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 .
Claims 1-5, 7-9 are pending.
This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued in the remark that the amended claim limitations “are not directed to a judicial exception”, the examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s position, please see the detail explanation below. In the remark, applicant also argued the cited prior art reference Funk does not discloses each and every limitation of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Funk teaches capability for editing SPC charts that have been automatically generated ([0115-0116] the APC system and software provides GUI panels for editing, viewing, analyzing, enabling, disabling, and deleting SPC charts that have been automatically generated… a template SPC plan is created and associated with one or more AutoSPC post-run strategies. GUI screens are provided to allow the template SPC plan to be edited… Each of the available summary statistics (average, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, etc.) for each of the available trace parameters is a candidate for automatic SPC chart creation… Mapping of the available parameters and statistics to enabled parameters is based on the installer's or operator's recommendations and the process specific requirements. Also, auto configuration can be re-run at any time after installation if the selection of parameters changes…), please see the detail rejection explained below.
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 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites steps of “obtaining one or plural statistical values by applying statistical processing to the single piece or plural pieces of time-series measured data”, “based on selection of a single statistical value from the one or plural statistical values, identifying a statistical processing condition that was used in statistical processing performed for obtaining the selected single statistical value”, and “updating the statistical processing condition based on the correction input”. As is evident from the background, the claimed determinations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited determinations can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited determinations regarding calculate one or plural statistical values and determine and update a statistical processing condition that was used in statistical processing performed for obtaining the calculated statistical values based on input data, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “obtaining a single piece or plural pieces of time-series measured data relating to processing of a substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, “displaying the identified statistical processing condition”, and “receiving a correction input for the displayed statistical processing condition”. The additional limitations represent mere data gathering (obtaining the time-series measured data values and receiving correction data) and data displaying (displaying the calculated result) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “obtaining a single piece or plural pieces of time-series measured data relating to processing of a substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, “displaying the identified statistical processing condition”, and “receiving a correction input for the displayed statistical processing condition” in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements “semiconductor manufacturing apparatus” and “a substrate” and “a controller of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing generic semiconductor manufacturing related functions such as receiving data, transmitting data, processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitations of “obtaining a single piece or plural pieces of time-series measured data relating to processing of a substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, “displaying the identified statistical processing condition”, and “receiving a correction input for the displayed statistical processing condition” represent mere data gathering (obtaining the time-series measured data values and receiving correction data) and data displaying (displaying the calculated result) are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. Those limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitations “obtaining a single piece or plural pieces of time-series measured data relating to processing of a substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, “displaying the identified statistical processing condition”, and “receiving a correction input for the displayed statistical processing condition” do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “semiconductor manufacturing apparatus” and “a substrate” and “a controller of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing generic semiconductor manufacturing functions includes receiving data, transmitting data, processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 2 recites steps of “the statistical processing condition used for calculating the statistical value from the time-series measured data has been described, and calculating the statistical value from the time-series measured data, by using the statistical processing condition” and “identifying the statistical processing condition comprises a step for obtaining the statistical processing condition corresponding to the statistical processing used for obtaining the selected single statistical value”, the steps cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Dependent Claim 2 recites additional element “reading the statistical processing condition from a setting file”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function of reading data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 3 recites additional element “displaying, in a selectable manner, the one or plural statistical values”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function of displaying data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 4 recites additional element “display of the one or plural statistical values includes display for showing whether each of the one or plural statistical values is abnormal”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function of displaying data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 5 recites additional element “displaying the identified statistical processing condition comprises a step for displaying, on a single screen, the identified statistical processing condition and the time-series measured data corresponding to the selected single statistical value”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function of displaying data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 7 recites step of “statistical processing condition comprises at least one of i) a calculation formula that is used when performing the statistical processing and ii) a data range of the time-series measured data that are determined as objects of the statistical processing”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 8 recites additional element “displaying the statistical processing condition comprises displaying each of the calculation formula and the data range as that having one of a mathematically represented form and a program code form”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function of displaying data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component and it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more based on the same reason for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funk et al. (hereinafter “Funk”) (US 20050047645 A1).
As to claims 1 and 9, Funk teaches a method for displaying information in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising steps for:
Obtaining, from a controller of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, a single piece or plural pieces of time-series measured data relating to processing of a substrate in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus ([0030, 0064, 0067, 0105, 0116, 0155] a GUI component for controlling and monitoring the process-related elements in a semiconductor-processing environment…The GUI component comprises GUI panels/screens that are comprehensible, standardized in format, and simplify the management of the process-related elements. The graphical display is organized so that all significant parameters are clearly and logically displayed so that the user is able to perform the desired configuration, data collection, monitoring, modeling, and troubleshooting tasks with as little input as possible….GUI component 180 enables an APC system user to perform the desired configuration, data collection, monitoring, modeling, and troubleshooting tasks with as little input as possible...Each of the available summary statistics (average, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, etc.) for each of the available trace parameters is a candidate for automatic SPC chart creation. Tool level trace parameters can comprise measured and reported values of process variables, such as, for etch systems, gas flow rates, RF power, RF reflected power, peak-to-peak voltage, pressure, temperature, etc. Mapping of the available parameters and statistics to enabled parameters is based on the installer's or operator's recommendations and the process specific requirements. Also, auto configuration can be re-run at any time after installation if the selection of parameters changes);
obtaining one or plural statistical values by applying statistical processing to the single piece or plural pieces of time-series measured data ([FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0067, 0105-0108, 0116, 0155-0158] Data collected from the tool and sensors by means of the APC system can be displayed to a user using different types of charts. For example, a trace chart can be used to display trace parameter data. In addition, a summary chart can be used to display summary parameter data for one or more wafers for one or more steps. Wafer summary calculations can be calculated from raw data gathered from the tool. The database can store raw data separately, and the raw data is not modified when summary calculations are performed. In addition, summary statistics are generally calculated by step from raw time series data and include at least one of the following items: minimum, maximum, mean, range, standard deviation, high spike count (HSC), and low spike count (LSC). The standard deviation can only be calculated if there are at least two data points. In addition, a trace chart can be used to display raw parameter data for one or more wafers and one or more steps…Files generated by a summary data file plan contain summary data for one or more wafers for the parameters that have been specified. The summary data for a parameter is comprised of the minimum, maximum, average and 3.sigma. value of that parameter over a wafer run. Summary output files typically contain data for multiple wafers; however, the content of the file is based upon the name given the file);
based on selection of a single statistical value from the one or plural statistical values, identifying a statistical processing condition that was used in statistical processing performed for obtaining the selected single statistical value ([FIGS. 12A-12C showing selecting a process parameter to display real time status, historical status information, and statistic processing condition set for the process parameter; 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0067, 0105-0108, 0112-0117, 0138-0142, 0151-0160] In FIG. 12A, an SPC chart selection GUI panel is shown. The SPC chart selection panel comprises a charts navigation sub panel, a selection list sub panel, and a selection item list. For example, a charts navigation window can provide a means for a user to browse through the available charts, and folders with nodes can be provided in the navigation window. In addition, the selection item list can be a short cut menu or a drop down list and can be used to open a SPC chart, examine a journal, create a new SPC chart, copy an existing SPC chart, clear data, delete a SPC chart, analyze a SPC chart, and view/edit properties of a SPC chart. Additional selection items can be used to view/edit/enter specification information, limit information, and message information….The APC system and software provides GUI panels for creating, editing, viewing SPC charts. For example, an SPC chart can be a Shewhart control chart that comprises at least one of: a mean, a minimum, a maximum, range of a process parameter versus time, and range of a process parameter versus sample number. Example charts can comprise the following features: a centerline--a horizontal line representing the mean value of the plotted parameter expected under normal, or "in control" processing conditions; an Upper Control Limit (UCL) and Lower Control Limit (LCL), where the UCL and LCL are horizontal lines that lie above and below the mean, respectively, and their values are set at +/-3 sigma, where sigma is the standard deviation from the mean (under normal conditions, 99.73% of the data points should fall within the upper and lower control limits); an Upper Warning Limit (UWL) and Lower Warning Limit (LWL));
displaying the identified statistical processing condition [FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0067, 0105-0108, 0112-0117, 0138-0142, 0151-0160];
receiving a correction input for the displayed statistical processing condition; and updating the statistical processing condition based on the correction input ([FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0071, 0105-0117, 0138] The GUI component can comprise a data manager component for creating, editing, and viewing strategies and plans used to collect, store, and analyze data…a chart properties selection item can be used to create and edit the properties of a particular chart. Chart property GUI panels are illustrated in FIGS. 11B-11E, and can be used to configure new trace charts and new summary charts…In addition, the selection item list can be a short cut menu or a drop down list and can be used to open a SPC chart, examine a journal, create a new SPC chart, copy an existing SPC chart, clear data, delete a SPC chart, analyze a SPC chart, and view/edit properties of a SPC chart. Additional selection items can be used to view/edit/enter specification information, limit information, and message information… The APC system and software provides GUI panels for creating, editing, viewing SPC charts. For example, an SPC chart can be a Shewhart control chart that comprises at least one of: a mean, a minimum, a maximum, range of a process parameter versus time, and range of a process parameter versus sample number… the APC system and software provides GUI panels for editing, viewing, analyzing, enabling, disabling, and deleting SPC charts that have been automatically generated… GUI screens are provided to allow the template SPC plan to be edited. After installation, the APC system can be automatically configured for fault detection using SPC run-rule evaluation. Each of the available summary statistics (average, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, etc.) for each of the available trace parameters is a candidate for automatic SPC chart creation. Tool level trace parameters can comprise measured and reported values of process variables, such as, for etch systems, gas flow rates, RF power, RF reflected power, peak-to-peak voltage, pressure, temperature, etc. Mapping of the available parameters and statistics to enabled parameters is based on the installer's or operator's recommendations and the process specific requirements. Also, auto configuration can be re-run at any time after installation if the selection of parameters changes… For example, analysis plans can be used to determine how the collected data is processed and presented. In FIG. 17, a navigation tree is shown, but this is not required for the invention. Alternately, other selection means can be used such as selection tabs, lists, or buttons. A drop-down list is also shown in that allows a user to create an analysis plan, edit an analysis plan, save an analysis plan, delete an analysis plan, associate an analysis plan, unassociated an analysis plan, import an analysis plan, export an analysis plan, and perform data preparation).
As to claim 2, Funk teaches the step for obtaining the one or plural statistical values comprises steps for reading the statistical processing condition from a setting file in which the statistical processing condition used for calculating the statistical value from the time-series measured data has been described [select and view one or more file output plans such as a summary data file plan indicates average parameters for a wafer parameter], and calculating the statistical value from the time-series measured data, by using the statistical processing condition read from the setting file; and the step for identifying the statistical processing condition comprises a step for obtaining, from the setting file, the statistical processing condition corresponding to the statistical processing used for obtaining the selected single statistical value [FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0067, 0105-0108, 0112-0117, 0138-0142, 0151-0160].
As to claim 3, Funk teaches a step for displaying, in a selectable manner, the one or plural statistical values [FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0067, 0105-0108, 0112-0117, 0138-0142, 0151-0160].
As to claim 4, Funk teaches display of the one or plural statistical values includes display for showing whether each of the one or plural statistical values is abnormal [FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0105-0108, 0111-0114, 0117, 0138-0142].
As to claim 5, Funk teaches displaying the identified statistical processing condition comprises a step for displaying, on a single screen, the identified statistical processing condition and the time-series measured data corresponding to the selected single statistical value [FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0067, 0105-0108, 0112-0117].
As to claim 7, Funk teaches the statistical processing condition comprises at least one of i) a calculation formula that is used when performing the statistical processing and ii) a data range of the time-series measured data that are determined as objects of the statistical processing [FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0067, 0105-0108, 0112-0117, 0154-0160].
As to claim 8, Funk teaches displaying the statistical processing condition comprises displaying each of the calculation formula and the data range as that having one of a mathematically represented form and a program code form [Fig. 21D shows a file plan to display summary data for a parameter of wafer processing includes step statistics such as mean, 3sigma, range, minimum, maximum, high/low spike count, etc.] [FIGS. 12A-12C, 18A-18C, 21A-21E] [0067, 0105-0108, 0112-0117, 0154-0160].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights