DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 .
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 7
[Step 1] Claims 1, 5-6, and 7 recite a method, system, and/or medium for performing a process comprising steps of (1) determining schedules based on data (2) assigning testing machines to perform testing and (3) assigning machines to produce materials according to the schedules.
[Step 2A – Prong One] The process recited in claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea. The recited limitations (1)-(3) are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes including "observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions" that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" MPEP 2106.04(a)(III). The steps of (1)-(3) are drawn to a mental process because they amount to a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” and the steps themselves “are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The step of (1) is accomplished by a human arbitrarily making a schedules with pen and paper based on data. The steps of (2) and (3) are accomplished by a human manually starting a scheduled task at a machine at the designated time.
[Step 2A – Prong Two] Claims 1 and 7 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements recited include computer hardware (e.g. user interface); these additional elements are merely instructions to implement output of an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d). Further, the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution for determining a machine testing schedule based on data, without providing a particular solution or way to achieve a desired outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
[Step 2B] Claims 1 and 7 do not recite a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the process comprising limitations (1)-(3) is a mental process. The additional elements recited are merely instructions to implement the mental process on a computer. Accordingly, these limitations are not enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited with a judicial exception (i.e. the mental process). MPEP 2106.05(A). Further, these claim limitations fail to improve the functioning of the computer itself, because "a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology." See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The additional elements of “setting parameters,” “retrieving a plurality of basic data,” and “returns … to the user interface” are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Claims 2-3 and 8-9
The additional elements of wafers and materials are non-functional intended uses— there is no recitation of any functions performed differently based on the type of parameters or data. These limitations are merely an attempt to link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the identified limitations fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 4 and 10
The additional step of “linear programming” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is drawn to a mental process. The step of “linear programming” is directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” and the steps themselves “are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A).The claim does not recite any specific linear programming step, let alone any that is specific to machine schedule determination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heskin, U.S. PG-Publication No. 2003/0171972 A1 (hereinafter HESKIN), in view of Norman, U.S. PG-Publication No. 2017/0075333 A1 (hereinafter NORMAN).
Claim 1
HESKIN discloses a smart scheduling system. ¶ 0014: The disclosed methods schedule varying product lots in a wafer lab containing multiple processing tools, with the scheduling rule executed as code for tool control in the production environment.
HESKIN discloses a real-time dispatching system, configured to retrieve a
plurality of basic data of the plurality of machines and a plurality of materials. ¶ 0033: A lot-information report runs every thirty seconds and gathers relevant information concerning the current state of the fab and its lots for final schedule and display. ¶ 0034: The capacity report collects parts per hour, processing time, process type, utilization, and recipe information for each device, operation, and tool combination. ¶ 0072: Real-time dispatch reads tool-state information before completing the final scheduling rule sort.
HESKIN discloses an active manager analysis system, configured to determine schedules of the machines and testing machines of the plurality of machines based on the plurality of basic data. ¶ 0017: The scheduling rule generates a heuristic optimum schedule for each tool type, compares it with current tool states and the types of material each tool can run, schedules appropriate qualifications, and outputs a schedule by tool. ¶ 0019: For qualification after maintenance, “the scheduler must understand that a tool needs to be qualified” and prioritize the corresponding lot-based qualification wafers at the top of that tool’s queue.
HESKIN discloses a scheduling system, configured to assign the testing machines to perform testing. ¶ 0019: Qualification wafter are withdrawn from a donor FOUP, run through the process being qualified, and measured. Real-time dispatch schedules this qualification material together with production material. ¶ 0072: When a tool is down, real-time dispatch elevates qualifying lot-based qualification wafters to the top of tis queue for the qualification runs the tool may need to perform. ¶ 0064: Before final schedule formation, the lots have established priorities, assigned tools, and tool-specific run rules; the scheduling code groups and orders those lots by tool.
HESKIN discloses an activity manager, configured to assign the machines to produce the materials according to the schedules of the machines. ¶ 0064: Before final schedule formation, the lots have established priorities, assigned tools, and tool-specific run rules, the scheduling code groups and orders those lots by tool. ¶ 0014: The scheduling rule is executed as code for tool control in the production environment. ¶ 0072: Real-time dispatch outputs the new schedule, and the dispatch server sends it to the factory-operations program.
HESKIN does not expressly disclose a user interface, configured to set parameters of a plurality of machines.
NORMAN discloses a user interface, configured to set parameters of a plurality of machines. ¶ 0051: A graphical user interface contains a block panel and workflow panel through which the user configures the semiconductor manufacturing planning process. ¶ 0052: The user can arrange workflow blocks and specify block properties including a data source, timing of operations, and other criteria associated with the planning operations. ¶ 0036: Planning inputs include equipment availability, equipment processing speeds, raw materials, and maintenance schedules. ¶ 0025: The user can configure and customize workflow operations to account for changes in the manufacturing environment without writing code.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scheduling system of HESKIN to incorporate the graphical, block-based user interface for configuring planning operations and parameters taught by NORMAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate NORMAN’s configurable user interface into HESKIN, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow users to adapt the scheduling process quickly to changes in the manufacturing environment without specialized programming or the difficult and time-consuming modification associated with legacy planning systems, as taught by NORMAN ¶ 0025.
Claim 3
HESKIN discloses wherein the plurality of basic data comprise quantity of the materials. ¶ 0033: The lot information report runs every thirty seconds, gathers information about the current state of the fab and its lots, and provides that information to the tool-specific scheduling rule. ¶ 0147: For each tool and recipe combination, the scheduler cumulatively counts the numbers of lots, wafers, and carriers before assigning batch identifiers.
HESKIN discloses materials disallowed to be produced by the machines. ¶ 0017: The schedule is compared with tool states to determine whether a tool can presently run material and “what type of material it is capable of running.” ¶ 0034: The capacity report provides processing type, recipe, processing time, and capacity information for each device, operation and tool combination. ¶ 0065: Only particular tools can perform or benefit from particular processing groups; acceptable reticle trains require the same reticle, recipe, and setup qualification.
HESKIN discloses a full production capacity of each machine. ¶ 0025: The capacity data report obtains parts per hour, process type, utilization, and other capacity data for every device, logpoint, operation, and tool combination. ¶ 0028: The system calculates each tool’s monthly capacity using tool time consumed per lot, availability, number of tool occurrences, and available backup tools. ¶ 0079: The system calculates each tool’s theoretical productive-time capacity and “theoretical maximum utilization.” ¶ 0080: The processing time required per unit of WIP is calculated using historical processing times and the maximum number of units the resource can process simultaneously. ¶ 0084: The system calculates the total number of wafers each resource could compete during a given period and derives a capacity value for each manufacturing resource.
Claim 4
HESKIN discloses wherein the active manager analysis system performs [analysis] on the plurality of basic data. ¶ 0033: Every thirty seconds, the lot information report gathers information concerning the current state of the fabrication facility and its lots for tool-specific schedule assembly. ¶ 0034: The capacity report obtains parts per hour, processing time, process type, utilization, and recipe information for each device, operation, and tool combination.
HESKIN discloses to determine the schedules of the machines and the testing machines of the plurality of machines. ¶ 0017: The scheduling rule generates a schedule for each tool type, compares the schedule with tool states, and the types of material each tool can process, schedules appropriate qualifications, and outputs a schedule by tool. ¶ 0019: Qualification wafers are treated as lot-based entities processed through the operation being quantified, and measured. Real-time dispatch must schedule the qualification wafers together with production material. After maintenance, the scheduler determines that a tool requires qualification and prioritizes the corresponding qualification lot at the top of that tool’s queue. The scheduler maintains qualification wafer inventory and schedules build operations when that inventory becomes low.
HESKIN does not expressly disclose wherein the active manager analysis performs linear programming on the plurality of basic data.
NORMAN discloses wherein the active manager analysis system performs linear programming on the plurality of basic data. ¶ 0036: Planning inputs include equipment availability, processing speeds, raw materials, and maintenance schedules. ¶ 0042: The semiconductor manufacturing planning component includes an LP/MIP solver managed by the workflow engine. ¶ 0055: Workflow blocks determine constraints, establish an objective function, create the LP/MIP model from the inputs, and run the model to determine the manufacturing plan.
NORMAN discloses to determine the schedules of the machines. ¶ 0062: The LP/MIP solver processes WIP, equipment availability, operating parameters, raw materials, and demand to determine which products are produced, their quantities, and the devices that produce them.
Claim 5
HESKIN discloses wherein the scheduling system returns the testing machines. ¶ 0017: The scheduling rule determines tool schedules, compares them with tool states, schedules appropriate qualifications, and outputs a schedule by tool. ¶ 0019: The scheduler determines that a particular tool requires qualification and paces the corresponding qualification lot at the top of that tool’s queue. ¶ 0072: Real-time dispatch elevates qualification wafers for a down tool, completes the tool-specific schedule, and sends it to the factory operations program.
HESKIN does not expressly disclose returning the machines to the user interface.
NORMAN discloses the scheduling system returns machines to the user interface. ¶ 0037: After generating a plan, the planning components publishes the plan to the spreadsheet application so the user can “view, modify, and/or use the plan.” ¶ 0048: The LP/MIP generated plan and its analysis are provided back to the user through the spreadsheet application or interface. ¶ 0062: After generating the manufacturing plan, the planning component publishes it to the spreadsheet application or external storage system.
Claim 6
HESKIN discloses wherein the activity manager returns the schedules of the machines. ¶ 0017: The scheduling rule generates a schedules for each tool type, compiles the tool-specific information into one data stream for final dispatch and display, and “outputs a schedule by tool.” ¶ 0031: After tool-specific groups are created and prioritized, “a schedule is generated and output.” ¶ 0064: The scheduling code formats the lots into appropriate schedules by tool after establishing lot priorities, tool assignments, and tool run rules. ¶ 0072: Real-time dispatch outputs the completed schedules, and the dispatch server sends the schedule to the factory-operations program.
HESKIN does not expressly disclose returning the schedules to the user interface.
NORMAN discloses wherein the activity manager returns the schedules of the machines to the user interface. ¶ 0037: After generating a plan, the planning components publishes the plan to the spreadsheet application so the user can “view, modify, and/or use the plan.” ¶ 0048: The LP/MIP generated plan and its analysis are provided back to the user through the spreadsheet application or interface. ¶ 0062: After generating the manufacturing plan, the planning component publishes it to the spreadsheet application or external storage system.
Claims 7-10
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected utilizing the rationale for Claims 1, 3, and 4; the claims are directed to a method performed by the system.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HESKIN, in view of NORMAN, further in view of Tsai et al., U.S. PG-Publication No. 2004/0172211 A1 (hereinafter TSAI).
Claim 2
HESKIN discloses setting the parameters of the plurality of machines according to none product wafers (NPW). ¶ 0019: Qualification wafers (i.e., none product wafers) are maintained as lot-based entities in a donor FOUP. The appropriate number of wafers is withdrawn, processed through the operation being qualified, and measured. “Exactly three monitor wafers” must be included in each established furnace batch, and real-time dispatch must schedule this material together with production material. Following maintenance, the scheduler determines that a tool requires qualification and prioritizes the corresponding qualification lot at the top of that tool’s queue. The scheduler maintains an adequate inventory of qualification lots and schedules their build operations when inventory becomes low. ¶ 0024: The scheduling rules may be changed in priority, allowing management to modify manufacturing policy through the scheduler without rewriting its source code.
HESKIN does not expressly disclose setting of claim 1, wherein the user interface sets the parameters of the plurality of machines according to none product wafers (NPW).
TSAI discloses wherein the user interface sets the parameters of the plurality of machines according to none product wafers (NPW). ¶ 0002: Semiconductor fabrication facilities use test wafers in the production line. The test wafers undergo the same processes as production wafers but contain patterns used to detect process variations that could affect product quality or operation. ¶ 0025: A separate table row is provided for each tool and identifies the tool, number of tool units, concurrent wafer capacity, monitored parameter, and required test wafer type. ¶¶ 0027-0028: The table specifies the number of test wafers used according to elapsed time and according to the number of production wafers processed by the particular tool. ¶ 0037: A person of ordinary skill can fill in the disclosed tool table for all tools in a fabrication facility. ¶ 0038: The tool information is stored in a spreadsheet so the effects of varying parameters—including production processing moves and turning a chamber on or off—can be easily identified. ¶ 0039: A tool may have several monitoring activities represented by separate rows, with different monitoring frequencies for each monitor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface configurable semiconductor scheduling system of HESKIN-NORMAN to incorporate the tool-specific spreadsheet parameters for test wafer monitoring taught by TSAI. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate TSAI’s test wafer parameter table into HESKIN-NORMAN, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce test wafer expense and reserved preprocessing capacity, increase utilization of available test wafers, and reduce the risk of test-wafer shortages, as taught by TSAI ¶ 0075.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected utilizing the rationale for Claim 2; the claim is directed to a method performed by the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Shi, U.S. PG-Publication No. 2020/0073372 A1. Shi discloses semiconductor fabrication dispatching using machine state and capacity data, a graphical rule interface, linear programming, and production plans assigning wafer lots to machines (¶¶ 0015-0016, 0020-0024, 0027-0028).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK D MILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3194. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30 CT.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at (571)270-3180. 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.
/FRANK D MILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights