DETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 29th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection was present in the previous office action. As a terminal disclaimer has not yet been filed, this rejection still stands.
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 1-4, 6-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0267512 A1) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0397152 A1) and Jacob et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0213368 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Yamamoto teaches a method comprising: receiving an indication of a sequence of operations for a process at a manufacturing system and an indication of one or more triggering criteria that trigger initiation of the sequence of operations during the process at one or more manufacturing equipment of the manufacturing system; (Paragraph [0065]-[0066], a number of product wafers to be processed can be specified as a condition to execute)
generating a set of instructions corresponding to the sequence of operations; (Paragraph [0053], generates a system recipe)
and detecting that a triggering criterion of the one or more triggering criteria is satisfied, (Paragraph [0056], execution timing of process)
executing the generated set of instructions to initiate the sequence of operations at the one or more manufacturing equipment. (Paragraph [0109], processes are executed according to the generated system recipe)
Yamamoto does not teach determining whether the sequence of operations satisfies a validation criterion in view of one or more conditions associated with the sequence of operations and an operational state of the one or more manufacturing equipment; and responsive to determining that the sequence of operations satisfies the validation criterion.
However, Chen et al. teaches determining whether the sequence of operations satisfies a validation criterion in view of one or more conditions associated with the sequence of operations … one or more manufacturing equipment; (Paragraph [0074], required metrology type can be defined)
and responsive to determining that the sequence of operations satisfies the validation criterion. (Paragraph [0087], determines if control strategy requires acceptable metrology effort)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamamoto's generating of system recipes with Chen et al.'s determining if control strategy meets requirements in order to determine if the generated system recipe meets requirements. One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply a known technique (determining if control strategy meets requirements) to a known device (device for generating of system recipes) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (determine if the generated system recipe meets requirements).
The combination of Yamamoto and Chen et al. does not teach determining whether the sequence of operations satisfies a validation criterion in view of one or more conditions associated with … an operational state of the one or more manufacturing equipment.
However, Jacob et al. teaches determining whether the sequence of operations satisfies a validation criterion in view of one or more conditions associated with … an operational state of the one or more manufacturing equipment. (Paragraph [0031], specific variables and machine states can be set to known conditions to verify behavior)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamamoto and Chen et al.'s determining if the generated system recipe meets requirements with Jacob et al.’s setting of a machine state to a known condition in order to determine whether generated system recipe satisfies requirements when in a certain machine state. One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to monitor outcomes compared to expected behavior from that state. (Jacob et al. Paragraph [0031])
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sequence of operations comprises one or more cleaning operations for a cleaning process associated with one or more substrate processes at the manufacturing system. (Yamamoto Paragraph [0058], pre-process cleaning)
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the cleaning process corresponds to at least one of a pre-clean process to prepare a process chamber before execution of the at least one of the one or more substrate processes or a post-clean process to clean a process chamber after execution of the at least one of the one or more substrate processes. (Yamamoto Paragraph [0058], pre-process cleaning)
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the one or more substrate processes comprise at least one of an etch process or a deposition process. (Yamamoto Paragraph [0034], etching, film deposition)
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an indication of a modified sequence of operations, wherein the modified sequence of operations includes one or more operations that are different than the sequence of operations; (Yamamoto Paragraph [0080], changes made to system recipe settings and parameter settings)
generating an updated set of instructions corresponding to the modified sequence of cleaning operations; (Yamamoto Paragraph [0053], generates a system recipe)
and responsive to detecting that at least one of the one or more triggering criteria associated with the modified sequence of operations is satisfied, executing the updated set of instructions. (Yamamoto Paragraph [0109], processes are executed according to the generated system recipe)
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to determining that the sequence of operations does not satisfy the validation criterion, transmitting a notification to a client device indicating that the sequence of operations is not to be performed at the one or more manufacturing equipment. (Chen et al., Paragraph [0062], advisor module provides this advice to the user creating the control strategy)
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the sequence of operations is received from a client device responsive to a user of the manufacturing system providing the sequence of operations as input on a user interface of the client device, the user interface provided by a process sequence component associated with the manufacturing system. (Chen et al., Paragraph [0051], the proposed control flow design interface enables easy and intuitive building of control strategies)
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. additionally teaches a system comprising: a memory; and a set of one or more processing devices coupled to the memory, (Yamamoto Paragraph [0042], control device includes a CPU, ROM, RAM, etc.)
the set of one or more processing devices to: provide a graphical user interface (GUI) of a process sequence component associated with a manufacturing system, wherein the GUI enables a user of the manufacturing system to provide a corresponding sequence of operations for one or more processes at the manufacturing system; (Chen et al., Paragraph [0051], the control flow design interface)
receive, via the GUI, an indication of a sequence of operations associated with a process to be performed at one or more manufacturing equipment of the manufacturing system; (Yamamoto Paragraph [0065]-[0066], a number of product wafers to be processed can be specified as a condition to execute)
generate a set of instructions associated with the process based on the indication of the sequence of operations and one or more triggering criteria that trigger initiation of the sequence of operations; (Yamamoto Paragraph [0053], generates a system recipe)
and responsive to determining that the sequence of operations satisfies a validation criterion in view of one or more conditions associated with the sequence of operations (Chen et al. Paragraph [0087], determines if control strategy requires acceptable metrology effort)
and an operational state of the one or more manufacturing equipment, (Jacob et al. Paragraph [0031], specific variables and machine states can be set to known conditions to verify behavior)
transmit the generated set of instructions to a system controller associated with the manufacturing system, wherein the system controller is to perform the process at the one or more manufacturing equipment in accordance with the generated set of instructions based on a detection that the one or more triggering criteria associated with the sequence of operations are satisfied. (Yamamoto Paragraph [0109], processes are executed according to the generated system recipe)
Regarding Claims 10-12 and 14-15:
Claims 10-12 and 14-15 are the system of claims 1-4 and 6-7 and are thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Regarding Claims 16-19:
Claims 16-19 are the computer readable storage medium of claims 1-4 and are thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Claims 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0267512 A1), Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0397152 A1) and Jacob et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0213368 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-19 above, and further in view of Berlandier (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0046965 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the set of instructions corresponding to the sequence of operations comprises: determining a triggering condition associated with the sequence of operations in view of the one or more triggering criteria; (Chen et al. Paragraph [0087], determines if control strategy requires acceptable metrology effort)
The combination of Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al. does not teach updating a semantic dependency tree in view of the determined triggering condition, wherein the updated semantic dependency tree comprises one or more nodes that correspond to each operation of the sequence of operations; and translating each operation associated with a respective node of the updated semantic dependency tree into one or more respective instructions of the set of instructions.
However, Berlandier teaches updating a semantic dependency tree in view of the determined triggering condition, wherein the updated semantic dependency tree comprises one or more nodes that correspond to each operation of the sequence of operations; (Paragraph [0052], preprocessing program creates a data dependency tree)
and translating each operation associated with a respective node of the updated semantic dependency tree into one or more respective instructions of the set of instructions. (Paragraph [0057], ruleset code is generated based on the dependency tree)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamamoto, Chen et al. and Jacob et al.’s user interface to design and implement operations with Berlandier's dependency tree in order to have the user interface for designing and implementing an operation create a data dependency tree and generate instructions based on it. One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply a known technique (dependency tree) to a known device (user interface for designing and implementing a cleaning operation) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (data dependency tree helps to generate instructions).
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the system of claim 5 and is thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the computer readable storage medium of claim 5 and is thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
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 TYLER DEAN HEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115