DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 9, 2016, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In an Amendment filed on July 1, 2026, claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-20 were amended.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and under examination, of which claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 are independent claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted and filed on April 17, 2026 and June 11, 2026 are in complete compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner is considering the references in the IDSs with signed and initialed copies being attached hereto.
Response to Arguments
On page 10 and 11 of the Amendment, the following is argued:
Applicant submits that the Office has failed to identify an abstract idea that is allegedly recited by the claims with sufficient specificity. MPEP $2106.07(a) makes the requirement to “identify the abstract idea” clear as well. For instance, the Office merely identifies a category of abstract idea claim 1 falls into (i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental processes) and quotes some of the language from claim 1. The Office does not identify what the specific, alleged abstract idea is. Office Action at p. 4.
The Supreme Court in its Alice decision emphasized that claims as a whole that are directed to an abstract idea are non-statutory since they “would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over the abstract idea.” See Alice at 216 (2014) (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Applicant respectfully requests that the Office clearly identify the alleged abstract idea in its response.
At best, the Office identifies some elements of the claims as corresponding to “mathematical concepts and/or mental processes” (a class of abstract concepts) but not any alleged particular abstract idea recited in the claim. But this is not enough because the Office has not identified any abstract idea that Applicant's claims allegedly monopolize, thereby not meeting its burden of establishing a prima facie case under Prong One. The rejection should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
Instead of identifying the abstract idea of the claim as a whole, the Office improperly dissects the claims into discrete elements. According to the MPEP, “Examiners may not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the claim as a whole must be considered.” See MPEP § 2103 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981) (“In determining the eligibility of respondents' claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”); see also MPEP § 2106.04(II) (stating that the “claim as a whole” must be analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception).
The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office has specifically indicated the particular limitations in independent claim 1, for instance, that the Office believes to recite an abstract idea and has also specifically indicated at least one of the groupings of the abstract idea that the abstract ideas recited fall within. In accord with MPEP 2106.04(a), the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: 1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and 3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). In accord with MPEP 2106.04(a), the Office should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. (Emphasis added) The groupings of abstract ideas, and their relationship to the body of judicial precedent, are further discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. According to MPEP 2106.04(a), this concludes the abstract idea judicial exception eligibility analysis.
Contrary to the arguments presented in the Amendment, the Office has (1) identified the specific limitations in independent claim 1 that have been determined to recite an abstract idea: “... determining, using a model of the KPI and the data as input to the model, contributions of a first set of factors toward the KPI variation, the first set of factors breaching a statistical threshold; removing the contributions from the first set of factors toward the KPI variation to obtain a residual KPI variation; and determining, based on the residual KPI variation, a residual value breaching a residual threshold, the residual value being indicative of process drifts in the semiconductor process over time or an outlier substrate corresponding to the residual value at a certain time.” Also, (2) the Office has indicated which of the groupings the abstract ideas fall within. The Office explained that, based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0056]-[0060], [0066], and [0067], for instance, the determining functions and the removing function are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
In the alternative, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As recited, the determining functions and the removing function are processes that can also be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. As drafted, the determining and the removing claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process for organizing information through mathematical correlations that can be performed in the human mind or using a pen and paper. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ( determining that a claim whose “steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” is directed to an unpatentable mental process). Therefore, in accord with 2019 PEG and MPEP 2106.04, the Office has clearly and with specificity identified the abstract ideas recited along with support found in the Specification of the instant application.
The arguments presented on pages 10 and 11 of the Amendment are not deemed persuasive.
On page 12 of the Amendment, the following is argued:
Furthermore, contrary to the Office's assertion, the claims are not directed to “mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.” Instead, the claims include specific technical claim language that is used to address issues of “process drifts” or “outlier substrates” “in KPI based monitoring and process control” “that may be masking as meeting a KPI related specification” by providing a higher signal-to-noise ratio signal for semiconductor process monitoring and control. Thus, the claims of the instant application provide a method for generating an improved signal for “determining process drifts over time in semiconductor manufacturing” by “determining a residual value” based on “residual KPI variation” determined from measured time-series data of a KPI of “a semiconductor process,” as recited in amended independent claim 1.
For example, those “certain wafers or process drifts [that] may get masked as satisfying KPI specifications” can prevent the application of “corrective actions” or inhibit the accurate determination of the “relevant sources of the process drift,” which may result in “degradation of a process performance over time.” See Applicant's Specification at ¶¶ [0007], [0054]-[0055].
The generation or determination of such a signal may include decomposing and filtering out “the contributions from various factors such as tools and reticles towards KPI variations” to enable the removal of “contributions from the various factors,” e.g., contributions from certain tools and reticles, and improve “the signal to noise ratio of the residual variations related to a semiconductor process over time. An improved signal to noise ratio in turn helps to identify process drifts in time, or the outlier substrates.” See Applicant's Specification at ¶¶ [0007], [0054]-[0055].
In response, the Office respectfully submits that any arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Superguide Corp. v. DirectTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Office respectfully reminds the applicant that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, when construing the scope of the claims, the Office is bound to consider the features being recited in the claims, but cannot incorporate the description of the Specification into the claims. See MPEP 707.07(f) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). (Emphasis added)
Also, it appears that the arguments are attempting to demonstrate the abstract ideas identified are capturing a solution to the problem that the application is seeking to improve or achieve. However, in accord with MPEP 2106.05 and 2019 PEG, the additional recitations in the claim are the features to be considered. In Step 2A, prong two, a determination of whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, by evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. In other words, having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis under the 2019 PEG turns now to determining whether there are “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. 2019 PEG at 53. (Emphasis added)
Accordingly, the arguments on page 12 of the Amendment are not persuasive and the Office maintains that independent claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
Regarding the integration of the abstract ideas or judicial exceptions into a practical application, on page 14 of the Amendment, the following is argued:
The claims of the instant application recite a specific technical method for generating an improved signal for semiconductor process monitoring and control by transforming measured KPI data into a residual signal with improved signal-to-noise characteristics over prior signals for semiconductor process monitoring and control. In particular, the claims include (in order):
determining contributions of semiconductor process-related factors to KPI variation using a model;
removing contributions from a subset of factors that exceed a statistical threshold; and
generating a residual KPI variation used for detecting process drift or outlier substrates.
This ordered combination of steps is not merely mathematical analysis, but a specific signal- processing technique applied to semiconductor processing or manufacturing data (e.g., “measured KPI data” as recited in amended independent claim 1). By removing contributions of identified factors, the method can produce a residual signal with an improved signal-to-noise ratio, which enables the detection of “process drift” or “outlier substrates” that would otherwise be masked in the original KPI data. See, e.g., “ [0054]-[0064].
The Office does not find these arguments persuasive. As previously set forth, the analysis turns now to determining whether there are “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. 2019 PEG at 53. (Emphasis added) However, the arguments refer to the abstract ideas identified as providing the practical application under Step 2A, prong two, which is not correct under the MPEPs analysis guidance of a non-statutory subject matter rejection. Similarly, the arguments provided from page 15 to middle of page 17 continue to argue how the abstract ideas are providing a practical application. However, as submitted in MPEP 2106.05, the practical application cannot be the abstract idea limitations. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, the arguments submit that independent claim 1 recites “generating” a residual KPI variation used for detecting process drift or outlier substrates. However, the claim recites “removing the contributions from the first set of factors toward the KPI variation to obtain a residual KPI variation”. As proven above, the removal function as recited is an abstract idea, which is not part of the evaluation of those additional elements individually or in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional limitation recited in independent claim 1, as amended recites “obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation associated with measured KPI data of a semiconductor process over time, and data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process”. As explained in the Non-Final Office Action, this recitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2106.05(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
Because the claimed subject matter outlined above (i.e., obtaining limitation) does not (1) provide any technical solution to a technical problem as required by DDR Holdings (The Federal Circuit found DDR 's claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because DDR's claims: (l) do not merely recite “the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world” previously disclosed in Bilski and Alice; but instead (2) provide a technical solution to a technical problem unique to the Internet, i.e., a “solution ... necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257.); (2) provide any particular practical application as required by BASCOM Glob. InternetServs., Inc. v. AT&TMobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); or (3) entail an unconventional technological solution to a technological problem as required by Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the additional limitation of obtaining does not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
The arguments submitted on page 14 to middle of page 17 of the Amendment are not persuasive and the Office maintains that the additional recitations, individually or in combination, does not provide a claim as a whole integrating the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Turning to step 2B of the non-statutory subject matter rejection, the analysis whether any additional limitation in the claim: (a) recites a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; or (b) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 2019 PEG at 56; see Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (“[W]e consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination”' to determine whether the claim includes “significantly more” than the ineligible concept); see also BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350 (“[A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). The arguments provided on page 18 of the Amendment are directed to assimilating the claims in BASCOM are directed to a content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network by individual controlled access network accounts, a scope and claim that is not related to the instant application of determining process drifts over time in semiconductor manufacturing.
On page 19 of the Amendment it is submitted that “A proper analysis would demonstrate that the claimed features in an ordered combination, recite an inventive concept of determining a more robust signals for semiconductor monitoring and control. However, the additional claim recitations analyzed in Step 2B do not recite any control being performed based on the determination of process drifts. How is the control of the semiconductor manufacturing being adjusted, managed, or controlled in response to the determination of the residual value being indicative of process drifts in the semiconductor process over time or an outlier substrate corresponding to the residual value at a certain time? The claim does not recite an additional limitation that would provide an appreciation of either a practical application (Step 2A, prong two) or amounting to significantly more (Step 2B) of the claim as a whole. Once the determination is performed, the claim does not provide a recitation of how the semiconductor manufacturing is controlled.
The arguments on page 20 of the Amendment are directed to the abstract ideas identified and the description provided in the Specification, instead of the additional limitations provided in the claim. The only additional limitation provided in independent claim 1 is “obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation characterizing a performance of a semiconductor process over time, and data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process”, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional recitation. For instance, US Patent Publication No. 2019/0354089 A1 to Wang et al. describes in Paragraph [0028] “Referring to FIG. 3, in step S101, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data from the tool groups 100, 110, 120 running the process by using the connecting device 330, and calculate values of a plurality of KPIs of each tool group comprising calculating a standard deviation of an output of a stage of a bottleneck tool group of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 according to the process profile data by using the processor 330. In some embodiments, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 from the databases DB coupled to the managing computers 200, 210, 220.” Wang also describes in Paragraph [0029] “In some embodiments, multiple KPIs that are probable of effecting the WIP of each tool group are defined and calculated according to the process profile data acquired from the tool groups 100, 110, 120.” US Patent Publication No. 2021/0263505 A1 to Zheng et al. describes in Paragraph [0063] “After the fabrication of the production lots is completed, the load-balancing model (or the scheduling model) may be optimized automatically for next fabrication cycle using a big-data architecture (S410). Specifically, after the current fabrication cycle is completed, production key performance indicators (KPIs) may be obtained, and it can be determined whether the KPIs are desired for the current fabrication, i.e., meeting a preset criteria for the production KPIs. If it is determined that the KPIs meet the criteria for the current fabrication, no optimization may be needed.” US Patent Publication No. 2006/0144057 A1 to You et al. describes in Paragraph [0008] “A performance index is obtained according to the inlet and outlet temperatures of the output matter and load current of the heat exchanger. A predicted performance index is obtained according to inlet temperatures of the output matter, predicted outlet temperatures of output matter, and the load current. A real performance index is obtained according to the inlet temperatures of the output matter, real outlet temperatures of output matter, and the load current. A key performance index is obtained according to the predicted and real performance indexes.”
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. The arguments provided on pages 19 and 20 are not persuasive. The non-statutory subject matter rejection of independent claim 1 and related dependent claims is maintained.
Regarding independent claim 16, the functions of independent claim 16 are implemented by similar functions as those of the controller of independent claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to independent claim 1 above also applies to independent claim 16. Independent claim 16 and related dependent claims are not deemed patent eligible.
In an effort to advance examination, the Office recommends considering amendments to independent claim 1 clarifying how the “determining, based on the residual KPI variation, a residual value breaching a residual threshold, the residual value being indicative of process drifts in the semiconductor process over time or an outlier substrate corresponding to the residual value at a certain time” is used so that nanoscale features of a circuit can be accurately printed on a substrate. To overcome the rejection, the claim could be amended to recite how corrective action is implemented in response to this determining function.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “... determining, using a model of the KPI and the data as input to the model, contributions of a first set of factors toward the KPI variation, the first set of factors breaching a statistical threshold; removing the contributions from the first set of factors toward the KPI variation to obtain a residual KPI variation; and determining, based on the residual KPI variation, a residual value breaching a residual threshold, the residual value being indicative of process drifts in the semiconductor process over time or an outlier substrate corresponding to the residual value at a certain time.”
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0056]-[0060], [0066], and [0067], for instance, the determining functions and the removing function are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In the alternative, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As recited, the determining functions and the removing function are processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation associated with measured KPI data of a semiconductor process over time, and data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process”.
The obtaining function is an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2105(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The recitations recited in independent claim 1 including “obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation associated with measured KPI data of a semiconductor process over time, and data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional recitation. For instance, US Patent Publication No. 2019/0354089 A1 to Wang et al. describes in Paragraph [0028] “Referring to FIG. 3, in step S101, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data from the tool groups 100, 110, 120 running the process by using the connecting device 330, and calculate values of a plurality of KPIs of each tool group comprising calculating a standard deviation of an output of a stage of a bottleneck tool group of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 according to the process profile data by using the processor 330. In some embodiments, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 from the databases DB coupled to the managing computers 200, 210, 220.” Wang also describes in Paragraph [0029] “In some embodiments, multiple KPIs that are probable of effecting the WIP of each tool group are defined and calculated according to the process profile data acquired from the tool groups 100, 110, 120.” US Patent Publication No. 2021/0263505 A1 to Zheng et al. describes in Paragraph [0063] “After the fabrication of the production lots is completed, the load-balancing model (or the scheduling model) may be optimized automatically for next fabrication cycle using a big-data architecture (S410). Specifically, after the current fabrication cycle is completed, production key performance indicators (KPIs) may be obtained, and it can be determined whether the KPIs are desired for the current fabrication, i.e., meeting a preset criteria for the production KPIs. If it is determined that the KPIs meet the criteria for the current fabrication, no optimization may be needed.” US Patent Publication No. 2006/0144057 A1 to You et al. describes in Paragraph [0008] “A performance index is obtained according to the inlet and outlet temperatures of the output matter and load current of the heat exchanger. A predicted performance index is obtained according to inlet temperatures of the output matter, predicted outlet temperatures of output matter, and the load current. A real performance index is obtained according to the inlet temperatures of the output matter, real outlet temperatures of output matter, and the load current. A key performance index is obtained according to the predicted and real performance indexes.”
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim recites “the determining of the contributions of the first set of factors comprises: configuring the model based on the set of factors associated with the semiconductor manufacturing; and applying the model to the data to determine the contributions from the set of factors toward the KPI” further defining the abstract idea. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0056] and [0059], for instance, the configuration and the determination limitations are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations or mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites the types of models that the abstract ideas identified in independent claim 1 implement to perform the mathematical computations. Claim 3 recites “the model comprises at least one of: a statistical model configured to decompose the KPI variation into a function of the set of factors and a residual term; and a machine learning model configured to receive the data related to the set of factors as input, and generate the residual KPI variation as output”. These recitations are not integrating the abstract ideas of independent claim 1 into a practical application. Also, the recitations do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim further defines the abstract idea of independent claim 1 by reciting that “the determining of the contributions of the first set of factors comprises: applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) technique to the statistical model to determine contributions of each of the set of factors toward the KPI variation.” Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim recites “the KPI variation is at least one of: local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) associated with a pattern imaged on a substrate via a patterning process; an edge placement error associated with associated with the pattern imaged on the substrate via the patterning process; and an overlay associated with the pattern imaged on the substrate via the patterning process.” Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraph [0058], for instance, the types of KPI defined in the claim are not additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions identified in independent claim 1 in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites “the KPI variation is obtained by using a plurality of lithography apparatuses, a plurality of process apparatuses, a plurality of reticles, a plurality of metrology tools, and/or one or more measurable parameters”. The additional features may be tools that are used, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic, electrical, or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic, electrical, or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Also, implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the Specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”) Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, claim 7 recites “the set of factors comprises at least one of: a first categorical variable to characterize contribution of the plurality of lithography apparatuses towards the KPI variation; a second categorical variable to characterize contribution of the plurality of reticle towards the KPI variation; a third categorical variable to characterize contribution of the plurality of metrology tools towards the KPI variation; and a fourth variable comprising a measurable wafer parameter contributing toward the KPI variation.” And claim 8 recites “the measurable wafer parameter comprises at least one of: mean critical dimension of a pattern; dose of a lithographic apparatus; and focus of the lithographic apparatus.” Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0057]-[0059], for instance, the types of set of factors defined in claim 7 and the types of measurable parameter do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions identified in independent claim 1 in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claims 7 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9-13, claim 9 recites “detecting systematics in the residual KPI variation; responsive to detected systematics, determining a root cause associated with the systematics; and adjusting the model to include a factor associated with the root cause as a contributor towards the KPI variation”. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0070] and [0071], for instance, the limitations in this claim are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations or mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Claim 10 recites “the root cause indicates the residual KPI variation is caused by a characteristic of a process downstream to the semiconductor process”; claim 11 recites “the root cause indicates the residual KPI variation is caused by a characteristic of a process upstream to the semiconductor process”; claim 12 recites “the detecting of the systematics comprises: identifying a shift in a level of the residual KPI variation over a period of time”; and claim 13 recites “the detecting of the systematics comprises: executing a statistical model configured to identify the systematics in the residual KPI variation.” Claims 10-13 are directed to an abstract idea and/or further defining an aspect of the abstract ideas in independent claim 1 and claim 9. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claims 9-13 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites “capturing, at a regular interval or continuously, data related to the set of factors associated with the semiconductor process; and updating the residual KPI variation based on the captured data.” The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2105(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of claim 14 are well-understood, routine, and conventional recitations. For instance, US Patent Publication No. 2024/0118702 A1 to Cella et al. describes in Paragraph [3157] “…provide an at-a-glance view of key performance indicators (KPIs) … for continuous updating of data as it comes in…” US Patent Publication No. 2021/0063999 A1 to Kim et al. describes in Paragraph [0005] “According to an aspect of the inventive concept, there is provided a method of guiding a semiconductor manufacturing process, the method including: receiving semiconductor manufacturing process data corresponding to a target semiconductor product; generating first semiconductor characteristic data corresponding to the semiconductor manufacturing process data by using a technology computer-aided design (TCAD) model,…” US Patent Publication No. 2012/0150330 A1 to Lee et al. describes in Paragraph [0028] “According to an exemplary embodiment of the inventive concept, a method of controlling process distribution of a semiconductor process includes receiving process distribution data representing the process distribution of the semiconductor process, receiving a parameter related to the process distribution, generating a virtual metrology model corresponding to the process distribution based on a relationship between the process distribution data and the parameter, and modifying a process variable affecting the process distribution based on the virtual metrology model.” US Patent Publication No. 2021/0157312 A1 to Cella et al. describes in Paragraph [0934] “FIG. 371 is a schematic illustrating example embodiments of methods for updating one or more manufacturing KPI values in a digital twin of a manufacturing facility, on behalf of a client application according to embodiments of the present disclosure.” US Patent Publication No. 2022/0108262 A1 to Cella et al. describes in Paragraph [5536] “FIG. 371 illustrates example embodiments of a method 42600 for updating a set of manufacturing KPI values in the digital twin of a manufacturing facility.”
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites “the residual KPI variation comprises a higher signal to noise ratio compared to a signal to noise ratio in the obtained KPI variation”. This claim is directed to an abstract idea and/or further defining an aspect of the abstract ideas in independent claim 1. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 16, the functions of independent claim 16 are implemented by similar functions as those of the controller of independent claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to independent claim 1 above also applies to independent claim 16. Independent claim 16 is not deemed patent eligible.
The functions of claims 17-20 are implemented by similar functions as those of the controller of claims 2-5 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 2-5 above also apply to claims 17-20. Claims 17-20 are not deemed patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter and Relevant Prior Art cited by Examiner
Provided that the non-statutory subject matter rejection to independent claims 1 and 16 and related dependent claims is overcome, the following prior art is made of record:
Independent claim 1
US Patent Publication No. 2019/0354089 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, implementing a method for determining process drifts over time in semiconductor manufacturing, the method comprising: Wang: Paragraph [0046] (“A non-transitory computer-readable medium is also introduced in an embodiment of the disclosure as below. The non-transitory computer-readable medium includes processor executable instructions. When the instructions are executed by a processor, the method for improving a cycle time of a process of a product as described before can be implemented.”)
obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation associated with measured KPI data of a semiconductor process over time, and data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process; Wang: Paragraph [0028] (“Referring to FIG. 3, in step S101, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data from the tool groups 100, 110, 120 running the process by using the connecting device 330, and calculate values of a plurality of KPIs of each tool group comprising calculating a standard deviation of an output of a stage of a bottleneck tool group of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 according to the process profile data by using the processor 330. In some embodiments, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 from the databases DB coupled to the managing computers 200, 210, 220.”) Wang: Paragraph [0029] (“In some embodiments, multiple KPIs that are probable of effecting the WIP of each tool group are defined and calculated according to the process profile data acquired from the tool groups 100, 110, 120.”) Wang: Paragraph [0030] (“In some embodiments, some of the KPIs are defined as the standard deviation of an output of each of a plurality of stages of the bottleneck tool group. In these embodiments, the bottleneck tool group is one of the plurality of tool groups having the greatest amount of pileups. For example, the amount of products waiting to be processed in the tool group 100 which runs the lithography step of the OD, PO, and CO stages is usually largest among all tool groups, and therefore the tool group 100 is the bottleneck tool group that has the greatest amount of pileups in this case.”) Wang: Paragraph [0034] (“In some embodiments, the controlling computer 300 may correct the process profile data collected from the tool groups 100, 110, 120 in advance of calculating the KPIs, since the process profile data may not correctly reflect the real performance of the tool groups 100, 110, 120.”) [The calculated values of a plurality of KPIs reads on “obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation”. The collected profile data from each tool group reads on “data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process”. The profile process data reads on “associated with measured KPI data of a semiconductor process over time”.]
determining, using a model of the KPI and the data as input to the model, contributions of a first set of factors toward the KPI variation, the first set of factors breaching a statistical threshold;… Wang: Paragraph [0036] (“Referring to FIG. 3, after values of the KPIs are calculated, in step S103, the controlling computer 300 may feed the values of the KPIs and a [work in progress] WIP of each tool group into a neural network model in order to output an impact on the WIP for each KPI of each tool group by the neural network model by using the processor 330.”) Wang: Paragraph [0037]
(“Specifically, the neural network model is an artificial intelligence model that receives the values of the KPIs and the WIP of each tool group in the process profile data, performs a sensitivity analysis on the received values of the KPIs and the WIP of each tool group, and outputs the impact on the WIP for each KPI of each tool group.”)
However, Wang the additional teaching of the prior art of record including Cella et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0118702 A1); Robert et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0308533 A1); Cella et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0108262 A1); Zheng et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0263505 A1)); Cella et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0157312 A1); Kim et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0063999 A1); Huang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0104745 A1); Lee et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0150330 A1); Choi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 20120022679 A1); You et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2006/0144057 A1); Verstappen (US Patent Publication No. 2005/0210438 A1); Cao, Z., Liu, X., Hao, J. and Liu, M., 2016. Simultaneous prediction for multiple key performance indicators in semiconductor wafer fabrication. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 25(6), pp.1159-1165.; US Patent Publication No. 2022/0230117 A1 to Baier et al.; and US Patent Publication No. 2018/0356807 A1 to Baier et al.), do not expressly teach or suggest “removing the contributions from the first set of factors toward the KPI variation to obtain a residual KPI variation; and determining, based on the residual KPI variation, a residual value breaching a residual threshold, the residual value being indicative of process drifts in the semiconductor process over time or an outlier substrate corresponding to the residual value at a certain time”, as recited in independent claim 1.
Claims 2-15 are dependent claims of independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 is allowable over prior art, and therefore, provided that the non-statutory subject matter rejection to claims 2-15 is overcome, claims 2-15 would be allowable.
Claim 16
Independent claim 16 includes similar limitations and reasons for prior art allowance as independent claim 1.
Claims 17-20 are dependent claims of independent claim 16. Independent claim 16 is allowable over prior art, and therefore, claims 17-20 are allowable, provided that the non-statutory subject matter rejection of claims 16-20 is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2022/0230117 A1 to Baier et al. describes a method provides predictions of key performance indicators of a product variant of a product family manufactured by a complex manufacturing system in a manufacturing process. The method provides a manufacturing operation model for each manufacturing operation type used to manufacture a product variant of the product family. Via the complex manufacturing system measured contributions to key performance indicators, process context data and process execution data of manufacturing operations, are provided. The model parameters of the provided manufacturing operation models are learned automatically based on collected process context data, collected process execution data, and measured contributions to key performance indicators, to update the manufacturing operation models. An updated production efficiency model combining updated manufacturing models including the updated manufacturing operation models, to calculate the predictions of the key performance indicators, of the product variant, to be manufactured, depending on a product configuration of the respective product variant, is evaluated.
US Patent Publication No. 2018/0356807 A1 to Baier et al. describes robust machine learning predictions. Temporal dependencies of process targets for different machine learning models can be captured and evaluated for the impact on process performance for target. The most robust of these different models is selected for deployment based on minimizing variance for the desired performance characteristic..
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights