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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
2. In response to applicant’s amendment received on February 5, 2026, all requested changes to the claims have been entered.
Response to Argument
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue on page 7 of the response that "upon determining that the predetermined threshold is exceeded, transmitting an alert to a user interface coupled to the controller and displaying information to a user'' are not mental processes that can be performed with the human mind or with pen and paper and, therefore, do not recite an abstract concept.
However limitation of “transmitting and displaying information”, is insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering and outputting.
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.
The following analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1:
Claims 8-14 meet step 1 requirement as they are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter. In this case, “a method” satisfies a “process” category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 8 as a whole recites an apparatus facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claims 8 in general is about monitoring a polishing apparatus.
The limitation of “processing first image data to produce first processed image data”, “processing second image data to produce second processed image data”, “comparing the second set of processed image data to the first set of processed image data to determine if a predetermined threshold is exceeded” and as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
Similarly, the limitation of display the prediction of the collective opinion of the group of individuals regarding the imaging data and/or the output based on the imaging data as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation by one’s own mental processes.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim recites only one physical element – video analysis processor “configured” to perform various tasks. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the function of “processing first image data to produce first processed image data” and “processing second image data to produce second processed image data” the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations. For example, a human can recognize the content in an image and visually. Further, it could be based on the appearance of the individuals, observation of reactions, or even guessing based on alternate metrics.
With respect to “receiving a first image data ” and “receiving a second image data , these are insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to “transmitting an alert to a user interface coupled to the controller and displaying information to a user” these are insignificant extra solution activity of outputting. (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Also one of Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Consequently, the identified additional element taken into consideration individually or in combination of the steps performed fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
For the rest of claims 9-14, the same processing circuitry is further configured to facilitate various steps that amount to nothing more than organizing human activity as noted above and therefore are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8, 12 and 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US Patent 11,806,833) in view of Park (KR 20060067619).
With respect to claim 8, Su teaches receiving a first image data stream from a camera disposed in the polishing apparatus (col. 6 lines 2-5, the reference dresser images are dresser images that were obtained by the imaging device during prior CMP processes) ;
processing the first image data stream using a video analysis processor of a controller coupled to the polishing apparatus to produce a first set of processed image data (col. 9 lines 18-20, generating a topographic map of the abrasive surface with depth information of the abrasive surface);
receiving a second image data stream from the camera (col. 5 lines 9-11, the imaging device 24 obtains an image of the abrasive surface of the dresser in real time or in-situ with a CMP process) ;
processing the second image data stream using the video analysis processor to produce a second set of processed image data (col. 9 lines 18-20, generating a topographic map of the abrasive surface with depth information of the abrasive surface);
comparing the second set of processed image data to the first set of processed image data to determine if a predetermined threshold is exceeded (col. 9 line 59- col. 10 line 47, processing device determines differences between depth values of the current dresser image and depth values of the reference dresser images. In this embodiment, the processing device determines the dresser has a defect when an average of the differences between depth values of the current dresser image and depth values of the reference dresser image is smaller than a predetermined threshold); and upon determining that the predetermined threshold is exceeded, transmitting an alert to a user interface coupled to the controller (col. 11 line 64-col. 12 line 11, If the processing device determines that the dresser, the processing device adjusts the CMP process by halting the CMP process. For example, in one embodiment, the processing device controls at least one of the tum table to stop rotating around the axis of rotation. If CMP process halted and process stopped, user should be alerted).
Su does not teach expressly that display information.
Park teaches display information. (page 4, advantageous effect, when it is out of the error range, an output means is used. By stopping the drive of the motor at the same time as outputting in the form of a graph and an alarm).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to displays output in the method of Su.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to solve insufficient polishing problem.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Su to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
With respect to claim 12, Su teaches that the predetermined threshold corresponds to abnormal environment conditions within the polishing apparatus (col. 9 line 59- col. 10 line 47, processing device determines differences between depth values of the current dresser image and depth values of the reference dresser images. In this embodiment, the processing device determines the dresser has a defect when an average of the differences between depth values of the current dresser image and depth values of the reference dresser image is smaller than a predetermined threshold).
With respect to claim 14, Su teaches that processing the first image data stream includes using cross-classification clustering to track interrelated objects in the polishing apparatus.(col. 14 lines 4-7, determination of whether or not the dresser has a defect in block based on the classified dresser images that were collected in block).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US Patent 11,806,833) in view of Park (KR 20060067619) and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0327654).
Su and Park teach all the limitations of claim 8 as applied above from which claim 9 respectively depend.
Su and Park do not teach expressly passing the first set of processed image data and the second set of processed image data through a gating mechanism of a long short-term memory neural network..
Zhang et al. teach set of processed image data through a gating mechanism of a long short-term memory neural network. (para [0139]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to process images data through a gating mechanism of a long short-term memory neural network in the method of Su and park teach
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that use well known method to detect defect occurs over the time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang et al. with Su and Park teach to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 10 and 11 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US Patent 11,806,833) in view of Park (KR 20060067619) and in further view of Jochem et al. (NL 2024950).
With respect to claim 10, Su teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as applied above from which claim 10 respectively depend.
Su and Park do not teach expressly that processing the first image data stream includes performing an object contouring process such that reconstructed contours are defined by components of the polishing apparatus.
Jochem et al. teach processing the first image data stream includes performing an object contouring process such that reconstructed contours are defined by components of the polishing apparatus. (para. [0032], check for edge placement)
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine defect using edge placement in the method of Su and park.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that use well known method to detect defect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jochem et al with Su and park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, Jochem et al. teach that processing the first image data stream includes performing image segmentation using a line-segment based approach (para. [0032], check for line pull back or line thinning).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US Patent 11,806,833) in view of Park (KR 20060067619) and in further view of Sakai et al. (JP 2012083351).
Su and Park teach all the limitations of claim 8 as applied above from which claim 13 respectively depend.
Su and Park do not teach expressly that the processing the first image data stream includes performing an object contouring process such that reconstructed contours are defined by components of the polishing apparatus.
Sakai et al. teach the predetermined threshold corresponds to excessive vibration of a component of the polishing apparatus. (page 2 4th para. Difference (vibration of stage) is larger than threshold value, the defect is detected).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine defect using threshold corresponding to vibration in the method of Su and Park.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that use well known method to detect defect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sakai et al. with Su and Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights