DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-9 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
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 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 9 is directed to computer program product comprising computer executable instructions constructed to make a computer implement the method. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A method for calculating a throughput in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, which comprises plural units, comprising steps for:
obtaining a process parameter relating to processing of a substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus;
obtaining, from a memory, maintenance information with respect to each unit in the plural units, wherein the maintenance information comprises timing of maintenance of each unit in the plural units and the length of time required for the maintenance, wherein the maintenance is that planned to be performed in a period that ends when processing of the substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is completed; and
calculating a throughput of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, based on the process parameter and the maintenance information.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites A method. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim limitations in claim 1:
A method for calculating a throughput in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, which comprises plural units, comprising steps for:
obtaining a process parameter relating to processing of a substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus;
obtaining, from a memory, maintenance information with respect to each unit in the plural units, wherein the maintenance information comprises timing of maintenance of each unit in the plural units and the length of time required for the maintenance, wherein the maintenance is that planned to be performed in a period that ends when processing of the substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is completed; and
calculating a throughput of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, based on the process parameter and the maintenance information;
are judicial exception of mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a human can observe the working of two processing chambers and see that 1st processing chamber manufactures one substrate each minute, and 2nd processing chamber manufactures one substrate each minute. The human remembers that 1st processing chamber needs to be maintained every 30 minutes for 30 minutes, and the 2nd processing chamber needs to be maintained every hour for one hour. Therefore they calculate that both processing chambers throughput is ((30x4) + (60x2)) substrates per 4 hours.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claims 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
There are no additional limitations.
Even if we make a leap and assume that the claimed memory is a computer memory, thus an additional element, memory is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determine, obtain, and take steps. The generically recited “memory” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and/or math concepts using a generic or general-purpose processor and to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements “memory” in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, there is no insignificant extra-solution activity.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
With respect to claims 2-9,
Similar to the analysis of claim 1. Step 1: claims 2-8 are either apparatus claims or method claims. Claim 9 is software per se, but for purpose of compact prosecution is included in this analysis. Step 2A, Prong One: the recited limitations of these claims are mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B: there are no additional elements that are integrated into a practical application and sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
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 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, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20100168892) in view of Emani (US 20190391569).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches:
A method for calculating a throughput in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, which comprises plural units, comprising steps for:
obtaining a process parameter relating to processing of a substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus;
obtaining, from a control system, maintenance information with respect to each unit in the plural units, wherein the maintenance information comprises timing of maintenance of each unit in the plural units and the length of time required for the maintenance, wherein the maintenance is that planned to be performed in a period that ends when processing of the substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is completed; and
calculating a throughput of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, based on the process parameter and the maintenance information;
(at least figs. 2a-2c [0034]-[0039] discussed process chambers 210, control system 260, receiving metrics, on basis of metrics determine time for next planned maintenance activity/downtime, reducing throughput loss by synchronizing downtime/maintenance process chambers; in particular [0035]-[0038]; [0038] discussed maintenance interval, hiding a downtime “behind” another downtime, indicating that maintenance/downtime has length of more than zero);
Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
control system includes memory;
However, Emani teaches:
control system includes memory (fig. 5 [0084]-[0097] discuss computerized system) to serve as computing platform ([0084]-[0097]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Schmidt with control system includes memory as taught by Emani to serve as computing platform.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt teaches:
wherein the step for calculating a throughput of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprises steps for:
creating, based on the process parameter and the maintenance information, a timetable showing an operation schedule of the plural units; and
calculating, based on the timetable, a throughput of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus;
(at least figs. 2a-2c [0034]-[0039] discussed process chambers 210, control system 260, receiving metrics, on basis of metrics determine time for next planned maintenance activity/downtime, reducing throughput loss by synchronizing downtime/maintenance process chambers; in particular [0035]-[0038]; [0038] discussed maintenance interval, hiding a downtime “behind” another downtime, indicating that maintenance/downtime has length of more than zero);
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt teaches:
a step for updating, in association with progress in processing of the substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, the maintenance information stored in the control system, wherein
creating of the timetable is performed in response to occurrence of a predetermined event and based on the updated maintenance information at the time of occurrence of the event (at least figs. 2a-2c [0034]-[0039] discussed process chambers 210, control system 260, receiving metrics, on basis of metrics determine time for next planned maintenance activity/downtime, reducing throughput loss by synchronizing downtime/maintenance process chambers; in particular [0035]-[0038]; [0038] discussed maintenance interval, hiding a downtime “behind” another downtime, indicating that maintenance/downtime has length of more than zero; in particular [0038]-[0039] discussed change in recipe, resulting in change in processing capabilities, updated time to next planned maintenance interval);
Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
control system includes memory;
However, Emani teaches:
control system includes memory (fig. 5 [0084]-[0097] discuss computerized system) to serve as computing platform ([0084]-[0097]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Schmidt with control system includes memory as taught by Emani to serve as computing platform.
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt teaches:
wherein creating of the timetable comprises determining the operation schedule in such a manner that each of all units included in the maintenance information as objects of maintenance is not used during maintenance thereof (at least figs. 2a-2c [0034]-[0039] discussed process chambers 210, control system 260, receiving metrics, on basis of metrics determine time for next planned maintenance activity/downtime, reducing throughput loss by synchronizing downtime/maintenance process chambers; in particular [0035]-[0038]; [0038] discussed maintenance interval, hiding a downtime “behind” another downtime, indicating that maintenance/downtime has length of more than zero);
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt teaches:
As applied to claim 1;
A semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising:
plural units;
a control system constructed to calculate the throughput according to the method recited in Claim 1;
(at least figs. 2a-2c [0034]-[0039] discussed process chambers 210, control system 260, receiving metrics, on basis of metrics determine time for next planned maintenance activity/downtime, reducing throughput loss by synchronizing downtime/maintenance process chambers; in particular [0035]-[0038]; [0038] discussed maintenance interval, hiding a downtime “behind” another downtime, indicating that maintenance/downtime has length of more than zero);
Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
control system includes memory/computer;
a display device for displaying the calculated throughput;
However, Emani teaches:
control system includes memory/computer;
a display device for displaying the calculated throughput;
(at least fig. 5 [0084]-[0097] discuss computerized system; figs. 2-3 [0028]-[0071] discussed displaying predicted throughput) to serve as computing platform and display to user ([0084]-[0097] [0028]-[0071]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Schmidt with control system includes memory/computer; a display device for displaying the calculated throughput; as taught by Emani to serve as computing platform and display to user.
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt teaches:
As applied to claim 1;
a control system implementing the method recited in Claim 1;
(at least figs. 2a-2c [0034]-[0039] discussed process chambers 210, control system 260, receiving metrics, on basis of metrics determine time for next planned maintenance activity/downtime, reducing throughput loss by synchronizing downtime/maintenance process chambers; in particular [0035]-[0038]; [0038] discussed maintenance interval, hiding a downtime “behind” another downtime, indicating that maintenance/downtime has length of more than zero);
Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
control system includes computer;
A computer program product comprising computer executable instructions constructed to make a computer implement the method when the computer executable instructions are executed by a processor in the computer;
However, Emani teaches:
control system includes computer;
A computer program product comprising computer executable instructions constructed to make a computer implement the method when the computer executable instructions are executed by a processor in the computer;
(at least fig. 5 [0084]-[0097] discuss computerized system; figs. 2-3 [0028]-[0071] discussed displaying predicted throughput) to serve as computing platform and display to user ([0084]-[0097] [0028]-[0071]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Schmidt with control system includes computer; A computer program product comprising computer executable instructions constructed to make a computer implement the method when the computer executable instructions are executed by a processor in the computer; as taught by Emani to serve as computing platform and display to user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656