DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 1-20 are pending and are rejected.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/20/2026.
Claim 8 is amended and is being fully considered by the examiner.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claim 8, all the claim objections as set forth in the previous office action has been withdrawn.
This action is MADE FINAL. Please see response to arguments section for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant responds
(a) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the feature "determining critical to lot quality (CTQ) events that occur during sampling of parts."
The cited art, Tateishi, fails to show or disclose such a feature. As described for example, in paragraph [0026] of the specification, "Such production events, that are critical to lot quality (CTQ), can be timestamped and stored in information/data captured database 206." A CTQ event is a production event, and as recited in the claims, occurs during sampling. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are allowable over the cited art, and their respective dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency on allowable base claims..
(Page: 8)
With respect to (a) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
Regarding the arguments, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 describe the features such as production events, that are critical to lot quality (CTQ), can be timestamped and stored in information/data captured database 206 as described in the applicant's specification paragraph 26.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., production events, that are critical to lot quality (CTQ), can be timestamped and stored in information/data captured database 206) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims do not further recite any limitation or feature that describe, production events, that are critical to lot quality (CTQ), can be timestamped and stored in information/data captured database 206. Such timestamped and stored production events that are CTQ events are not recited or described by the claim(s).
Examiner notes that the claimed limitation determining critical to lot quality (CTQ) events that occur during sampling of parts is broad and states that determination of CTQ events such as an event that critical to the quality of parts that occur during sampling where sampling is sampling of parts. As described in the previous office action, Tateishi discloses the feature, determining critical to lot quality (CTQ) events that occur during sampling of parts, such that Tateishi discloses, during part sampling, events that are critical to lot quality such as nonconforming product rate events are determined.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner further notes that, during the interview on 05/12/2026, examiner suggested the applicant to add such features to the claim if these features are to be considered part of the claim. Other suggestions were made during the interview that can be found in the interview summary mailed on 05/28/2026; these suggestions were made in order to better connect the already claimed features to each other thereby further clarify the claim.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, they are not persuasive; therefore, the 35 USC 102 rejections of clams 1, 8 and 15 as set forth in the previous office action are maintained and the 35 USC 103 as set forth in the previous office action are maintained.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tateishi et al. (JP2011221743A) [hereinafter Tateishi].
Regarding claim 1:
Tateishi discloses, A computer implemented method for determining acceptance or rejection of a part lot, post-production comprising: [Examiner notes that only one of the elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
Page 3, ¶3: an inspection method that is a combination of a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion for a lot of one product when performing a sampling inspection.];
processing or machining the part lot; [Examiner notes that one of the optional elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
Page 4, ¶4-¶5: The product information reading unit 101 is an IC tag reader, accesses an IC tag (tag) attached to a product, and reads a model number that identifies a product type from the IC tag…The inspection result recording unit 102 records information indicating the result of the sampling inspection in the inspection result storage unit 103 after the sampling inspection is performed];
sampling parts of the part lot during processing/machining; [page 4, ¶5: The inspection result recording unit 102 records information indicating the result of the sampling inspection in the inspection result storage unit 103 after the sampling inspection is performed. Specifically, the inspection result recording unit 102 records the…lot number, sample size, the number of nonconforming items,…The number of rejected judgments is a threshold value for determining the pass / fail of a lot compared to the number of nonconforming items in a sample.];
determining critical to lot quality (CTQ) events that occur during sampling of parts, [page 4, ¶5: The number of rejected judgments is a threshold value for determining the pass / fail of a lot compared to the number of nonconforming items in a sample…
page 4, ¶9: The nonconforming product rate calculating unit 105 reads the lot number, sample size, and number of nonconforming products from the inspection result reading unit 104, and calculates the nonconforming product rate for each lot by dividing the number of nonconforming products by the sample size for each lot number.];
wherein weighted values are assigned if CTQ events occurred for all sampled parts; [page 5, ¶3: the weighted sum calculation unit 106 applies a sampling coefficient that indicates a larger value for the new lot to the non-conforming product rate of the past lot read by the non-conforming product rate calculation unit 105, thereby weighting the non-conforming product rate of the product. Calculate the sum.];
calculating a part lot score based on the weighted values of the CTQ events; and [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower.];
determining acceptance or rejection of a part lot based on its calculated part lot grade. [page 4, ¶15: The inspection method determination unit 111 calculates a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion corresponding to the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109,];
Regarding claim 2:
Tateishi discloses, The method of claim 1, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the weighted values represent risk factors. [page 5, ¶4: uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower.].
Regarding claim 3:
Tateishi discloses, The method of claim 1, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the part lot score is a sum of the weighted values of the CTQ events and is associated with a part lot grade. [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases.].
Regarding claim 6:
Tateishi discloses, The method of claim 1, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein CTQ events are captured in real time and time stamped. [page 8, ¶6: the inspection result recording unit 102 of the inspection method determining apparatus 100 uses the model number, lot number, and initial inspection as the inspection result of the sampling inspection. The input of the sample size at the time, the number of nonconforming items at the time of the first inspection, and the number of rejection judgments at the time of the first inspection is received (step S201).].
Regarding claim 7:
Tateishi discloses, The method of claim 1, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the determining acceptance or rejection of a part lot based on its calculated part lot grade is a sum of weighted score. [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower…
page 4, ¶15: The inspection method determination unit 111 calculates a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion corresponding to the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109,].
Regarding claim 8 (amended):
Tateishi discloses, A system comprising: a processor; a data bus coupled to the processor; and a computer-usable medium embodying computer program code, the computer-usable medium being coupled to the data bus,
the computer program code for determining acceptance or rejection of a part lot, post-production comprising instructions executable by the processor and configured for: [Examiner notes that only one of the elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
Page 3, ¶3: an inspection method that is a combination of a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion for a lot of one product when performing a sampling inspection.
Page 10, ¶6: The above-described inspection method determination apparatus has a computer system inside. The operation of each processing unit described above is stored in a computer-readable recording medium in the form of a program, and the above processing is performed by the computer reading and executing this program. Here, the computer-readable recording medium means a magnetic disk, a magneto-optical disk, a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, a semiconductor memory, or the like. Alternatively, the computer program may be distributed to the computer via a communication line, and the computer that has received the distribution may execute the program.];
processing or machining the part lot; [Examiner notes that one of the optional elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
Page 4, ¶4-¶5: The product information reading unit 101 is an IC tag reader, accesses an IC tag (tag) attached to a product, and reads a model number that identifies a product type from the IC tag…The inspection result recording unit 102 records information indicating the result of the sampling inspection in the inspection result storage unit 103 after the sampling inspection is performed];
sampling parts of the part lot during processing/machining; [page 4, ¶5: The inspection result recording unit 102 records information indicating the result of the sampling inspection in the inspection result storage unit 103 after the sampling inspection is performed. Specifically, the inspection result recording unit 102 records the…lot number, sample size, the number of nonconforming items,…The number of rejected judgments is a threshold value for determining the pass / fail of a lot compared to the number of nonconforming items in a sample.];
determining critical to lot quality (CTQ) events that occur during sampling of parts, [page 4, ¶5: The number of rejected judgments is a threshold value for determining the pass / fail of a lot compared to the number of nonconforming items in a sample…
page 4, ¶9: The nonconforming product rate calculating unit 105 reads the lot number, sample size, and number of nonconforming products from the inspection result reading unit 104, and calculates the nonconforming product rate for each lot by dividing the number of nonconforming products by the sample size for each lot number.];
wherein weighted values are assigned if CTQ events occurred for all sampled parts; [page 5, ¶3: the weighted sum calculation unit 106 applies a sampling coefficient that indicates a larger value for the new lot to the non-conforming product rate of the past lot read by the non-conforming product rate calculation unit 105, thereby weighting the non-conforming product rate of the product. Calculate the sum.];
calculating a part lot score based on the weighted values of the CTQ events; and [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower.];
determining acceptance or rejection of a part lot based on its calculated part lot grade. [page 4, ¶15: The inspection method determination unit 111 calculates a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion corresponding to the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109,];
Regarding claim 9:
Tateishi discloses, The system of claim 8, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the weighted values represent risk factors. [page 5, ¶4: uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower.].
Regarding claim 10:
Tateishi discloses, The system of claim 8, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the part lot score is a sum of the weighted values of the CTQ events and is associated with a part lot grade. [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases.].
Regarding claim 13:
Tateishi discloses, The system of claim 8, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein CTQ events are captured in real time and time stamped. [page 8, ¶6: the inspection result recording unit 102 of the inspection method determining apparatus 100 uses the model number, lot number, and initial inspection as the inspection result of the sampling inspection. The input of the sample size at the time, the number of nonconforming items at the time of the first inspection, and the number of rejection judgments at the time of the first inspection is received (step S201).].
Regarding claim 14:
Tateishi discloses, The system of claim 8, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the determining acceptance or rejection of a part lot based on its calculated part lot grade is a sum of weighted score. [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower…
page 4, ¶15: The inspection method determination unit 111 calculates a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion corresponding to the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109,].
Regarding claim 15:
Tateishi discloses, A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code for determining acceptance or rejection of part lot, the computer program code comprising computer executable instructions configured for: [Examiner notes that only one of the elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
Page 3, ¶3: an inspection method that is a combination of a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion for a lot of one product when performing a sampling inspection.
Page 10, ¶6: The above-described inspection method determination apparatus has a computer system inside. The operation of each processing unit described above is stored in a computer-readable recording medium in the form of a program, and the above processing is performed by the computer reading and executing this program. Here, the computer-readable recording medium means a magnetic disk, a magneto-optical disk, a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, a semiconductor memory, or the like. Alternatively, the computer program may be distributed to the computer via a communication line, and the computer that has received the distribution may execute the program.
Examiner notes the claim objection set forth in this office action for multiple grammatical error.];
processing or machining the part lot; [Examiner notes that one of the optional elements separated by or is given the patentable weight.
Page 4, ¶4-¶5: The product information reading unit 101 is an IC tag reader, accesses an IC tag (tag) attached to a product, and reads a model number that identifies a product type from the IC tag…The inspection result recording unit 102 records information indicating the result of the sampling inspection in the inspection result storage unit 103 after the sampling inspection is performed];
sampling parts of the part lot during processing/machining; [page 4, ¶5: The inspection result recording unit 102 records information indicating the result of the sampling inspection in the inspection result storage unit 103 after the sampling inspection is performed. Specifically, the inspection result recording unit 102 records the…lot number, sample size, the number of nonconforming items,…The number of rejected judgments is a threshold value for determining the pass / fail of a lot compared to the number of nonconforming items in a sample.];
determining critical to lot quality (CTQ) events that occur during sampling of parts, [page 4, ¶5: The number of rejected judgments is a threshold value for determining the pass / fail of a lot compared to the number of nonconforming items in a sample…
page 4, ¶9: The nonconforming product rate calculating unit 105 reads the lot number, sample size, and number of nonconforming products from the inspection result reading unit 104, and calculates the nonconforming product rate for each lot by dividing the number of nonconforming products by the sample size for each lot number.];
wherein weighted values are assigned if CTQ events occurred for all sampled parts; [page 5, ¶3: the weighted sum calculation unit 106 applies a sampling coefficient that indicates a larger value for the new lot to the non-conforming product rate of the past lot read by the non-conforming product rate calculation unit 105, thereby weighting the non-conforming product rate of the product. Calculate the sum.];
calculating a part lot score based on the weighted values of the CTQ events; and [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower.];
determining acceptance or rejection of a part lot based on its calculated part lot grade. [page 4, ¶15: The inspection method determination unit 111 calculates a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion corresponding to the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109,];
Regarding claim 16:
Tateishi discloses, The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the weighted values represent risk factors. [page 5, ¶4: uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower.].
Regarding claim 17:
Tateishi discloses, The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the part lot score is a sum of the weighted values of the CTQ events and is associated with a part lot grade. [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases.].
Regarding claim 19:
Tateishi discloses, The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein CTQ events are captured in real time and time stamped. [page 8, ¶6: the inspection result recording unit 102 of the inspection method determining apparatus 100 uses the model number, lot number, and initial inspection as the inspection result of the sampling inspection. The input of the sample size at the time, the number of nonconforming items at the time of the first inspection, and the number of rejection judgments at the time of the first inspection is received (step S201).].
Regarding claim 20:
Tateishi discloses, The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, and
Tateishi further discloses, wherein the determining acceptance or rejection of a part lot based on its calculated part lot grade is a sum of weighted score. [page 5, ¶4: Next, the quality score calculation unit 109 uses the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate calculated by the weighted sum calculation unit 106 to calculate a quality score that indicates a lower value as the weighted sum of the nonconforming product rate increases. Then, the inspection method determination unit 111 determines the lot inspection method to be an inspection method with a larger sample size as the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109 is lower…
page 4, ¶15: The inspection method determination unit 111 calculates a sample size and a pass / fail judgment criterion corresponding to the quality score calculated by the quality score calculation unit 109,].
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 filling 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi and further in view of Cheong et al. (US6223098B1) [hereinafter Cheong].
Regarding claim 4:
Tateishi discloses, The method of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Cheong discloses, wherein the processing is based on a control plan that includes a sampling plan that is used for the sampling of parts. [column 2, lines 33-40: setting up IC devices to be tested and loading test programs; performing a final test by lot; monitoring the progress of the final test while storing test data during the final test; determining if the final test is completed; performing a lot decision after the final test is completed based on the bin category limits established by a bin category limit determining sequence;].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the processing is based on a control plan that includes a sampling plan that is used for the sampling of parts in order to improve the efficiency of the test process and reduce test time to assure the quality of the devices by testing predetermined numbers of devices sampled from the good devices that have passed the test taught by CHEONG with the method taught by Tateishi as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to reduce delay in transfer and transition of substrate and to improve throughput of substrate processing by accurately using queue time [CHEONG, column 2, lines 4-5: improves the efficiency of the test process; reduces test time;…
column 1, lines 45-50: The QA test is used to confirm the results of the final test and to assure the quality of the devices…by testing predetermined numbers of devices sampled from the good devices (e.g., BIN 1 devices) that have passed the final test…].
Regarding claim 5:
Tateishi and CHEONG disclose, The method of claim 4, and
Cheong further discloses, wherein the sampling plan is based on industry standards. [column 2, lines 33-40: setting up IC devices to be tested and loading test programs; performing a final test by lot; monitoring the progress of the final test while storing test data during the final test; determining if the final test is completed; performing a lot decision after the final test is completed based on the bin category limits established by a bin category limit determining sequence;…
column 1, lines 45-50: The QA test is used to confirm the results of the final test and to assure the quality of the devices…by testing predetermined numbers of devices sampled from the good devices (e.g., BIN 1 devices) that have passed the final test].
Regarding claim 11:
Tateishi discloses, The system of claim 8, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Cheong discloses, wherein the processing is based on a control plan that includes a sampling plan that is used for the sampling of parts. [column 2, lines 33-40: setting up IC devices to be tested and loading test programs; performing a final test by lot; monitoring the progress of the final test while storing test data during the final test; determining if the final test is completed; performing a lot decision after the final test is completed based on the bin category limits established by a bin category limit determining sequence;].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the processing is based on a control plan that includes a sampling plan that is used for the sampling of parts in order to improve the efficiency of the test process and reduce test time to assure the quality of the devices by testing predetermined numbers of devices sampled from the good devices that have passed the test taught by CHEONG with the system taught by Tateishi as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to reduce delay in transfer and transition of substrate and to improve throughput of substrate processing by accurately using queue time [CHEONG, column 2, lines 4-5: improves the efficiency of the test process; reduces test time;…
column 1, lines 45-50: The QA test is used to confirm the results of the final test and to assure the quality of the devices…by testing predetermined numbers of devices sampled from the good devices (e.g., BIN 1 devices) that have passed the final test…].
Regarding claim 12:
Tateishi and CHEONG disclose, The system of claim 11, and
Cheong further discloses, wherein the sampling plan is based on industry standards. [column 2, lines 33-40: setting up IC devices to be tested and loading test programs; performing a final test by lot; monitoring the progress of the final test while storing test data during the final test; determining if the final test is completed; performing a lot decision after the final test is completed based on the bin category limits established by a bin category limit determining sequence;…
column 1, lines 45-50: The QA test is used to confirm the results of the final test and to assure the quality of the devices…by testing predetermined numbers of devices sampled from the good devices (e.g., BIN 1 devices) that have passed the final test].
Regarding claim 18:
Tateishi discloses, The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, and
Cheong discloses, wherein the processing is based on a control plan that includes a sampling plan that is used for the sampling of parts. [column 2, lines 33-40: setting up IC devices to be tested and loading test programs; performing a final test by lot; monitoring the progress of the final test while storing test data during the final test; determining if the final test is completed; performing a lot decision after the final test is completed based on the bin category limits established by a bin category limit determining sequence;].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the processing is based on a control plan that includes a sampling plan that is used for the sampling of parts in order to improve the efficiency of the test process and reduce test time to assure the quality of the devices by testing predetermined numbers of devices sampled from the good devices that have passed the test taught by CHEONG with the system taught by Tateishi as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to reduce delay in transfer and transition of substrate and to improve throughput of substrate processing by accurately using queue time [CHEONG, column 2, lines 4-5: improves the efficiency of the test process; reduces test time;…
column 1, lines 45-50: The QA test is used to confirm the results of the final test and to assure the quality of the devices…by testing predetermined numbers of devices sampled from the good devices (e.g., BIN 1 devices) that have passed the final test…].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited document mailed on 03/25/2026.
Feit et al. (US20140278738A1) - Systems and methods for unified scoring:
¶9: can receive and utilize experience data and scores. Additional components can weight or adjust the experience data and scores to allow their use in a variety of applications. Importance data can be received to assist with weighting or adjustment and improve the granularity of data collected.
Cox et al. (US20210109500A1) - Unified Control System and Method for Machining of Parts:
¶5: Data as to dimensions of produced parts are gathered during a production process. The parts are produced based on part control plan. The sample data of the dimensions are plotted as to statistical information related to a normal distribution curve. Determination is made if a trend in the dimensional data approaches an upper specification limit (USL) and a lower specification limit (LSL).
Bajema et al. (US20140147015A1) - Method for Scoring and Controlling Quality of Food Products in a Dynamic Production Line:
¶9: (c) scoring the plurality of moving food products as group based on a percentage of the color, thereby obtaining an overall appearance score; and (d) scoring each of individual food products based on image analysis applied to individual food product, thereby obtaining a plurality of individual quality scores In some embodiments, the method includes ranking each of the individual quality scores from least to most acceptable, and ejecting one or more individual food products based on a quality threshold to improve the group appearance score. In one embodiment.
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 MOHAMMED SHAFAYET whose telephone number is (571)272-8239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights