DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/23/2026.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are amended and are being fully considered by the examiner.
Examiner notes the claim interpretations as set forth in the previous office action and also included in this office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 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.
Applicant responds
(a) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Claim 1 has been amended to require a determinator configured to determine whether or not each of the setting values for all of the items are within an effective range when the setting value is reset during the undo operation or the redo operation so as to secure a consistency of all of the items after the undo operation or the redo operation. Independent claims 19 and 20 have been amended in an analogous manner.
None of the cited references discloses or suggests these requirements of the independent claims. Nor can the above effects be achieved by any configuration apparent from the cited references. Mitsui, for example, discloses a technique in which, on a recipe editing screen, either a VP or CP process parameter is selected as the setting value, and the substrate is processed in accordance with the selected process parameter.
However, Mitsui contains no disclosure or suggestion of the configuration now required by the independent claims; moreover, the advantages resulting from these requirements are not suggested by Mitsui.
there is no description that, when the setting value of a certain item is "reset," a range check is performed on all the items in order to maintain consistency among all the items.
However, Koshiumi contains no disclosure or
suggestion of the configuration required by the amended independent claims highlight above and, likewise, the advantages resulting from these requirements are not suggested by Koshiumi
However, Nogami contains no disclosure or suggestion of the configuration now required by the independent claims; moreover, the advantages resulting from these requirements are not suggested by Nogami.
However, Koyama's consistency check differs from the "range check" of the claimed invention in that it is a check directed to control logic, such as the valve interlock check and the step infinite-loop check.
(Pages: 7-9)
With respect to (a) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 19 and 20, a new grounds of rejections in view of Koshiumi et al. (JP2014138158A)
As described in the current office action, claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Mitsui and KOSHIUMI.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, the arguments are moot; therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the references as presented in the current office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-5:
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function:
determinator in claims 1 and 5,
manager in claim 2,
range setter in claims 3-4.
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language linked by linking word “configured to”
determinator:
determinator configured to determine whether or not the setting value is within an effective range when the setting value is reset during the undo operation or the redo operation in claim 1, and
the determinator is configured to determine whether or not every one of the setting values defined in the file remains within an effective range when the setting value is changed in claim 5,
manager:
a manager configured to manage the setting value, in claim 2, and
wherein the manager is configured to search for information on the setting value in accordance with an instruction from the operation controller in claim 2,
range setter
range setter configured to set an upper limit value and a lower limit value of the effective range of the setting value, wherein the range setter is configured to set effective ranges of an entirety of the setting values in accordance with an instruction from the manager in claim 3.
the range setter is configured to check a range setting condition set in advance for each item and setting information for another item related thereto to calculate the upper limit value and the lower limit value in claim 4.
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Determinator in claims 1 and 5, manager in claim 2, and range setter in claims 3-4 are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification:
¶80: The CPU 101 of the substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present embodiments functions as the controller 100, the manager 105, the range setter 106 and the determinator 107 by writing the setting value editing program stored in the memory 103 to the RAM 102 and executing the setting value editing program..
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsui et al., (US20140074277A1) [hereinafter Mitsui] and further in view of Koshiumi et al. (JP2014138158A) [hereinafter KOSHIUMI].
Regarding claim 1:
Mitsui discloses, A substrate processing apparatus comprising: [¶11: substrate processing technology that can automatically set a process parameter suitable for a process condition of a process recipe before executing the process recipe.];
a display configured to display a file describing substrate processing conditions containing a plurality of setting values for a plurality of items; [¶12: process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe and a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…a display unit configured to display at least the process parameter and the parameter name, the control method including: (a) displaying the process parameter of the process recipe on the display unit; (b) displaying the parameter name in the process parameter file on the display unit;];
an operation controller configured to perform an editing operation for the file and to perform at least one operation of an undo operation or a redo operation for a setting value among the plurality of setting values, wherein the setting value is set in the editing operation; [Examiner notes that only one of the optional elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
¶12: process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe and a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…
¶56: in operation S4, a corresponding VP item is set as the process parameter of the recipe by writing the VP item in the process parameter of the recipe.];
a controller configured to be capable of controlling an editing operation for the setting value, wherein the controller comprises: [¶43: The main control unit 11 includes a memory for storing operation programs of a central processing unit (CPU) and the main control unit 11,...
¶55: in operation S2, the main control unit 11 automatically generates a frame of a VP file having the same name as the recipe name. In this instance, the automatically generated VP file name is registered in the combination information unit. In a state in which a VP editing screen including the VP file frame is displayed on the display unit 32, the operator inputs a parameter item (VP item) and a process parameter in the VP file frame using the operation unit 31 to set the VP item and the process parameter.];
a memory configured to store the file and operation history information on the undo operation or the redo operation; and [¶43: The main control unit 11 includes a memory for storing operation programs of a central processing unit (CPU) and the main control unit 11, and the like as a hardware configuration.];
a determinator configured to determine whether or not each of the setting values for all of the items are within an effective range [¶12: a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…
¶50: The CP file includes a condition table (CP table) that is set so that the process parameter corresponding to each of a plurality of CP items coincides with an optimized process parameter according to each process…
¶46: A single recipe usually includes a plurality of processing operations, and each processing operation includes a plurality of process parameters for processing a substrate.
Examiner notes the claim interpretations for the limitation determinator as described in the claim interpretation section.];
a process vessel in which a substrate is processed based on the file stored in the memory. [¶12: a process parameter file storage unit configured to store a process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe…
¶13: (c) generating a first recipe by substituting the process parameter with the parameter name; (d) generating a second recipe by substituting the parameter name in the first recipe with the process parameter in the condition table when the number of substrate to be processed is selected; and (e) executing the second recipe according to the number of substrate selected in the step (d).], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
KOSHIUMI discloses, …determine whether or not each of the setting values for all of the items are within an effective range when the setting value is reset during the undo operation or the redo operation so as to secure a consistency of all of the items after the undo operation or the redo operation; [page 3, ¶5: There is provided a substrate processing apparatus for prohibiting input of a set value exceeding a settable input range for a predetermined parameter among the plurality of parameters on the input screen…
Page 3, ¶6: control method for a substrate processing apparatus that displays an input screen for accepting a value and prohibits input of a set value exceeding a settable input range in a predetermined parameter among the plurality of parameters.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of determining whether or not each of the setting values for all of the items are within an effective range when the setting value is reset during the undo operation or the redo operation so as to secure a consistency of all of the items after the undo operation or the redo operation in order to maintain consistency during parameter after editing thereby improving reliability and efficiency of the substrate processing by ensuring that the edited parameters are within desired and suitable ranges taught by KOSHIUMI with the apparatus taught by Mitsui as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to maintain consistency during parameter after editing thereby improving reliability and efficiency of the substrate processing by ensuring that the edited parameters are within desired and suitable ranges [KOSHIUMI Page 4, ¶2: it is possible to prevent the input of a numerical value that deviates from a reference process parameter beyond a certain range, and it is possible to prevent substrate lotout due to an operator input error. Reliability is improved.].
Regarding claim 2:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, and
Mitsui further discloses, wherein the controller further comprises a manager configured to manage the setting value, wherein the manager is configured to search for information on the setting value in accordance with an instruction from the operation controller. [¶61: in operation S7, the main control unit 11 searches for the VP file corresponding (combined) to the recipe selected in the job based on a VP file name registered in the combination information unit of the recipe,
Examiner notes the claim interpretations for the limitation manager as described in the claim interpretation section.].
Regarding claim 3:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, and
KOSHIUMI discloses, wherein the controller further comprises a range setter configured to set an upper limit value and a lower limit value of the effective range of the setting value, wherein the range setter is configured to set effective ranges of an entirety of the setting values in accordance with an instruction from the manager. [page 2, ¶6: There is provided a substrate processing apparatus for prohibiting input of a set value exceeding a settable input range for a predetermined parameter among the plurality of parameters on the input screen…
Page 6, ¶2: The “input lower limit value” display area 402 is a value of “process parameter before change” displayed in the “process parameter before input (InitValue)” display area 408− “VP input range limit parameter” (input lower limit value). , “Input upper limit value” display area 403 is a value of “process parameter before change” displayed in “process parameter before input (InitValue)” display area 408 + value of “VP input range restriction parameter” (input upper limit value). ) Is displayed. A desired value can be input to a “numerical value (process parameter)” input area 404 by pressing a “numerical value input” button 406 and a ± button 405. Here, the ± button 405 is used to finely adjust the value input in the “numerical value (process parameter)” input area 404 for each digit. If the value input in the “Numerical value (process parameter) input” area 404 is a value exceeding the “input upper limit value” or less than the “input lower limit value”, an “error message” display area is displayed.
Examiner notes the claim interpretations of range setter as described in the claim interpretation section.].
Regarding claim 4:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 3, and
KOSHIUMI further discloses, wherein the range setter is configured to check a range setting condition set in advance for each item and setting information for another item related thereto to calculate the upper limit value and the lower limit value. [page 6, ¶2: If the value input in the “Numerical value (process parameter) input” area 404 is a value exceeding the “input upper limit value” or less than the “input lower limit value”, an “error message” display area is displayed.
Examiner notes the claim interpretations of range setter as described in the claim interpretation section.].
Regarding claim 5:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, and
Mitsui further discloses, wherein the determinator is configured to determine whether or not every one of the setting values defined in the file remains within an effective range when the setting value is changed. [¶12: a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…
¶50: The CP file includes a condition table (CP table) that is set so that the process parameter corresponding to each of a plurality of CP items coincides with an optimized process parameter according to each process…
Examiner notes the claim interpretations for the limitation determinator as described in the claim interpretation section.].
Regarding claim 6:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 5, and
KOSHIUMI further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of notifying the operation controller that the setting value is out of the effective range when a determination result of the determinator is that the setting value is out of the effective range. [page 6, ¶2: If the value input in the “Numerical value (process parameter) input” area 404 is a value exceeding the “input upper limit value” or less than the “input lower limit value”, an “error message” display area is displayed.].
Regarding claim 7:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, and
KOSHIUMI further discloses, wherein the operation controller is further configured to be capable of instructing the display to display that there is at least one setting value out of the effective range in accordance with a notification from the controller. [page 6, ¶2: If the value input in the “Numerical value (process parameter) input” area 404 is a value exceeding the “input upper limit value” or less than the “input lower limit value”, an “error message” display area is displayed.].
Regarding claim 8:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 7, and
KOSHIUMI further discloses, wherein the display is further configured to display the notification that the setting value is out of the effective range in accordance with an instruction from the operation controller, and is further configured to switch a display of a target setting value in accordance with the instruction from the operation controller. [page 6, ¶2: If the value input in the “Numerical value (process parameter) input” area 404 is a value exceeding the “input upper limit value” or less than the “input lower limit value”, an “error message” display area is displayed… A predetermined “error message” is displayed in 401. In addition, the “difference” display area 407 shows the difference between the value input in the “numerical value (process parameter)” input area 404 and the value displayed in the “process parameter before input (InitValue)” display area 408. It is configured to be displayed.].
Regarding claim 9:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, and
Mitsui further discloses, wherein the display is provided with a button for the undo operation or the redo operation. [Examiner notes that only one of the optional elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
¶46: a VP editing screen including the VP file frame is displayed on the display unit 32, the operator inputs a parameter item (VP item) and a process parameter in the VP file frame using the operation unit 31 to set the VP item and the process parameter. As a result, the VP file shown in FIG. 5 is generated…
¶57: When the operator pushes a VP button in the VP/CP selection screen, the VP setting is selected,].
Regarding claim 10:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 9, and
Mitsui further discloses, wherein the display is further configured to switch display characters of the button in accordance with a display language of the display. [¶57: Next, a VP/CP selection screen for selecting whether VP setting or CP setting is performed is displayed on the display unit 32…When the operator pushes a VP button in the VP/CP selection screen, the VP setting is selected, and a VP file in which a VP file name registered in the combination information unit is “Test” is read from the VP storage unit 22 a to be displayed on the display unit 32. Next, in a parameter name display operation, a VP item selection screen for selecting the VP item registered in the VP file is displayed on the display unit 32.].
Regarding claim 11:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 9, and
Mitsui further discloses, wherein the display is further configured to switch a display of the button in accordance with the undo operation or the redo operation. [¶57: Next, a VP/CP selection screen for selecting whether VP setting or CP setting is performed is displayed on the display unit 32…When the operator pushes a VP button in the VP/CP selection screen, the VP setting is selected, and a VP file in which a VP file name registered in the combination information unit is “Test” is read from the VP storage unit 22 a to be displayed on the display unit 32. Next, in a parameter name display operation, a VP item selection screen for selecting the VP item registered in the VP file is displayed on the display unit 32….
¶59: when substituting another process parameter of the recipe with the VP item, the parameter name display operation and the recipe parameter substitution operation are repeatedly performed while displaying the recipe screen.].
Regarding claim 19:
Mitsui discloses, A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: [¶11: substrate processing technology that can automatically set a process parameter suitable for a process condition of a process recipe before executing the process recipe.];
(a) displaying a file describing substrate processing conditions containing a plurality of setting values for a plurality of items; [¶12: process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe and a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…a display unit configured to display at least the process parameter and the parameter name, the control method including: (a) displaying the process parameter of the process recipe on the display unit; (b) displaying the parameter name in the process parameter file on the display unit;];
(b) performing at least one operation of an undo operation or a redo operation for a setting value among the plurality of setting values when editing the setting value; [Examiner notes that only one of the optional elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
¶12: process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe and a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…
¶56: in operation S4, a corresponding VP item is set as the process parameter of the recipe by writing the VP item in the process parameter of the recipe.];
(c) storing the file and operation history information on the undo operation or the redo operation; [¶43: The main control unit 11 includes a memory for storing operation programs of a central processing unit (CPU) and the main control unit 11, and the like as a hardware configuration.];
(d) determining whether or not each of the setting values for all of the items are within an effective range [¶12: a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…
¶50: The CP file includes a condition table (CP table) that is set so that the process parameter corresponding to each of a plurality of CP items coincides with an optimized process parameter according to each process…
¶46: A single recipe usually includes a plurality of processing operations, and each processing operation includes a plurality of process parameters for processing a substrate.];
(e) processing a substrate based on the file stored in (c). [¶12: a process parameter file storage unit configured to store a process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe…
¶13: (c) generating a first recipe by substituting the process parameter with the parameter name; (d) generating a second recipe by substituting the parameter name in the first recipe with the process parameter in the condition table when the number of substrate to be processed is selected; and (e) executing the second recipe according to the number of substrate selected in the step (d).], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
KOSHIUMI discloses, determining whether or not each of the setting values for all of the items are within an effective range when the setting value is reset during the undo operation or the redo operation so as to secure a consistency of all of the items after the undo operation or the redo operation; [page 3, ¶5: There is provided a substrate processing apparatus for prohibiting input of a set value exceeding a settable input range for a predetermined parameter among the plurality of parameters on the input screen…
Page 3, ¶6: control method for a substrate processing apparatus that displays an input screen for accepting a value and prohibits input of a set value exceeding a settable input range in a predetermined parameter among the plurality of parameters.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of KOSHIUMI with the method taught by Mitsui for the same reasons as described above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20:
Mitsui discloses, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by a computer, to perform: [¶135: there is provided a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for generating a recipe used in a substrate processing apparatus…
¶11: substrate processing technology that can automatically set a process parameter suitable for a process condition of a process recipe before executing the process recipe.];
(a) displaying a file describing substrate processing conditions containing a plurality of setting values for a plurality of items; [¶12: process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe and a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…a display unit configured to display at least the process parameter and the parameter name, the control method including: (a) displaying the process parameter of the process recipe on the display unit; (b) displaying the parameter name in the process parameter file on the display unit;];
(b) performing at least one operation of an undo operation or a redo operation for a setting value among the plurality of setting values when editing the setting value; [Examiner notes that only one of the optional elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
¶12: process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe and a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…
¶56: in operation S4, a corresponding VP item is set as the process parameter of the recipe by writing the VP item in the process parameter of the recipe.];
(c) storing the file and operation history information on the undo operation or the redo operation; [¶43: The main control unit 11 includes a memory for storing operation programs of a central processing unit (CPU) and the main control unit 11, and the like as a hardware configuration.];
(d) determining whether or not each of the setting values for all of the items are within an effective range [¶12: a plurality of condition tables storing a parameter name of the process parameter according to number of substrate to be processed in the processing chamber;…
¶50: The CP file includes a condition table (CP table) that is set so that the process parameter corresponding to each of a plurality of CP items coincides with an optimized process parameter according to each process…
Examiner notes the claim interpretations for the limitation determinator.];
(e) processing a substrate based on the file stored in (c). [¶12: a process parameter file storage unit configured to store a process parameter file including a process parameter used in executing the process recipe…
¶13: (c) generating a first recipe by substituting the process parameter with the parameter name; (d) generating a second recipe by substituting the parameter name in the first recipe with the process parameter in the condition table when the number of substrate to be processed is selected; and (e) executing the second recipe according to the number of substrate selected in the step (d).], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
KOSHIUMI discloses, determining whether or not each of the setting values for all of the items are within an effective range when the setting value is reset during the undo operation or the redo operation so as to secure a consistency of all of the items after the undo operation or the redo operation; [page 3, ¶5: There is provided a substrate processing apparatus for prohibiting input of a set value exceeding a settable input range for a predetermined parameter among the plurality of parameters on the input screen…
Page 3, ¶6: control method for a substrate processing apparatus that displays an input screen for accepting a value and prohibits input of a set value exceeding a settable input range in a predetermined parameter among the plurality of parameters.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of KOSHIUMI with the computer-readable recording medium taught by Mitsui for the same reasons as described above in claim 1.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsui and KOSHIUMI and further in view of Nogami et al. (US20080178119A1) [hereinafter Nogami].
Regarding claim 12:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, and
Mitsui further discloses, wherein the operation history information comprises: first operation history information configured to store setting value related information of the setting value; [¶38: a storage unit 20 that stores a process recipe that is a substrate processing sequence of the substrate processing apparatus 100, and the like are electrically connected to the main control unit 11…
¶47: the recipe storage unit 21 includes a combination information unit (not shown) for storing an ID for specifying a VP file or a CP file corresponding to each recipe, for example, a VP file name or a CP file name.], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Nogami discloses, second operation history information configured to store the setting value related information as an undo history when the undo operation is executed. [¶39: the recipe partway through the editing is returned to a condition before the editing, and edited data information is saved in a temporary file.
¶43: return the recipe partway through the editing to the recipe before the editing, separately save the data partway through the editing in a buffer file (the temporary file)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined second operation history information configured to store the setting value related information as an undo history when the undo operation is executed in order to conveniently perform undo operation instead of resetting from the beginning and thus saving time and effort taught by Nogami with the apparatus taught by Mitsui and KOSHIUMI as discussed above in order to conveniently perform undo operation instead of resetting from the beginning and thus saving time and effort [Nogami ¶88: to update the original recipe, there being no necessity to reset from a beginning when implementing the editing operation again, it is convenient.].
Regarding claim 13:
Mitsui, KOSHIUMI and Nogami disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 12, and
Nogami further discloses, wherein the setting value related information comprises at least one among setting items, the setting value before a change and the setting value after a change. [Examiner notes that claim requires only one of the elements listed by at least one and only one of them is given the patentable weight.
¶39: the recipe partway through the editing is returned to a condition before the editing, and edited data information is saved in a temporary file.
¶43: return the recipe partway through the editing to the recipe before the editing, separately save the data partway through the editing in a buffer file (the temporary file)].
Regarding claim 16:
Mitsui, KOSHIUMI and Nogami disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 12, and
Mitsui further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of, when acquiring new setting value related information, storing the setting value related information of the second operation history information into the first operation history information and capable of storing the new setting value related information into the first operation history information. [¶56: in a recipe display operation, a recipe on which a VP process is to be performed is first read from the recipe storage unit 21, and a recipe screen corresponding to an operation for performing the VP process of the recipe is displayed on the display unit 32…
¶55: the VP file shown in FIG. 5 is generated. In operation S3, the generated VP file is stored in the VP storage unit 22 a together with the file name (for example, “Test”). The VP file name may be different from the recipe name.].
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsui, KOSHIUMI and Nogami and further in view of KOYAMA et al. (WO2019186649A1) [hereinafter KOYAMA].
Regarding claim 14:
Mitsui, KOSHIUMI and Nogami disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 12, and
Nogami further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of, when executing the undo operation, storing the setting value related information of the first operation history information into the second operation history information [¶43: return the recipe partway through the editing to the recipe before the editing, separately save the data partway through the editing in a buffer file (the temporary file)], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
KOYAMA discloses, capable of deleting the setting value related information stored in the first operation history information. [page 5, ¶14-¶15: The copy contents (buffer contents) when the copy operation shown in FIG. 8 is performed are held in the memory of the controller 10 being edited, and are always displayed at the top (first line) of the clipboard 303a. It is configured as follows. The buffer contents are configured to display the copy source recipe name and the copied step number…. When the editing of the recipe in the recipe editing area 302 is completed, the controller 10 is configured to delete the contents of this buffer. The contents of this buffer can be given a name by using the snippet function described later.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined capability of deleting the setting value related information stored in the first operation history information in order to increase efficiency by avoiding mistakes generated from editing taught by KOYAMA with the apparatus taught by Mitsui, KOSHIUMI and Nogami as discussed above in order to increase efficiency by avoiding mistakes generated from editing [KOYAMA, page, ¶16: This makes it possible to copy not only the steps in the same recipe file but also the steps in a different file so far, and there are no editing mistakes and work efficiency can be improved.].
Regarding claim 15:
Mitsui, KOSHIUMI and Nogami disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 12, and
Nogami further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of, when executing the redo operation, storing the setting value related information of the second operation history information into the first operation history information [¶87: it is also possible for the operation control portion 414 to temporarily save the edited data in a storage portion for storing the buffer file (the temporary file).], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
KOYAMA further discloses, capable of deleting the setting value related information stored in the second operation history information. [page 5, ¶14-¶15: The copy contents (buffer contents) when the copy operation shown in FIG. 8 is performed are held in the memory of the controller 10 being edited, and are always displayed at the top (first line) of the clipboard 303a. It is configured as follows. The buffer contents are configured to display the copy source recipe name and the copied step number…. When the editing of the recipe in the recipe editing area 302 is completed, the controller 10 is configured to delete the contents of this buffer. The contents of this buffer can be given a name by using the snippet function described later.].
Regarding claim 17:
Mitsui, KOSHIUMI and Nogami disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 16, and
KOYAMA further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of clearing the second operation history information. [page 5, ¶15: When the editing of the recipe in the recipe editing area 302 is completed, the controller 10 is configured to delete the contents of this buffer. The contents of this buffer can be given a name by using the snippet function described later.].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsui and KOSHIUMI and further in view of KOYAMA.
Regarding claim 18:
Mitsui and KOSHIUMI disclose, The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
KOYAMA discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of clearing the operation history information when the editing operation for the file is completed. [page 5, ¶15: When the editing of the recipe in the recipe editing area 302 is completed, the controller 10 is configured to delete the contents of this buffer. The contents of this buffer can be given a name by using the snippet function described later.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined capability of clearing the operation history information when the editing operation for the file is completed in order to increase efficiency by avoiding mistakes generated from editing taught by KOYAMA with the apparatus taught by Mitsui and KOSHIUMI as discussed above in order to increase efficiency by avoiding mistakes generated from editing [KOYAMA, page, ¶16: This makes it possible to copy not only the steps in the same recipe file but also the steps in a different file so far, and there are no editing mistakes and work efficiency can be improved.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited document dated 03/23/2026.
SEKI (WO2020188820A1) - Recipe creation method, manufacturing method of semiconductor device using created recipe, substrate processing apparatus, and recipe creation program:
Page 3, ¶1: One aspect of the present disclosure is a recipe editing screen including a selection screen area for displaying a list of parameters for selecting parameters included in a recipe of a substrate processing apparatus and a parameter editing screen area for editing parameters….the parameter reception process that accepts the selection operation to select the parameter to be edited from the list of parameters displayed in the selection screen area, and the parameter to be edited selected by the selection operation. A timing chart for editing, which is a parameter display process that editably displays the timing chart that changes at the time of each step of a series of steps included in the manufacturing process in the parameter edit screen area, and is displayed in the parameter edit screen area. Provided is a technique including a parameter editing step of receiving an operation instruction for editing a timing chart, changing the display of the timing chart according to the operation instruction, and editing a parameter to be edited.
Yonebayashi et al. (JP2006228857A) - Substrate processing equipment:
Page 3, ¶6: displaying an edit screen for a program relating to substrate processing, and a key log saving means for saving the edited edit screen displayed on the display means…The previous screen key for calling the edited screen after editing from the storage means in reverse order and the previous screen key for calling in reverse order, and the screen display format of the portion edited by the key in the edited portion of the edited screen after editing,…changing the display to be distinguishable from other display portions of the editing screen.
Shioiri et al. (JPH1185201A) - Parameter setting support device:
Page 5, ¶14-¶15: In the parameter setting support device for determining and setting the required control device, a storage means for storing check limit data and past setting history data for each parameter, and a predetermined predetermined On this line, the current parameter setting value, the check limit data previously stored in the storage means and the past setting history data are sequentially plotted, and a window screen having at least a setting button is created and touch-displayed Means for displaying in the section,…Means for setting the current parameter setting value in the control device when receiving an operation signal of a setting button based on the displayed window screen, and setting the setting value as past setting history data in the storage means.
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 MOHAMMED SHAFAYET whose telephone number is (571)272-8239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights