DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 7/6/2023. Claims 1-14 are pending in this Office 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites the term “SP”. It is not clear what the term “SP” stands for. 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7 and 8:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 1 recites a method (i.e., a “process”) , claim 7 recites a device (i.e., a “machine”) and claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., an article of manufacture) which are statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
Claim 1:
The limitation “searching for a novolac phenol resin having a desired physical property balance by inverse analysis using the prediction models” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion (for example, recall from memory ). Except for the “using the prediction models” language, there is nothing in the claim that prevents the limitation from being performed in the human mind.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “generating a plurality of prediction models corresponding to a plurality of objective variables, using actual data pertaining to a novolac phenol resin; wherein the actual data includes a polymer composition, a structural formula, a reaction solvent, and a reaction parameter pertaining to the novolac phenol resin, and the objective variables include developability, heat resistance, and molecular weight” is recited at the very high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models. Claim 1 further recite that the searching is performed by “an information processing device”. The processing device is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of “prediction models” and “information processing device” are at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 1 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 2 recite the additional element of “wherein in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, a feature is calculated based on the actual data, and the feature is used as an explanatory variable for the prediction models” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 2 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recite the additional element of “wherein the feature includes at least one of a molecular fingerprint or a descriptor” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 3 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recite the additional element of “wherein the feature further includes information pertaining to an SP value of a solvent” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 4 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recite the additional element of “wherein the actual data includes actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for a predetermined application and actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, and in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, after the prediction models are generated using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, the prediction models are relearned using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for the predetermined application” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 5 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 6 recite the additional element of “wherein the predetermined application is semiconductor manufacturing application” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 6 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 7:
The limitation “searches for a novolac phenol resin having a desired physical property balance by inverse analysis using the prediction models” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion (for example, recall from memory ). Except for the “using the prediction models” language, there is nothing in the claim that prevents the limitation from being performed in the human mind.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 7 recites additional elements of “generates a plurality of prediction models corresponding to a plurality of objective variables, using actual data pertaining to a novolac phenol resin; wherein the actual data includes a polymer composition, a structural formula, a reaction solvent, and a reaction parameter pertaining to the novolac phenol resin, and the objective variables include developability, heat resistance, and molecular weight” is recited at the very high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models. Claim 7 further recite that the searching is performed by “an information processing device comprising a control unit”. The control unit is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of “prediction models” and “control unit ” are at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 7 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 8:
The limitation “search for a novolac phenol resin having a desired physical property balance by inverse analysis using the prediction models” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion (for example, recall from memory ). Except for the “using the prediction models” language, there is nothing in the claim that prevents the limitation from being performed in the human mind.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 8 recites additional elements of “generates a plurality of prediction models corresponding to a plurality of objective variables, using actual data pertaining to a novolac phenol resin; wherein the actual data includes a polymer composition, a structural formula, a reaction solvent, and a reaction parameter pertaining to the novolac phenol resin, and the objective variables include developability, heat resistance, and molecular weight” is recited at the very high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models. Claim 8 further recites “non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing instructions” and “ a processor” both of which are recited at a high level of generality and amount s to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of “prediction models”, “non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing instructions” and “ a processor” are at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 8 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 9 recite the additional element of “wherein the actual data includes actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for a predetermined application and actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, and in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, after the prediction models are generated using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, the prediction models are relearned using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for the predetermined application” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 9 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 10 recite the additional element of “wherein the actual data includes actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for a predetermined application and actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, and in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, after the prediction models are generated using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, the prediction models are relearned using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for the predetermined application” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 10 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 11 recite the additional element of “wherein the actual data includes actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for a predetermined application and actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, and in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, after the prediction models are generated using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, the prediction models are relearned using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for the predetermined application” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 11 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 12 recite the additional element of “wherein the predetermined application is semiconductor manufacturing application” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim12 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 13 recite the additional element of “wherein the predetermined application is semiconductor manufacturing application” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 13 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 14 recite the additional element of “wherein the predetermined application is semiconductor manufacturing application” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic prediction models and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 14 therefore is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2022/359047 A1, hereinafter “Kanazawa” ) and further in view of Tango et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2023/0045851 A1, hereinafter “Tango”)
As to claim 1, Kanazawa teaches a method for searching for a novolac phenol resin that is performed by an information processing device, the method comprising the steps of:
generating a plurality of prediction models corresponding to a plurality of objective variables (Kanazawa par [0057] teaches training prediction model. Kanazawa par [0058] teaches plurality of machines learning models) using actual data pertaining to a novolac phenol resin ( the examiner interprets actual data pertaining to a novolac phenol resin as intended use); and
searching for a novolac phenol resin having a desired physical property balance by inverse analysis using the prediction models,(Kanazawa par [0064]
teaches it is considered that there is a material database X collected in another case in the past, and at this time the purpose of use is to search a material having material physical properties B. Here, in a case where it is found that there is a correlation between the material physical properties A and B by expert knowledge, the material database X is likely to overlap with the material set having high material physical properties A. Accordingly, it is considered that the material having high material physical properties A is easily searched by learning the autoencoder using the material database X and extracting the material feature quantities” )
wherein the actual data includes a polymer composition, a structural formula (Kanazawa par [0035] teaches structural formula), a reaction solvent, and a reaction parameter pertaining to the novolac phenol resin, and the objective variables include developability, heat resistance, and molecular weight.
Kanazawa teaches wherein the actual data includes a structural formula (Kanazawa par [0035] teaches structural formula) but fails to expressly teach wherein the actual data includes a polymer composition, a reaction solvent, and
a reaction parameter pertaining to the novolac phenol resin, and the objective variables include developability, heat resistance, and molecular weight.
However, Tango teaches wherein the actual data includes a polymer composition (Tango par [0106] teaches polymer ), a reaction solvent, and
a reaction parameter pertaining to the novolac phenol resin (Tango par [0147] teaches various solvents), and
the objective variables include developability, heat resistance, and molecular weight. (Tango par [0556] teaches molecular weight, , heat resistance , developability)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kanazawa and Tango to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to easily produce a resist composition with good production reproducibility.(Tango par [009])
As to claim 2, Kanazawa and Tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 1, wherein in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, a feature is calculated based on the actual data, and the feature is used as an explanatory variable for the prediction models. (Kanazawa par [0057] teaches the material property prediction unit inputs the structure formula information of the material experimental data to the learned autoencoder to generate feature quantities (descriptor) of the compound.
As to claim 3, Kanazawa and Tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 2, wherein the feature includes at least one of a molecular fingerprint or a descriptor. (Kanazawa par [0057] teaches the material property prediction unit inputs the structure formula information of the material experimental data to the learned autoencoder to generate feature quantities (descriptor) of the compound.)
As to claim 4, Kanazawa and Tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 3, wherein the feature further includes information pertaining to an SP value of a solvent.(Tango par [0220] teaches adjusting the solubility of the resist film in a solvent)
As to claim 5, Kanazawa and Tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 1 , wherein the actual data includes actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for a predetermined application and actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application (Kanazawa par [0070] teaches in a case where the training data includes data other than the structural formula and the data of the material physical properties a. the data may be added to the training data) , and in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, after the prediction models are generated using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, the prediction models are relearned using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for the predetermined application.( Kanazawa par [0070] teaches in a case where the training data includes data other than the structural formula and the data of the material physical properties A, the data may be added to the training data. As described the prediction model for assuming the material physical properties A is capable of being learned)
As to claim 6, Kanazawa and tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 5, wherein the predetermined application is semiconductor manufacturing application. (Tango par [0003] teaches manufacturing semiconductor devices)
Claims 7 and 8 merely recite an information processing device and non-transitory computer readable recording medium when executed by a processor, perform the method of claim 1. Accordingly , Kanazawa and Tango teach every limitation of claims 7-8 as indicates in the above rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 9, Kanazawa and tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 2, wherein the actual data includes actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for a predetermined application and actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application (Kanazawa par [0070] teaches in a case where the training data includes data other than the structural formula and the data of the material physical properties A. the data may be added to the training data) , and in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, after the prediction models are generated using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, the prediction models are relearned using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for the predetermined application. (Kanazawa par [0070] teaches in a case where the training data includes data other than the structural formula and the data of the material physical properties A, the data may be added to the training data. As described the prediction model for assuming the material physical properties A is capable of being learned)
As to claim 10, Kanazawa and tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 3, wherein the actual data includes actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for a predetermined application and actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application (Kanazawa par [0070] teaches in a case where the training data includes data other than the structural formula and the data of the material physical properties A. the data may be added to the training data), and in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, after the prediction models are generated using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, the prediction models are relearned using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for the predetermined application. (Kanazawa par [0070] teaches in a case where the training data includes data other than the structural formula and the data of the material physical properties A, the data may be added to the training data. As described the prediction model for assuming the material physical properties A is capable of being learned)
As to claim 11, Kanazawa and tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 4, wherein the actual data includes actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for a predetermined application and actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application (Kanazawa par [0070] teaches in a case where the training data includes data other than the structural formula and the data of the material physical properties A. the data may be added to the training data), and in the step of generating the plurality of prediction models, after the prediction models are generated using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for other than the predetermined application, the prediction models are relearned using the actual data of a novolac phenol resin used for the predetermined application. (Kanazawa par [0070] teaches in a case where the training data includes data other than the structural formula and the data of the material physical properties A, the data may be added to the training data. As described the prediction model for assuming the material physical properties A is capable of being learned)
As to claim 12, Kanazawa and tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 9, wherein the predetermined application is semiconductor manufacturing application. (Tango par [0003] teaches manufacturing semiconductor devices)
As to claim 13, Kanazawa and tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 10, wherein the predetermined application is semiconductor manufacturing application.(Tango par [0003] teaches manufacturing semiconductor devices)
As to claim 14, Kanazawa and tango teach the method for searching for a novolac phenol resin according to claim 11, wherein the predetermined application is semiconductor manufacturing application. (Tango par [0003] teaches manufacturing semiconductor devices)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147