CTNF 18/408,313 CTNF 79108 Detailed Action Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. IDS The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 24, 2024 is being considered by the Examiner. Drawing The drawing filed on January 9, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner. Specification 06-31 AIA The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. In reference to claims 1, 3, 9, and 11: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept." In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold: A method comprising: receiving measurements indicative of a first pressure response in a processing chamber responsive to changing of at least one of a plurality of recipe parameters in accordance with a processing recipe being run on a first semiconductor substrate ; determining a first response error based on the first pressure response and a model pressure response calculated based on the processing recipe , wherein the model pressure response is generated as a feedforward control signal while running the processing recipe by a model that predicts a pressure in the processing chamber in response to changing the at least one of the [pluralities] of recipe parameters; and in response to determining that the first response error is greater than a threshold value, calculating an adjustment to an operation of a valve to be applied when changing the at least one of the [pluralities] of recipe parameters in accordance with the processing recipe in a subsequent run of the processing recipe . Step 2A: Prong I: The claim recites the steps of "receiving measurements indicative of a first pressure response in a processing chamber responsive to changing of at least one of a plurality of recipe parameters in accordance with a processing recipe being run on a first semiconductor substrate ; determining a first response error based on the first pressure response and a model pressure response calculated based on the processing recipe, and calculating an adjustment to an operation of a valve to be applied when changing the at least one of the [pluralities] of recipe parameters in accordance with the processing recipe in a subsequent run of the processing recipe . ". These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation. determining a difference between two values is just subtraction). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis. Prong II: This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of "the model pressure response is generated as a feedforward control signal while running the processing recipe by the model”’ however, this is just a means to gather information at a highest level of generality. The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: namely “calculating an adjustment to an operation a valve to be applied”. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. Step 2B: Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim 9 is directed to a method, and it is analogous to claim 1; and therefore, rejected as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as well. Dependent claim 3 : the instant claim is directed to describing the parameters under consideration, and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent claim 11 : the instant claim is directed to describing the parameters under consideration, and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Double Patenting 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,754 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : In reference to claim 1 : the instant claim is directed to a method, and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored and including a processor the steps noted in the instant claim 1. These steps are equivalent to the steps noted in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Therefore, an ordinary skill in the art would have recognized those steps that the implementation of those steps in a non-transitory machine-readable medium would not be patentably distinct from the method claim noted in the instant application. In reference to claim 9 : the analysis of the instant claim is similar to claim 1 above, either in reference to claim 1 or claim 12 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 2 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 13 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 3 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754; and is a subset of the concept noted in claim 9 of Patent No. 11,869,754. Dependent claim 4 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 5 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 6 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 7 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 8 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754; and is a subset of the concept noted in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,754. Dependent claim 10 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 13 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 11 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 12 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 15 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 13 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 16 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 14 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 15 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 18 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754. Dependent claim 16 : the instant claim has equivalent concept to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.11,869,754; and is a subset of the concept noted in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,754 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Nichols et al . (U.S. Patent No. 11,894,220) discloses method and apparatus for controlling a processing reactor. A processing chamber configured to process a substrate based on a recipe; a plurality of sub-systems in operable communication with the processing chamber for controlling corresponding parameters associated with processing the substrate; and a controller in operable communication with the processing chamber and each of the plurality of sub-systems and configured to control each of the plurality of sub-systems and the processing chamber using information included in the recipe and feedback provided by at least one of the plurality of sub-systems. Nangoy et al . (U.S. Patent No. 7,155,319) discloses a method for controlling liquid delivery in a processing chamber. The method includes generating an analog input (AI) signal proportional to a process variable and calculating an analog output (AO) signal based on a setpoint and a deadband. The setpoint is a target value of the process variable and the deadband is an allowable tolerance around the setpoint that determines when the control logic is activated to control the process variable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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. /ELIAS DESTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/408,313 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/408,313 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/408,313 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/408,313 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/408,313 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/408,313 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/408,313 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/408,313 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights