Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/515,265

INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 21, 2023
Examiner
MACARTHUR, SYLVIA
Art Unit
1716
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ebara Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
617 granted / 948 resolved
At TC average
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
981
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 948 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on November 3, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim Interpretation 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: Polishing units as recited in claims 1-8 where the functional language is performing a polishing process on the substrates in parallel where the generic placeholder is unit. Finishing units as recited in claims 1-8 where the functional language is performing a finishing process on the substrates after the polishing process in a finishing processing order where the generic placeholder is units. Transport units as recited in claims 1-8 where the functional language is performing a transport process for transporting the substrates where the generic placeholder is units. Calculation processing part as recited in claims 1-8 where the functional language is calculating start timings of respective processes when the respective processes are performed in order on a predetermined number of substrates in a substrate processing device where the generic placeholder is part Event reception part as recited in claims 1-8 where the functional language is receiving event information indicating an occurrence situation of an event affecting execution of any of the respective processes where the generic placeholder is part Re-calculation part as recited in claims 1-8 where the functional language is re-calculating the start timings of the respective processes based on the occurrence situation of the event indicated in the event information where the generic placeholder is part Schedule generation part as recited in claim 7 where the functional language is generating a substrate processing schedule determined by using the start timings of the respective processes calculated or re-calculated by the calculation processing part or the re-calculation processing part where the generic placeholder is part Integral control processing part as recited in claim 7 where the functional language is, controlling the polishing units, the finishing units, and the transport units by instructing the start timings of the respective processes based on the substrate processing schedule generated by the schedule generation part where the generic placeholder is part Distributed control processing part as recited in claim 8 where the functional language is controlling the polishing unit by instructing the polishing unit a start timing of the polishing process calculated or re-calculated by the calculation processing part or the re-calculation processing part where the generic placeholder is part 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. The term “polishing units” is interpreted as polishing units 22A, 22B where according to the original specification [0022] each of the polishing units includes a polishing table 220, a top ring (substrate holding part 221), a polishing fluid supply part 222, a dresser 223, and an atomizer 224. The term “finishing units” is interpreted as finishing units 23A to 23C where according to the original specification [0030] where finishing unit 23A performs a roll sponge cleaning process by using a roll sponge 2300. The second finishing unit 23B performs a pen sponge cleaning process that cleans the wafer W after the roll sponge cleaning process by using a pen sponge 2301. The third finishing process 23C performs a drying process that dries the wafer W after the pen sponge cleaning process as a finishing process of the most downstream process. The term “transport units” is interpreted as substrate transport part 24 which according to [0038] of the original specification includes a polishing process transporter 240 and a finishing process transporter 241. Calculation processing part based on Fig. 9 and the excerpt [0059] is interpreted as element 301 and is implied as a microprocessor Event reception part, re-calculation part based on Fig. 9 and the excerpt [0059] is interpreted as element 302 and is implied as a microprocessor Re-calculation part based on Fig. 9 and the excerpt [0059] and Fig. 9 is interpreted as element 303 and is implied as a microprocessor Schedule generation part element 304 based on Fig. 9 and the excerpt [0059] is interpreted as element 304 and is implied as a microprocessor Integral control processing part based on Fig. 9 and the excerpt [0059] is interpreted as element 305 and is implied as a microprocessor 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. How the overall invention is interpreted The invention is recited as an information processing device, but it appears that the invention is instead a substrate processing system comprising a) a substrate processing device comprising a plurality of polishing units, a plurality of finishing units, and a plurality of transport units, and b) an information processing device comprising a calculation processing part, an event reception part, and a recalculation part s recited in claim 1. The information processing device further comprising schedule generation part and integral control processing part as recited in claim 7. The information processing device further comprising a distributed control processing part as recited in claim 8. It is suggested that the preamble of each claim reflect this clarification as the information processing device is used with/ or communicates with the substrate processing device as illustrated in Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10. For the purposes of examination, the invention is interpreted as a substrate processing device with a substrate processing device and an information processing device. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al (US 2008/0081540) Regarding claim 1: Sato et al teaches a substrate processing system with a) an information processing device (control unit 11) , comprising: a calculation processing part (timer unit 30 see timing of polishing discussed in [0075], timing of finishing units discussed in [0083], and time of transport units see [0085]), calculating start timings of respective processes when the respective processes are performed in order on a predetermined number of substrates in and b) a substrate processing device, the substrate processing device comprising: a plurality of polishing units 2 (made of polishing platens P1-P3) performing a polishing process on the substrates in parallel; a plurality of finishing units (cleaning units C0-C3), performing a finishing process on the substrates after the polishing process in a finishing processing order; and a plurality of transport units (dry robot R1, wet robots R2, R3) , performing a transport process for transporting the substrates; an event reception part (abnormality determiner 15 see [0025], [0053], [0088] – [0093]), receiving event information indicating an occurrence situation of an event affecting execution of any of the respective processes; and a re-calculation part (see [0026] where the polishing condition is changed), re-calculating the start timings of the respective processes based on the occurrence situation of the event indicated in the event information when the event information is received by the event reception part during execution of the respective processes by the substrate processing device in accordance with the start timings of the respective processes calculated by the calculation processing part. PNG media_image1.png 748 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 1 of Sato et al Regarding claim 2: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to rework (wafer put in reverse due to confirmation of abnormality), which indicates that the polishing process is performed again on the substrate on which the polishing process has been performed, or that the finishing process is performed again on the substrate on which the finishing process has been performed. See [0094] where it is recited that a wafer is placed in reserve and then processed based customized conditions/recipe. Regarding claim 3: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to hot lot which indicates that the respective processes are performed on an interrupt substrate not included in the substrates when the start timings of the respective processes are calculated by the calculation processing part. See [0094] where it is recited that a wafer is placed in reverse and then processed based customized conditions/recipe and an alarm unit 20 issues an alert. Regarding claim 4: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to unit arrival, which indicates that the substrate has arrived at the polishing unit when the transport process transporting the substrate is performed with respect to the polishing unit, or that the substrate has arrived at the finishing unit when the transport process transporting the substrate is performed with respect to the finishing unit. See [0095] – [0097] of Sato et al. Regarding claim 5: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to a unit failure (abnormality), which indicates that a failure occurs in the polishing unit, the finishing unit, or the transport unit. See [0088] – [0097] of Sato et al. Regarding claim 6: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to recipe change, which indicates that recipe information determining processing contents of the polishing process is changed or that recipe information determining processing contents of the finishing process is changed, see [0118]-[0120], [0123], and [0129] of Sato where polishing conditions/recipe are changed. See [0084] where cleaning conditions are discussed. Regarding claim 7: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, comprising: a schedule generation part, generating a substrate processing schedule determined by using the start timings of the respective processes calculated or re-calculated by the calculation processing part or the re-calculation processing part; and an integral control processing part, controlling the polishing units, the finishing units, and the transport units by instructing the start timings of the respective processes based on the substrate processing schedule (order of conveyance path/order of processing to transfer units) generated by the schedule generation part. If an abnormality is determined in a process (polishing and/or finishing) it will affect the schedule or order of operation see [0095]. See also [0107] – [0117] and [0121] – [0123] where flow chart is discussed and also illustrated in Fig. 5 of Sato et al. Regarding claim 8: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, comprising: a distributed control processing part (polishing controller 42), controlling the polishing unit by instructing the polishing unit a start timing of the polishing process calculated or re-calculated by the calculation processing part (timer unit 30) or the re-calculation processing part (see [0026] where the polishing condition is changed) in accordance with a timing at which the substrate arrives at the polishing unit when the transport process transporting the substrate is performed with respect to the polishing unit, and controlling the finishing unit by instructing the finishing unit a start timing of the finishing process calculated or re-calculated by the calculation processing part or the re-calculation processing part in accordance with a timing at which the substrate arrives at the finishing unit when the transport process transporting the substrate is performed with respect to the finishing unit. See [0100] – [0105] of Sato et al. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawai Atsushi (JP2003241818) teaches a multichamber processing apparatus with plurality of processing chambers A1-A3, a transport unit 11, and a control unit 13 that prepares a schedule of the processes and the timings when the substrate will be processed and/or transported. Sugiyama et al (US 2015/0290766) teaches a substrate processing apparatus with a polishing unit 3, cleaning unit 4, a wafer transporting unit, and a control section 5 that creates a time table and recipe. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604695
EFEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598956
VAPOR DEPOSITION DEVICE AND VAPOR DEPOSITION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595567
SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TREATING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589465
PLATEN ROTATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588426
Susceptor for a Chemical Vapor Deposition Reactor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 948 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month