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. 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. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Updating unit in claims 1, 2, and 4 where the generic placeholder is unit and the functional language is update t o optimize a model indicating a relationship between distribution of an etching amount within a surface of a substrate Measuring device in claim 4 where the generic placeholder is device and the functional language is measuring distribution of an etching amount of a substrate Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Updating unit is interpreted as element 231b where it is part of the predictor 231 of the controller 23 according to the original specification [0056]. Measuring device is interpreted as element 80 where according to the original specification [0027] can be a spectroscopic film thickness gauge, a scatterometer, a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), or the like. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/468928 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because t he claims of the reference application fully encompass the scope of the present invention. Regarding claim 1: See claim 1 of the reference application recites an etching control system that comprises the prediction device comprises an updating unit, a calculator, and an operation controller. . Regarding claim 2: See claim 5 of the reference application where the second update controller updates a process recipe which is information including a discharging time, a discharge position, and a moving speed of each of the multiple nozzles thus the second update controller is also interpreted as the updating unit. Regarding claim 3: See claim 6 of the reference application where an etching control method performed by an etching control device wherein the method comprises updating the process parameter of the model that indicates a relationship between the distribution of an etching amount within a surface of a substrate and a process parameter that controls the operations of multiple nozzles configured to etch the substrate, a calculating step, a controlling step. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. C laim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/468928 (reference application) in view of Zach (US 2017/0084473). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The claims of the reference application were discussed above. The reference application fails to claim a measuring device. The prior art of Zach teaches systems and methods for controlling an etch process. See etching tool 102 and metrology tool 104. See [0073] teaches that the etching tool can be wet or dry etch. This metrology tool is interpreted as a measuring device see [0037]. In [0037] Zach recites that the metrology tool 1004 can be scatterometry based metrology system. The prior art of Zach teaches that the data from the metrology tool is used to optimize (even update models used to optimize) etch process recipes see [0034] – [0087]. Thus, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the reference application with the teachings of Zach in order to enhance the accuracy of the updated model and calculations to optimize the process recipe. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1- 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/468966(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application fully encompass the scope of the present invention. Regarding claim 1: See claim 1 of the reference application recites an etching control system that comprises: A first update controller interpreted as the updating unit, a calculator, and an operation controller as claimed by the present invention . Regarding claim 2: See claims 1 and 2 of the reference application where the second update controller updates a process recipe which is information including a discharging time, a discharge position, and a moving speed of each of the multiple nozzles thus the second update controller is interpreted as the updating unit recited in claim 2 of the present invention . Regarding claim 3: See claim 5 of the reference application where an etching control method performed by an etching control device wherein the method comprises updating the process parameter of the model that indicates a relationship between the distribution of an etching amount within a surface of a substrate and a process parameter that controls the operations of multiple nozzles configured to etch the substrate, a calculating step, a controlling step. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 -5 of copending Application No. 18/468966 (reference application) in view of Zach (US 2017/0084473). The claims of the reference application were discussed above. The reference application fails to claim a measuring device. The prior art of Zach teaches systems and methods for controlling an etch process. See etching tool 102 and metrology tool 104. See [0073] teaches that the etching tool can be wet or dry etch. This metrology tool is interpreted as a measuring device see [0037]. In [0037] Zach recites that the metrology tool 1004 can be scatterometry based metrology system. The prior art of Zach teaches that the data from the metrology tool is used to optimize (even update models used to optimize) etch process recipes see [0034] – [0087]. Thus, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the reference application with the teachings of Zach in order to enhance the accuracy of the updated model and calculations to optimize the process recipe. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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. Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al (US 2013/0118533) in view of Stefani et al (US 5,399,229) . Regarding claims 1-3: The prior art of Takiguchi et al teaches a liquid processing apparatus and method where a wafer W is processed using multiple nozzles 5,6, and 41 . Takiguchi et al further teaches a control unit 7 to control processing parameters relative the nozzles such as speed of movement [0075] , the position of the nozzle [0077] , and the time of discharge [0018] of fluid from the nozzles . The control unit 7 is interpreted as the operation controller as it controls the operations of the multiple nozzles of Takiguichi et al. see Figs. 2 and 9. The substrate is rotated via spin chuck 11 and according to [0070] deionized water (rinsing fluid) is dispensed by nozzle 6. Figs. 2 and 9 of Takiguichi et al The prior art of Takiguchi et al fails to specifically recite a calculator or an updating unit as disclosed. Stefani et al recites a system and method for monitoring and evaluating semiconductor wafer fabrication where a measuring device, an etch rate is calculated based on the etching positions along the wafer. A control system 60 of Stefani et al is used to monitor, evaluate, and control the uniformity of the etching process. See Fig. 5 where a calculator 66 is illustrated. In Stefani et al a statistical model is created and optimized (interpreted as updated and stored in the data storage unit 62/ updating unit) see abstract and the paragraph joining col . 4 line 57 – col. 7 line. 50. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Takiguchi et al with the calculator and updating unit of Stefani et al enhances the qualitative analysis and capacity of the process control by providing a model that can be optimized to improve the process paramters and process results run to run. Thus, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Takiguchi et al with the teachings of Stefani et al. Fig. 5 of Stefani et al Regarding claim 4: See the rejections of claims 1-3 and note the teachings of Takiguhi et al. The prior art of Takiguchi et al also fails to teach a measuring device. The prior art of Stefani et al teaches an in situ ellipsometery 20 (measuring device). Col. 3 lines 36-40 also teaches the measuring device can other known sensors as interferometers, infrared spectrometers, laser interferometers, and ellipsometers. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Takiguchi et al with the measuring device of Stefani et al is that the data from the measuring device is used to optimize (even update models used to optimize) etch process recipes see column 3 line 37 – col. 6 line 60. Thus, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Takiguchi et al with the teachings of Stefani et al in order to enhance the accuracy of the updated model and calculations to optimize the process recipe. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Naohara et al (US 2021/0202258) teaches a substrate treatment apparatus including etching using two nozzles 41, 71, a control device 101 that controls the speed of movement of the nozzles, discharge time of the nozzles, and the nozzle positions , s ee Fig.2 . Note the abstract recites that the learned model learns the target speed information indicating the moving speed of the nozzle and the amount of treatment acquired. Cohen et al (US 2012/0029856) teaches a method and system for providing process tool correctables /process parameters where the system includes a computer system 208 (calculates a set of process tool correctables), [0029] teaches updating the process recipe based on data, and measurement system 202 (metrology system 204) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1438 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1435 . 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. /SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716