DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In an Amendment filed on June 26, 2026, claims 6 and 16 were cancelled, claims 21-22 were added as new claims, and claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 were amended. Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-22 are still pending in this Application.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 23, with respect to rejections to claim 20 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 23-28, with respect to rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are respectfully unpersuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been maintained.
On page 24-25, the Applicant argues that:
“The Pending Claims Are Not Directed to a Judicial Exception Under Step 2 Applicant respectfully submits that at least the independent claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A and/or include additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B…While these claim elements may involve data analysis, they are not
directed to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or
mathematical calculations. Rather, claim 1 is directed to a specific technical process for diagnosing failures in process tools using specific types of sensors and physical parameters. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept…
These elements do not recite fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions)….Rather, claim 1 is directed to automated technical analysis of process tool failures and implementation of corrective actions. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim I does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)….
These elements cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Comparing sensor data from specific types of sensors (including pressure sensors, gas
flow sensors, temperature sensors, and RF bias sensors) between first and second subsets of runs to identify sensors showing a difference in sensor behavior, determining a root cause associated with specific physical parameters (including pressure, gas flow,
temperature, or RF system bias voltage), and causing a corrective action to be
implemented to address the issue that caused the failure are not concepts that can be performed as a mental process. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1
does not recite a mental process.”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
In response to the arguments above, the claims were not rejected under the abstract ideas or mathematical concepts or organizing human activity as argued above.
With respect to the arguments that the claims cannot be performed in the mind, these arguments are respectfully unpersuasive. Comparing data using sensor data, using pressure , gas flow sensor, temperature, or RF bias sensor to collect the data/obtaining data, analyzing/observing the data, and performing a judgment of the data, has been defined by the courts as an abstract idea or judicial exception of a mental process. The collection of data using well known sensors in a chamber as enumerated above, are considered extra solution activities including pre-solution of mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, wherein this collection of data is also well known in the art (see MPEP 2106.05 (g). The limitation “causing a corrective action to be implemented to address the issue that caused the failure are not concepts that can be performed as a mental process”, is an intended use of the abstract idea or an insignificant extra-solution activity. For instance, this limitation clearly states, “to be implemented”, which suggest that it might happen or not in the future. The disclosure [0097] suggest that the causing the corrective action to be implemented involves the display or output of the suggested “corrective action”, which in this example it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, this limitation is a function that is not positively recited in the claims and does not cause any adjustment or control to the system to correct the issue. A person looking at the data can simply yell to another person that the system has a problem and need to be corrected without actually happening. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive.
On page 26, the Applicant further argues that:
“Applicant respectfully submits that any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A A claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Examples of practical applications include improvements in the functioning of a computer, or improvements to other technology or technical fields. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
…Claim 1 recites a specific improvement to process tool diagnostics. Specifically, claim 1 recites "comparing first sensor data from the first subset of runs to second sensor data from the second subset of runs to identify a set of sensors showing a difference in sensor behavior, wherein the set of sensors comprises one or more types of sensors … by comparing sensor data between bad runs and good runs using specific sensor types, the claimed method identifies which sensors exhibit behavioral differences that correlate with the failure” These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
In response to the previous argument, the limitation "comparing first sensor data from the first subset of runs to second sensor data from the second subset of runs to identify a set of sensors showing a difference in sensor behavior” is also part of a mental process. A person looking at collected and displayed data can easily identify by simply looking which sensors are deviated from a limit and generate a verbal message that there is problem with the pressure or temperature in a system. Thus, this limitations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On page 26, the Applicant further argues that:
“Additionally, claim I recites "determining a root cause of the issue based on the
one or more types of sensors comprised within the set of sensors, wherein the root cause is associated with at least one of: pressure, gas flow, temperature, or RF system bias voltage. This element ties the root cause determination to specific physical parameters monitored by the identified sensors, providing a concrete technical framework for diagnosing process tool failures…". These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
In response to the previous argument, the argued limitation is also part of a mental process. These limitations are recited at high level of generality. Thus. a person/operator looking at collected and displayed data can easily identify sensors by simply looking which sensors are deviated from a limit and generate a verbal message that there is problem/root cause with the pressure or temperature in a system. As stated in the disclosure [0102] the root cause can be easily identified in a data table by comparing data or sensors to root causes. Thus, this limitations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On page 27, the Applicant further argues that:
“Furthermore, claim I recites "causing the corrective action to be implemented to
address the issue that caused the failure." This element integrates any alleged abstract
idea into a practical application by requiring implementation of the corrective action…”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
The limitation “causing a corrective action to be implemented to address the issue that caused the failure are not concepts that can be performed as a mental process”, is an intended use of the abstract idea or an insignificant extra-solution activity. For instance, this limitation clearly states, “to be implemented”, which suggest that it might happen or not in the future. The disclosure [0097] suggest that the causing the corrective action to be implemented involves the display or output of the suggested “corrective action”, which in this example it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, this limitation is a function that is not positively recited in the claims and does not cause any adjustment or control to the system to correct the issue. A person looking at the data can simply yell to another person that the system has a problem and need to be corrected without actually happening. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive.
On page 27-28, the Applicnat argues that”
“the limitations as argued above “amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception under Step 2B” and are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry”.
In response to these arguments, the combination of limitation are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception under Step 2B as explained above. Also, comparing “first sensor data from the first subset of runs to second sensor data from the second subset of runs to identify a set of sensors
showing a difference in sensor behavior, wherein the set of sensors comprises one or
more types of sensors, and wherein the one or more types of sensors comprise at least one of: a pressure sensor, a gas flow sensor, a temperature sensor, or a radio frequency (RF) bias sensor" are well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry (see Hopkins et al, Kong, Shah et al, all previously cited references).
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 28-31, with respect to rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been withdrawn based on the amendments.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claim 1 and 11, recites:
“determining, using the event sequence, an issue causing a failure of the process tool, wherein the issue is a defect issue, a uniformity issue, or a yield issue;
identifying, based on the issue, a first subset of runs from the set of runs and a second subset of runs from the set of runs, wherein the first subset of runs comprises bad runs and the second subset of runs comprises good runs;
comparing first sensor data from the first subset of runs to second sensor data from the second subset of runs to identify a set of sensors showing a difference in sensor behavior;
determining a root cause of the issue based on the one or more types of sensors comprised within the set of sensors;
identifying, based on the root cause, a corrective action to address the issue that caused the failure”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of obtaining/collecting data, evaluation/checking and judgment which are steps that can be easily performed mentally and belong to the group of mental processes abstract idea but for the recitation of generic components or terms such as computer and memory in claim, 11. That is other, than reciting “a computer implemented method” without reciting the computer, nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the human mind. However, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (see 2106.04III). For instance, an operator can easily identify issues causing failure based on observing sensor data presented to them on a paper or a screen, and identify subsets of sensor in normal behavior and abnormal/failure behavior by comparing to known thresholds of normal data. The operator can also think and identify a corrective action such as recommendation, suggestion or active action to perform based on the failure and issue determined. Thus, the claims recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as “a processor and memory to perform the steps”, which is recited at high level of generality, wherein a generic computer and its memory for executing steps of a program are well understood, routine and conventional and represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). The claims recite the additional elements of “obtaining an event sequence related to a set of runs performed by a process tool that has failed” which is recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of “the issue is a defect issue, a uniformity issue, or a yield issue”, and “wherein the set of sensors comprises one or more types of sensors, and wherein the one or more types of sensors comprise at least one of: a pressure sensor, a gas flow sensor, a temperature sensor, or a radio frequency (RF) bias sensor”, and “wherein the root cause is associated with at least one of: pressure, gas flow, temperature, or RF system bias voltage”, which are recited at high level of generality and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use and cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05h). thus the abstract idea of collecting data, analyzing data, and estimating results of problems/issued such as defects, uniformity, or yield based on collected data based on collected data of sensos including one or a pressure, temperature, gas flow, or RF bias sensor generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use of chamber tool involving the sensors above. The additional element of “causing the corrective action to be implemented to address the issue that caused the failure”, when interpreted in the BRI in light of the disclosure covers outputting data (0097 generating/displaying messages or alerts), which is recited at high level of generality, is an insignificant extra solution activity or post solution activity (see 2106.05(g)-(h)). Also, the same previous limitations with respect to implementing the corrective action are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea since recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without specific deals how the solution to the problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of including “a processor and memory to perform the steps”, which is recited at high level of generality, wherein a generic computer and its memory for executing steps of a program are well understood, routine and conventional and represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of “obtaining an event sequence related to a set of runs performed by a process tool that has failed” which is recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering, and amounts to necessary data gathering as an input to the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of “the issue is a defect issue, a uniformity issue, or a yield issue”, and “wherein the set of sensors comprises one or more types of sensors, and wherein the one or more types of sensors comprise at least one of: a pressure sensor, a gas flow sensor, a temperature sensor, or a radio frequency (RF) bias sensor”, and “wherein the root cause is associated with at least one of: pressure, gas flow, temperature, or RF system bias voltage”, which are recited at high level of generality and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use and cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05h). Thus, the abstract idea of collecting data, analyzing data, and estimating results of problems/issued such as defects, uniformity, or yield based on collected data based on collected data of sensos including one or a pressure, temperature, gas flow, or RF bias sensor generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use of chamber tool involving the sensors above. The additional element of “causing the corrective action to implemented to address the issue that caused the failure”, when interpreted in the BRI in light of the disclosure covers outputting data (0097 generating/displaying messages or alerts), which is recited at high level of generality, is an insignificant extra solution activity (see 2106.05(g)-(h) “(see MPEP 2106.05(g) collecting and outputting data are extra solution activities See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). (see 16091484). Also, the same previous limitations with respect to implementing the corrective action are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea since recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without specific deals how the solution to the problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 11-15, 17-22 depend from claims 1, and 11, respectively, and thus recite or inherit the limitations and the abstract ideas of their parent claim.
Claims 2-3, 10, 12-13, and 20 also recites additional elements that simply cover the abstract ideas described above and simply expands the abstract ideas and cover elements of mere data collection/gathering (claims 2 and 12 data indicative of events/values…; claims 3 and 13 receiving raw data…; claims 10 and 20 detecting different types of issues. As stated above in the analysis of the abstract idea, the steps of collection of data to be used in the abstract idea for comparison and which is recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of claim 1. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 14, 7 and 17, 8 and 18 also recites additional elements that comprises abstract idea of itself (claims 4 and 14 comparing data to identify a fault pattern; Claims 6 and 16 comparing data to identify a set sensors, detecting root causes, and determining a corrective action based on comparing the root cause; claims 7 and 17 identifying root causes based on comparing data collected; claims 8 and 18 identifying corrective actions by comparing data sus as corrective actions associated to corrective actions). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 15 further recites the additional limitations of “wherein determining the issue comprises using a machine learning model trained to infer the issue from the event sequence” which is recited at high level of generality, and the claim does not provide any details about how the trained machine learning model operates or how the determination is made, this generality represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). The trained model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the model was trained. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of determining an issue/outcome and do not include any details about how the “ascertaining” is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 19 receiving feedback data with respect to the corrective action, and updating, based on the feedback data, the information mapping the root cause to the corrective action in the data store, or retraining the machine learning model based on the feedback data”, recited at high level of generality, simply represents extra solution activities of gathering data feedback and storing/update data (see 2106.05(d)) since they do not impose any limits or boundaries on the abstract idea (see 2106.05(g) “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity… Consulting and updating an activity log). These extra solution activities does not amount to significantly more as indicated by the courts since they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). i. Receiving/downloading data or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); iv. Storing/maintaining and retrieving/downloading information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)). Furthermore, Bjornson (US 20050222813), Bjornson teaches receiving feedback data with respect to the corrective action, and updating, based on the feedback data, the information mapping the root cause to the corrective action in the data store, or retraining the machine learning model based on the feedback data (see [0015], [0021], [0065], also, see Fig. 3C steps 358-364; also, see [0066], [0093], [0108]). Laberge et al (US 20100312522) also teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 19 (see 0031). Mishra et al (US 11017321) also teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 19 (see Col 16 “… The knowledge database 158 may include one or more databases (or other networked storage devices) configured to store data that is accessible via the network 170. In some implementations, the knowledge database 158 may be configured to store equipment asset analysis data 160 associated with the equipment asset 150. The equipment asset analysis data 160 may include at least a portion of the historical operating data 156, events identified based on the historical operating data 156, quantities of the events, times of the events, inferences determined based on the events, such as statuses (e.g., fault precursor states) of the equipment asset 150, m…root cause…The knowledge database 158 may be updated with new data based on determination of events, statuses, and/or maintenance actions by the monitoring device 102, results of performance of the maintenance actions, additional operating characteristics data from the sensors 152). Chen et al (US 11269718) teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 19 (see Col 8 line 63 to Col 9 line 16 “….the correction of error database 110 may be updated on an on-going basis as new information is learned from newly occurring anomaly events. In some embodiments, root causes associated with anomaly event patterns may be validated before being added to correction of error database 110. Also corrective actions to be taken for the validated root causes, may themselves also be validated to resolve the root cause, and this validation may also take place before the associated corrective actions are added to the correction of error database 110 for use in solution tickets. Note that in some embodiments, yet-to-be validated root causes and yet-to-be validated corrective actions may be stored in correction of error database 110…”, see claim 3 in Col 17). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 21 and 22 recite the additional limitations “wherein: the root cause comprises at least one of: pressure fluctuation due to a clog of a foreline, gas flow mismatch, or a temperate of a pedestal not meeting a target; and wherein causing the corrective action to be implemented comprises at least one of: causing the foreline to be cleaned to remove the clog, causing a mass flow controller to adjust gas flow to address the gas flow mismatch, or causing the temperature of the pedestal to be adjusted to meet the target”, represents examples of the root causes associated with the sensors data. Thus, identifying any of the root causes enumerated above, generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use of chamber tool problems involving root causes above. Also, the additional element of “causing the corrective action to implemented to address the issue that caused the failure”, when interpreted in the BRI in light of the disclosure covers outputting a message data (0097 generating/displaying messages or alerts), which is recited at high level of generality, is an insignificant extra solution activity (see 2106.05(g)-(h) “(see MPEP 2106.05(g) collecting and outputting data are extra solution activities See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). (see 16091484). Also, the same previous limitations with respect to implementing the corrective action are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea since recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without specific deals how the solution to the problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For instance, the corrective action is “to be implemented”, which indicates that the implementation is in the future and does not correct any issue in the system. Also, in the disclosure the corrective action is described as a message provided to a user to perform the corrective action including any of the above corrections above. Thus, the corrective action becomes only the idea of a solution or outcome without specific deals how the solution to the problem is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Provided that the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-22 under 35 USC 101 are overcome, these claims could/would be allowable since not prior art has been found that teaches or suggest the combination of limitations recited in claims 1, and 11 as recited below.
The following is an examiner's statement of indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references cited in the IDS or below, alone or in combination, explicitly teach the combination of limitations when combined with the other claimed limitations of claims 1, and 11 including:
“determining, using the event sequence, an issue causing a failure of the process tool, wherein the issue is a defect issue, a uniformity issue, or a yield issue;
identifying, based on the issue, a first subset of runs from the set of runs and a second subset of runs from the set of runs, wherein the first subset of runs comprises bad runs and the second subset of runs comprises good runs”;…
comparing first sensor data from the first subset of runs to second sensor data from the second subset of runs to identify a set of sensors showing a difference in sensor behavior, wherein the set of sensors comprises one or more types of sensors, and wherein the one or more types of sensors comprise at least one of: a pressure sensor, a gas flow sensor, a temperature sensor, or a radio frequency (RF) bias sensor…”.
Dependent claims could be allowed if the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome.
Relevant Act Cited by The Examiner
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the Applicant’s art and those art considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure (see MPEP 707.05c).
The prior art of record Shah et al (US 20230008072) in view of Fradkin et al (US 20150309854), Hopkins et al (US 20040254762), Bjornson (US 20050222813), neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above-recited combination of limitations for at least the Applicant’s arguments of 06/26/2026.
During an interview with the Attorney of record, The examiner suggested the following amendments for claims 1 and 11 to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections:
“automatically performing the corrective action to correct the issue that caused the failure,
wherein the root cause comprises at least one of:
pressure fluctuation due to a clog of a foreline, gas flow mismatch, or a temperate of a pedestal not meeting a target; and
wherein performing the corrective action comprises at least one of:
controlling a robot to clean the foreline to remove the clog,
controlling a mass flow controller to adjust gas flow to address the gas flow mismatch, or
adjusting the temperature of a pedestal to meet a target”.
Conclusion
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 OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights