DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 and 6 are pending. Claim 5 is cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Taiwanese Patent Application No. 111124776, filed on 7/1/2022.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant states that ‘claim 1 recites a new feature "performing a difference operation between the first moving average sequence and the second moving average sequence to obtain a difference sequence ... the difference sequence has a numerical variation smaller than that of the target sequence so as to achieve an upper limit value which is reasonable" and argues that ‘the identified feature of amended claim 1 cannot achieved by human mind, and recite an additional element contributes significant improvement on semiconductor products and circuitry devices’ (page 5).
It is respectfully submitted that no evidence or reasoned argument is presented as to why these limitations cannot be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and Applicant’s statement regarding this point is therefore not persuasive. Specific arguments regarding the additional element contributing to a significant improvement in semiconductor products and circuitry devices are addressed below.
Applicant argues that ‘amended claim 1 recites an additional element (i.e., performing a difference operation between the first moving average sequence and the second moving average sequence to obtain a difference sequence) which can achieve significant improvement on semiconductor products and circuitry devices’ because the claimed algorithm makes it easier to set a reasonable upper limit value, e.g. an annealing temperature, and thus improve product properties (pages 5-8).
It is respectfully submitted that performing a difference operation is not considered an additional element but part of the abstract idea as detailed in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 below. Further, an improvement in the algorithm to determine an upper limit value is merely an improvement to an abstract idea and eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited in MPEP 2106.04, i.e. an improvement to the abstract idea itself (processing data to judge whether an abnormality exists based on an upper limit and determining that a sequence of values are discontinuous) is still merely an abstract idea. It is noted that no actual control of the processing equipment based on the claimed algorithm that could potentially improve a product is actually claimed. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the dependent claims (page 8) is moot given the continued rejection of independent claim 1.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites ‘the difference sequence has a numerical variation smaller than that of the target sequence so as to achieve an upper limit value which is reasonable’ and it is not clear if ‘so as to achieve an upper limit value which is reasonable’ is limiting or merely descriptive of an intended outcome. In addition, ‘reasonable’ is a subjective, context dependent term and the metes and bounds of what is ‘reasonable’ are not well-defined, hence the term is indefinite; see MPEP 2173.05. The meaning of the phrase ‘the difference sequence…’ as recited in claim 1 is therefore not clear.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend and none of the dependent claims provide a cure for the indefiniteness of the parent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of processing data to judge whether an abnormality exists and determining that a sequence of values are discontinuous. Note that some of the steps involved may also be interpreted as abstract mathematical processes, e.g. obtaining an average.
Claim 1 recites a fault detection method, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
the total difference values are obtained by summing up a plurality of difference values between the corresponding original sequence and a corresponding average value of the standard sequence
performing a first moving average operation on the target sequence to establish a first moving average sequence;
performing a second moving average operation on the target sequence to establish a second moving average sequence;
performing a difference operation between the first moving average sequence and the second moving average sequence to obtain a difference sequence, the difference sequence comprises a plurality of difference values and the difference sequence has a numerical variation smaller than that of the target sequence so as to achieve an upper limit value which is reasonable;
setting the upper limit value; and
when one of the difference values is greater than the upper limit value, determining that the target sequence is abnormal and determining that positions of the target sequence
corresponding to the difference values greater than the upper limit value have discontinuous conditions, i.e. under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations comprise a mental process involving analyzing data (sequence data) to decide if there is an abnormality based on a comparison and determining that a sequence of values are discontinuous that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental/mathematical processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. receiving a target sequence, the target sequence comprises a plurality of total difference values between a plurality of original sequences and a standard sequence (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) and the original sequences are associated with at least one parameter variable indicating a temperature of an processing equipment for annealing when manufacturing a plurality of targets and wherein the processing equipment is a temperature control box having an annealing temperature indicated by the parameter variable and operating based on the target sequence (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, receiving a target sequence, the target sequence comprises a plurality of total difference values between a plurality of original sequences and a standard sequence (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) and the original sequences are associated with at least one parameter variable indicating a temperature of an processing equipment for annealing when manufacturing a plurality of targets and wherein the processing equipment is a temperature control box having an annealing temperature indicated by the parameter variable and operating based on the target sequence (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Note that processing equipment for manufacturing a plurality of targets is well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Tranh U.S. Patent No. 5990558 [col. 6 lines 15-30], Mimata et al. U.S. Patent No. 4890780 [col. 2 lines 14-39], John et al. U.S. Patent No. 6461925 [col. 9 lines 3-44], Zhou et al. U.S. Patent No. 5780358 [col. 3 lines 51-63], Masuda et al. U.S. Patent No. 6245190 [col. 1], and Nakashima et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20010038783 [0004-0005]. Also note that annealing is well-understood, routine and conventional, see Ogata U.S. Patent No. 4845055 [col. 4], Yu et al. U.S. Patent No. 6689671 [cols. 7 and 9] and Feigelson et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160233108 [0044]. Also note that processing equipment comprising a temperature control box having an annealing temperature indicated by the parameter variable and operating based on a sequence is well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Lyding et al. U.S. Patent No. 5872387 [particularly col. 6], Martin et al. U.S. Patent No. 9716203 [particularly col. 25], Bronner et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100025811 [0037-0041] and Shaeffer et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110299317 [0236-0243].
Claim 2 recites that the windows used in the abstract mental/mathematical process are not of equal width. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites further details of how the abstract moving average mental/mathematical process is performed. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites further details of how the abstract moving average mental/mathematical process is performed. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites that a numerical variation of the abstract difference sequence is smaller than a numerical variation of the abstract target sequence data. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okada et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090011566 discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device by setting an upper limit of the heat treatment temperature to suppress abnormal growth.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights