using the height measuring means 4.”] obtained during a process of a coating a substrate [“substrate 9 by the coating means 2”] of a semiconductor and identifying an anomaly that occurred during the process based on the plurality of the measured data and providing information for inspection of the process based on a region where the anomaly was identified (Figs. 1-2, [038-039, 059]).
However, Ogawa also fails to teach identifying target data related to the measurement data the target data indicating a selected coating height and performing a computation on the measurement data based on the target data and performing of the max pooling and min pooling for extracting a plurality of third values to be used to identify an anomaly. Ogawa identifies anomaly without performing max pooling and min pooling to its measured data. Ogawa and Zheng are not analogous art either. Therefore, prior arts do not teach or suggest the limitations of:
identifying target data related to the measurement data, the target data indicating a selected coating height
…
identifying an anomaly that occurred during the process based on the plurality of third values (obtained using the max pooling and min pooling to the measurement data obtained during a process of coating).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 extension fee 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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115