DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 8 July 2026. Claims 1, 9, and 10 have been amended. Claims 11 and 12 have been newly added. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 6-9, filed on 8 July 2028, with respect to rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
The Examiner's characterization treats the recited selection rule as an abstract instruction untethered from any physical apparatus. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the applicant has not provided any arguments/rationales/evidence the limitation of “select a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user” treated under step 2A, prong one of the subject eligibility requirement in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 22 May 2026 is not directed to the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods organizing human activity”. Hence, the argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
The Examiner previously characterized "a plurality of process modules" as merely limiting the abstract idea to a field of use (MPEP 2106.07(a)). Applicant respectfully disagrees. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 3 - pg. 8, paragraph 1 )
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0393768 A1 (instant application):
The processing module 30 is a module that extracts the wafer W from the carrier C and performs various processings on the wafer W. An inside of the processing module 30 is under an inert gas atmosphere, such as a nitrogen gas atmosphere, to prevent an oxide film from being formed on the wafer W. The processing module 30 includes four process modules 40, and a wafer transfer module 50. (pg. 3, par. [0045])
The process modules 40 are disposed to be connected in the front-rear direction. Each process module 40 includes a heat treatment unit 41, a load unit 42, a gas supply unit 43, an exhaust duct 44, an RCU unit 45, a sorting duct 46, a control unit 47, and a floor box 48. (pg. 3, par. [0046])
The applicant has only presented a broad and conclusionary argument “Applicant respectfully disagrees.” The applicant has not set forth any specific arguments/rationales/evidence directed to why the “plurality of process modules” are not directed to a field of use; hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
As amended, claim 1 further recites that selection is performed "from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules," which, as described in paragraphs [0075]-[0076] and [0102], [0104]-[0112] of the specification, requires the controller to determine, in real time, which of the process modules are presently in an operable condition before applying the selection rule. As amended, the received recipe information is no longer merely gathered data but is the specific input that the controller evaluates, together with the stored, continuously-updated history information, to determine which of the currently usable process modules will execute the processing - an integrated function that a bare data-gathering step does not perform on its own. Applicant submits that this real-time determination of device operability, combined with the storing and updating of apparatus-specific history information, reflects a practical application that improves the operation of the substrate processing apparatus itself, rather than a generic computer merely being invoked as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “… the controller to determine, in real time, which of the process modules are presently in an operable condition before applying the selection rule.”, “… the specific input that the controller evaluates, together with the stored, continuously-updated history information, to determine which of the currently usable process modules will execute the processing …”, and “… real-time determination of device operability, combined with the storing and updating of apparatus-specific history information …”) 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).
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
As amended, claim 1 recites a closed-loop, real-time control sequence: … a determination is made as to which process modules are currently usable … . Applicant submits that this feedback loop, in which the selection outcome causes an actual change in a physical record of apparatus condition … cannot practically be performed by a human by hand or by merely thinking, and is not a generic computer function of the type addressed in MPEP 2106.05(d). (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 1 – pg. 9, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “… a closed-loop, real-time control sequence ...”, “… feedback loop …”) 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). Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
Applicant submits that this ordered combination of elements provides an unconventional technical solution - automated, condition-aware allocation of processing targets among a plurality of process modules - that improves the technical field of substrate processing apparatus operation. Accordingly, Applicant believes that the combined features of claim 1 as amended integrate any judicial exception into a practical application and, in any event, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 1 – pg. 9, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05 recites:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The applicant has only presented a broad and conclusionary statement the claimed limitations provide “an unconventional technical solution - automated, condition-aware allocation of processing targets among a plurality of process modules - that improves the technical field of substrate processing apparatus operation.” without stating how the claimed limitations entail a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. Further, the applicant does not provide any arguments/rationales/evidence to what improvement (i.e. enhancement) is made to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)) by the previously presented and newly presented elements. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive since the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits that provide significantly more than the abstract idea for the rationales set forth in the subject matter eligibility requirement as set forth below, as well as, the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 22 May 2026.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 9-14, filed on 8 July 2028, with respect to rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
Applicant respectfully submits that Chen's chamber-path prioritization is structurally and functionally distinct from the selection recited in amended claim 1. Chen's priority is determined automatically by the system based on the states of the chambers and the type of product, rather than by a selection rule that a user designates and that is tied to a stored, per-module usage history. (pg. 10, paragraph 5)
Saito is relied upon for disclosing a controller (working equipment specification support apparatus 200) and for a working-equipment selection based on a priority rule designated by a user (Saito, paras. [0037], [0047], [0051]). However, Saito's priority-rule setting function is directed to establishing a production plan (Saito, para. [0002]), which is a different technical context from real-time selection of a process module within a substrate processing apparatus. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant's arguments are against the references individually, wherein one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The applicant has failed to address Chen’s (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0288817 A1) teaching of “a substrate processing apparatus”, “a plurality of process modules each configured to process a processing target”, and “determining a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule”, wherein “the selection rule is determines a priority of each of the plurality of process modules” in combination with Saito’s (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0362283 A1) teaching of “selecting a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user”. Hence the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Further, the examiner recognizes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “… real-time selection…”) 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). Hence the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
Because Chen and Saito are directed to different technical purposes and operating environments, and because neither reference, alone or in combination, suggests the claimed storage and updating of use-state history information or the limitation of selection to currently usable process modules, Applicant submits that there is insufficient motivation to combine Chen and Saito to arrive at the invention of amended claim 1. (pg. 11, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2141.01(a) Analogous and Nonanalogous Art recites:
I. TO RELY ON A REFERENCE UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103, IT MUST BE ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. If a reference is not analogous art to the claimed invention, it may not be used in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, there is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
…
The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), did not change the test for analogous art as stated in Bigio. Under Bigio, a reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's instruction in KSR that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The Examiner emphasizes it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the instant application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0393768 A1: pg. 3, par. [0045] - “The processing module 30 is a module that extracts the wafer W from the carrier C and performs various processings on the wafer W.” ), Chen (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0288817: “pgs. 1-2, par. [0017] - “A plurality of wafers 32, 34 are dispatched to an equipment 40 for wafer processing according to the recipe.”), and Saito’s U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/036228: pg. 2, par. [0027] – “the working equipment specification support apparatus 200 specifies the workable working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ) for each combination of an item and a process including the order of priority. The item to be worked is a product to be worked or a part thereof. In addition, the term “process” is a procedure that applies various kinds of working such as cutting, grinding, shearing, forging, rolling and the like to the item to be worked to attain the required specifications determined by the design.”) are directed to equipment that produce an object. Hence the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In addition, the examiner emphasizes that all anticipated components and limitations of pending claims are present in the prior art as supported below. In addition, the Examiner notes the limitations of “update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module stored in the history information”, and “select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules” in claim 1, and similarly in claims 9 and 10, were newly presented in the Amendment After Non-Final received on 8 July 2026 by the Office, and have been addressed as set forth in the Office Action below. Hence the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments,
Chen's chamber-path prioritization turns on product variety and chamber state, not on a stored record of each chamber's processing history, and Chen does not disclose updating any such record after processing. Saito's priority-rule setting for production planning likewise does not disclose a closed-loop mechanism in which a use-state record is updated after processing and used to inform a subsequent selection. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 3 – pg. 12, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The emphasizes that all anticipated components and limitations of pending claims are present in the prior art as supported below. In addition, the Examiner notes the limitations of “update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module stored in the history information”, and “select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules” in claim 1, and similarly in claims 9 and 10, were newly presented in the Amendment After Non-Final received on 8 July 2026 by the Office, and has been addressed as set forth in the Office Action below. Hence the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In addition, the examiner recognizes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “… a closed-loop mechanism …”) 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). Hence the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to incorporate Saito's production- planning priority rule framework into Chen's real-time wafer dispatch system in the manner required by amended claim 1, as the two references operate in distinct technical contexts and at different levels of the manufacturing hierarchy. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 3 – pg. 12, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant's argument is against the references individually, wherein one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The applicant has failed to address Chen’s (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0288817 A1) teaching of “a substrate processing apparatus”, “a plurality of process modules each configured to process a processing target”, and “determining a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule”, wherein “the selection rule is determines a priority of each of the plurality of process modules” in combination with Saito’s (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0362283 A1) teaching of “selecting a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user”. Hence the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments,
Since independent claim 9 has been amended to incorporate substantially the same features as amended claim 1, Applicant believes that claim 9 as amended is also allowable for at least the same reasons. (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 3)
Applicant submits that reversing the roles of the primary and secondary references does not cure the deficiencies discussed above. … Accordingly, for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, Applicant submits that claim 10 as amended is neither anticipated by nor rendered obvious over Saito in view of Chen. (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 4 – pg. 13, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner refers to the above response, pg. 8, paragraph 9 - pg. 13, paragraph 12 of this Office action, and the arguments herein as addressed.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) substrate processing apparatus”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user”.
The limitation of “select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules …” ) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… based on a selection rule designated by a user”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “a plurality of process modules each configured to process a processing target”; “a controller”; “store history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process modules”; “receive an input of recipe information indicating a processing for the processing target”; and “update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module stored in the history information”.
The limitation of “a controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “a plurality of process modules each configured to process a processing target” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “store history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process modules”; “receive an input of recipe information indicating a processing for the processing target”; and “update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module stored in the history information” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a controller” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “a plurality of process modules each configured to process a processing target” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “store history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process modules”; “receive an input of recipe information indicating a processing for the processing target”; and “update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module stored in the history information, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
The limitation “… the selection rule is a rule that determines priority of each of the plurality of process modules” merely further details “… a selection rule …” of claim 1 and stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 3:
The limitation “… the selection rule is a rule regarding a use state of each of the plurality of process modules” merely further details “… a selection rule …” of claim 1 and stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 4:
The limitation “… the use state includes a number of times the processing target has been processed by each of the plurality of process modules” merely further details “… a use state of each of the plurality of process modules …” of claim 3 and stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 3.
Claim 5:
The limitation “… the use state includes a cumulative value of a film thickness of the processing target processed in each of the plurality of process modules” merely further details “… a use state of each of the plurality of process modules …” of claim 3 and stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 3.
Claim 6:
The limitation “… each of the plurality of process modules includes a processing container that accommodates a plurality of processing targets to perform the processing” merely further details “… a plurality of process modules …” of claim 1 and stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 7:
The limitation “… each of the plurality of process modules includes a processing container that accommodates one processing target to perform the processing” merely further details “… a plurality of process modules …” of claim 1 and stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 8:
The limitation “… the processing includes a film formation processing or an etching processing” merely further details “… processing the processing target …” of claim 1 and stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 represents an equivalent non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 11:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the controller is further configured to reset the use state stored in the history information to an initial value when cleaning is performed in the process module”.
The limitation of “the controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… reset the use state stored in the history information to an initial value when cleaning is performed in the process module” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the controller” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… reset the use state stored in the history information to an initial value when cleaning is performed in the process module”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12:
The limitation of “… the recipe information indicates automatic selection of a process module …” merely further details “… recipe information …” of claim 1; and hence, the claim is rejected under the same rational as set forth in claim 1.
Further, at step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the controller selects, based on the selection rule, one of the currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules in response to the automatic selection indicated by the recipe information”.
The limitation of “the controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… selects, based on the selection rule, one of the currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules in response to the automatic selection indicated by the recipe information” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the controller” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… selects, based on the selection rule, one of the currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules in response to the automatic selection indicated by the recipe information”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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, 2, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0288817 A1 (hereinafter Chen) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0362283 A1 (hereinafter Saito) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0299510 A1 (hereinafter Burda).
As per claim 1, Chen substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Chen teaches the limitations of a substrate processing apparatus (pgs. 1-2, par. [0017] and Fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of process modules each configured to process a processing target (pgs. 1-2, par. [0017]; i.e. “A plurality of wafers 32, 34 are dispatched to an equipment 40 for wafer processing according to the recipe.”);
receive an input of recipe information indicating a processing for the processing target (pg. 2, par. [0023]; i.e. “Step 54: defining a chamber path for each recipe. Each chamber path records the chambers able to be used to process the wafers when the equipment 40 executes the recipe.”); and
determining a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule (pg. 2, par. [0026]; i.e. “Before equipments execute recipes, the priority of the chamber path for each recipe is decided. The priority depends on the states of chambers 46, 48 and product varieties. The wafer corresponding to a chamber path with a high priority will be dispatched to chambers 46, 48 for processing prior to the wafer with a low priority.”).
Not explicitly taught are a controller;
store history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process
modules;
select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user; and
update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information.
However Saito, in an analogous art of production equipment (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of a controller (pg. 2, par [0026] and [0028] and Fig. 1, element 200; i.e. a working equipment specification support apparatus); and
select a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user (pg. 3, par. [0037] and [0047] and pg. 3, par. [0051]; i.e. [0037]: “… the workable equipment specification program 230 is a program for executing workable equipment specifying processing of specifying the working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ) for each process required for working the item designated by a user including the priority order”, [0047]: “… the workable equipment candidate management DB 260 is a database for managing the candidates of the workable working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ) for each process including the priority order.”, and [0051]: “The priority order determination rule 290 is set, while being displayed on the display device 206, by the user by the input device 205 or the like.”) for the purpose of generating a production plan (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen to include the addition of the limitations of a controller; and select a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user to efficiently generate and manage information of working equipment (Saito: pg. 1, par. [0008]).
Chen in view of Saito does not expressly teach store history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process modules;
select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule; and
update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information .
However Burda, in an analogous art of manufacturing a product (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of store history information indicating a use state of each of a plurality of process modules (pg. 3, par. [0024] and [0025]; i.e. [0024]: “The architecture illustrated has three basic elements, a manufacturing execution system (MES) 210 including a database 212, a dispatcher 220 to provide near-real-time lot and tool assignments and for maintaining a repository of information concerning availability of tools and resources 222 and tracking of workpieces/items, and a scheduler 230 including a short-term scheduler engine 235.” and [0025]: “Dispatch repository 222 preferably also contains information in regard to the availability of tools and resources including unavailability due to current allocation for a schedule segment as well as whether or not a tool or resource is "down". When a tool or resource has been unavailable but then becomes available, that change in status is recorded in the dispatch repository 222 and detected in substantially real time by a real time monitoring feature 214 of MES 210.”);
select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule (pg. 3, par. [0025]; i.e. “The MES 210 then generates a dispatch request 270 to the dispatcher 220 which can then build a real time dispatch list in accordance with dispatch rule 224 as will now be discussed in connection with the flow chart of FIG. 3 to apply any unallocated tool(s) or resource(s) to work in progress (WIP) for which tools and resources may have been already scheduled in accordance with a previously built schedule segment and dispatches workpieces/items on which operations have not yet begun to the newly available tool(s) or resources(s).”); and
update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information (pg. 3, par. [0024] and [0025]; i.e. [0025]: “Dispatch repository 222 preferably also contains information in regard to the availability of tools and resources including unavailability due to current allocation for a schedule segment as well as whether or not a tool or resource is "down". When a tool or resource has been unavailable but then becomes available, that change in status is recorded in the dispatch repository 222 and detected in substantially real time by a real time monitoring feature 214 of MES 210.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito to include the addition of the limitations of store history information indicating a use state of each of a plurality of process modules; select, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule; and update, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information to advantageously avoid productivity loss due to schedule latency and enhancing an expedite completion of manufacturing processes. (Burda: abstract and pg. 3, par. [0022]).
As per claim 2, Chen teaches the selection rule is a rule that determines priority of each of the plurality of process modules (pg. 2, par. [0026]; i.e. “Before equipments execute recipes, the priority of the chamber path for each recipe is decided. The priority depends on the states of chambers 46, 48 and product varieties. The wafer corresponding to a chamber path with a high priority will be dispatched to chambers 46, 48 for processing prior to the wafer with a low priority.”).
As per claim 9, Chen substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Chen teaches the limitations of a substrate processing (pgs. 1-2, par. [0017]) method comprising:
receiving an input of recipe information indicating a processing for a processing target by a substrate processing apparatus including a plurality of process modules (pg. 2, par. [0017] and [0023]; i.e. [0017]; i.e. “A plurality of wafers 32, 34 are dispatched to an equipment 40 for wafer processing according to the recipe.” and [0023]: “Step 54: defining a chamber path for each recipe. Each chamber path records the chambers able to be used to process the wafers when the equipment 40 executes the recipe.); and
determining a process module to process the processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user (pg. 2, par. [0026]; i.e. “Before equipments execute recipes, the priority of the chamber path for each recipe is decided. The priority depends on the states of chambers 46, 48 and product varieties. The wafer corresponding to a chamber path with a high priority will be dispatched to chambers 46, 48 for processing prior to the wafer with a low priority.”).
Chen does not expressly teach storing history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process modules;
selecting, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user; and
updating, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information.
However Saito, in an analogous art of production equipment (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of selecting a process module to process a processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user (pg. 3, par. [0037] and [0047] and pg. 3, par. [0051]; i.e. [0037]: “… the workable equipment specification program 230 is a program for executing workable equipment specifying processing of specifying the working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ) for each process required for working the item designated by a user including the priority order”, [0047]: “… the workable equipment candidate management DB 260 is a database for managing the candidates of the workable working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ) for each process including the priority order.”, and [0051]: “The priority order determination rule 290 is set, while being displayed on the display device 206, by the user by the input device 205 or the like.”) for the purpose of generating a production plan (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen to include the addition of the limitation of selecting a process module to process a processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user to efficiently generate and manage information of working equipment (Saito: pg. 1, par. [0008]).
Chen in view of Saito does not expressly teach storing history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process modules;
selecting, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule; and
updating, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information.
However Burda, in an analogous art of manufacturing a product (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of storing history information indicating a use state of each of a plurality of process modules (pg. 3, par. [0024] and [0025]; i.e. [0024]: “The architecture illustrated has three basic elements, a manufacturing execution system (MES) 210 including a database 212, a dispatcher 220 to provide near-real-time lot and tool assignments and for maintaining a repository of information concerning availability of tools and resources 222 and tracking of workpieces/items, and a scheduler 230 including a short-term scheduler engine 235.” and [0025]: “Dispatch repository 222 preferably also contains information in regard to the availability of tools and resources including unavailability due to current allocation for a schedule segment as well as whether or not a tool or resource is "down". When a tool or resource has been unavailable but then becomes available, that change in status is recorded in the dispatch repository 222 and detected in substantially real time by a real time monitoring feature 214 of MES 210.”);
selecting, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule (pg. 3, par. [0025]; i.e. “The MES 210 then generates a dispatch request 270 to the dispatcher 220 which can then build a real time dispatch list in accordance with dispatch rule 224 as will now be discussed in connection with the flow chart of FIG. 3 to apply any unallocated tool(s) or resource(s) to work in progress (WIP) for which tools and resources may have been already scheduled in accordance with a previously built schedule segment and dispatches workpieces/items on which operations have not yet begun to the newly available tool(s) or resources(s).”); and
updating, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information (pg. 3, par. [0024] and [0025]; i.e. [0025]: “Dispatch repository 222 preferably also contains information in regard to the availability of tools and resources including unavailability due to current allocation for a schedule segment as well as whether or not a tool or resource is "down". When a tool or resource has been unavailable but then becomes available, that change in status is recorded in the dispatch repository 222 and detected in substantially real time by a real time monitoring feature 214 of MES 210.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito to include the addition of the limitations of storing history information indicating a use state of each of a plurality of process modules; selecting, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule; and updating, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information to advantageously avoid productivity loss due to schedule latency and enhancing an expedite completion of manufacturing processes. (Burda: abstract and pg. 3, par. [0022]).
As per claim 12, Chen teaches the limitations of the recipe information indicates automatic determination of a process module (pg. 2, par. [0023] and [0026]; i.e. [0023]: “Step 54: defining a chamber path for each recipe. Each chamber path records the chambers able to be used to process the wafers when the equipment 40 executes the recipe.”) and [0026]: “Before equipments execute recipes, the priority of the chamber path for each recipe is decided. The priority depends on the states of chambers 46, 48 and product varieties. The wafer corresponding to a chamber path with a high priority will be dispatched to chambers 46, 48 for processing prior to the wafer with a low priority. For example, if the state of chamber 46 is "malfunction", all of the chamber paths having to use the chamber 46 will be decided as "not executable", and, accordingly, the priority of these chamber paths are decided as the lowest.”), and the determining, based on the selection rule, one of the plurality of process modules in response to the automatic selection indicated by the recipe information (pg. 2, par. [0026]; i.e. “Before equipments execute recipes, the priority of the chamber path for each recipe is decided. The priority depends on the states of chambers 46, 48 and product varieties. The wafer corresponding to a chamber path with a high priority will be dispatched to chambers 46, 48 for processing prior to the wafer with a low priority.”).
Chen does not expressly teach the controller selects, based on the selection rule, one of the currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules in response to the automatic selection indicated by the recipe information.
However Saito, in an analogous art of production equipment (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of the controller (pg. 2, par [0026] and [0028] and Fig. 1, element 200; i.e. a working equipment specification support apparatus) selects, based on the selection rule, one of the plurality of process modules in response to an automatic selection (pg. 3, par. [0037] and [0047] and pg. 3, par. [0051]; i.e. [0037]: “… the workable equipment specification program 230 is a program for executing workable equipment specifying processing of specifying the working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ) for each process required for working the item designated by a user including the priority order”, [0047]: “… the workable equipment candidate management DB 260 is a database for managing the candidates of the workable working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ) for each process including the priority order.”, and [0051]: “The priority order determination rule 290 is set, while being displayed on the display device 206, by the user by the input device 205 or the like.”) for the purpose of generating a production plan (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen to include the addition of the limitation of the controller (pg. 2, par [0026] and [0028] and Fig. 1, element 200; i.e. a working equipment specification support apparatus) selects, based on the selection rule, one of the plurality of process modules in response to an automatic selection to efficiently generate and manage information of working equipment (Saito: pg. 1, par. [0008]).
Chen in view of Saito does not expressly teach selects, based on the selection rule, one of the currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules in response to the automatic selection.
However Burda, in an analogous art of manufacturing a product (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of selects, based on the selection rule, one of the currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules in response to an automatic selection (pg. 3, par. [0025]; i.e. “The MES 210 then generates a dispatch request 270 to the dispatcher 220 which can then build a real time dispatch list in accordance with dispatch rule 224 as will now be discussed in connection with the flow chart of FIG. 3 to apply any unallocated tool(s) or resource(s) to work in progress (WIP) for which tools and resources may have been already scheduled in accordance with a previously built schedule segment and dispatches workpieces/items on which operations have not yet begun to the newly available tool(s) or resources(s).”) for the purpose of allocating tools and resources for performing manufacturing processes (pg. 3, par. [0024] and [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito to include the addition of the limitation of selects, based on the selection rule, one of the currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules in response to an automatic selection to advantageously avoid productivity loss due to schedule latency and enhancing an expedite completion of manufacturing processes. (Burda: abstract and pg. 3, par. [0022]).
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0040828 A1 (hereinafter Morisawa).
As per claim 3, Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda does not expressly teach the selection rule is a rule regarding a use state of each of the plurality of process modules.
However Morisawa, in an analogous art of substrate processing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of a rule regarding a use state of each of a plurality of process modules (pg. 1, par. [0012], pg. 6, par. [0076] and pg. 7, par. [0086] and [0091]-[0093]; i.e. [0086]: “(1) A first rule, a second rule and a third rule, which will be described later, are applied when the accumulated number of processed substrates W in all PMs is a multiple of X (X indicating the number of substrates W in one lot.”) for the purpose of sequentially processing a plurality of substrates (pg. 1, par. [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda to include the addition of the limitation of a rule regarding a use state of each of a plurality of process modules to advantageously improve processing efficiency (Morisawa: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
As per claim 4, Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda does not expressly teach the use state includes a number of times the processing target has been processed by each of the plurality of process modules.
However Morisawa, in an analogous art of substrate processing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of the use state includes a number of times a processing target has been processed by each of the plurality of process modules (pg. 1, par. [0012], pg. 2, par. [0031], pg. 6, par. [0076] and pg. 7, par. [0086] and [0091]-[0093]; i.e. [0086]: “(1) A first rule, a second rule and a third rule, which will be described later, are applied when the accumulated number of processed substrates W in all PMs is a multiple of X (X indicating the number of substrates W in one lot.”) for the purpose of sequentially processing a plurality of substrates (pg. 1, par. [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda to include the addition of the limitation of the use state includes a number of times a processing target has been processed by each of the plurality of process modules to advantageously improve processing efficiency (Morisawa: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
As per claim 5, Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda does not expressly teach the use state includes a cumulative value of a film thickness of the processing target processed in each of the plurality of process modules.
However Morisawa, in an analogous art of substrate processing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of the use state includes a cumulative value of a film thickness of a processing target processed in each of the plurality of process modules (pg. 1, par. [0012], pg. 2, par. [0031], and pg. 12, par. [0237]; i.e. [0237]: “… the execution timing of pre-coating or conditioning may be determined by accumulating a film thickness of a thin film formed on the surface of the substrate W.”) for the purpose of sequentially processing a plurality of substrates (pg. 1, par. [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda to include the addition of the limitation of the use state includes a cumulative value of a film thickness of a processing target processed in each of the plurality of process modules to advantageously improve processing efficiency (Morisawa: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
As per claim 7, Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda does not expressly teach each of the plurality of process modules includes a processing container that accommodates one processing target to perform the processing.
However Morisawa, in an analogous art of substrate processing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of each of the plurality of process modules includes a processing container that accommodates one processing target to perform processing (pg. 3, par. [0039]; i.e. “Each of the cassette containers 19A to 19C accommodates therein substrates W arranged in multiple stages at a predetermined interval.”) for the purpose of sequentially processing a plurality of substrates (pg. 1, par. [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda to include the addition of the limitation of each of the plurality of process modules includes a processing container that accommodates one processing target to perform processing to advantageously improve processing efficiency (Morisawa: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0014058 A1 (hereinafter Hongkham).
As per claim 6, Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda does not expressly teach each of the plurality of process modules includes a processing container that accommodates a plurality of processing targets to perform the processing.
However Hongkham, in an analogous art of substrate processing (pg. 1, par. [0011]), teaches the missing limitation of each of a plurality of process modules includes a processing container that accommodates a plurality of processing targets to perform processing (pg. 3, par. [0048]; i.e. “The one or more pod assemblies 105, or front-end opening unified pods (FOUPs), are generally adapted to accept one or more cassettes 106 that may contain one or more substrates "W", or wafers, that are to be processed in the cluster tool 10.”) for the purpose of sequentially processing a plurality of substrates (pg. 1, par. [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda to include the addition of the limitation of each of a plurality of process modules includes a processing container that accommodates a plurality of processing targets to perform processing to increase throughput of a cluster tool, while maintaining constant wafer history, thus reducing process sequence cost of ownership in an efficient manner. (Hongkham: pgs. 15-16, par. [0134] and [0135]).
As per claim 8, Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda does not expressly teach the processing includes a film formation processing or an etching processing.
However Hongkham, in an analogous art of substrate processing (pg. 1, par. [0011]), teaches the missing limitation of the processing includes a film formation processing or an etching processing (pg. par. [0044] and par. [0050]; i.e. [0044]: “… the term "substrate" generally refers to any workpiece upon which film processing is performed and may be used to denote a substrate, such as a semiconductor substrate or a glass substrate, as well as other material layers formed on the substrate, such as a dielectric layer.” and [0050]: “In general these device fabrication processes may include depositing a material on a surface of the substrate, cleaning a surface of the substrate, etching a surface of the substrate, or exposing the substrate to some form of radiation to cause a physical or chemical change to one or more regions on the substrate.’’) for the purpose of sequentially processing a plurality of substrates (pg. 1, par. [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda to include the addition of the limitation of the processing includes a film formation processing or an etching processing to increase throughput of a cluster tool, while maintaining constant wafer history, thus reducing process sequence cost of ownership in an efficient manner. (Hongkham: pgs. 15-16, par. [0134] and [0135]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Chen in further view of Burda.
As per claim 10, Saito substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Chen teaches the limitations of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a program that causes a controller (Fig. 1, element 200; i.e. a working equipment specification support apparatus) of a processing apparatus including a plurality of process modules that process a processing target, to execute a process (pg. 2, par [0026], [0028], and [0033]) including:
selecting the process module to process the processing target based on a selection rule designated by a user (pg. 3, par. [0037] and [0047] and pg. 3, par. [0051]; i.e. [0037]: “… the workable equipment specification program 230 is a program for executing workable equipment specifying processing of specifying the working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ) for each process required for working the item designated by a user including the priority order”, [0047]: “… the workable equipment candidate management DB 260 is a database for managing the candidates of the workable working equipment 300 (300a, 300b,... ).
Not explicitly taught are a substrate processing apparatus including a plurality of process modules;
storing history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process modules;
receiving an input of recipe information indicating a processing for the processing target;
selecting, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule; and
updating, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information .
However Chen, in an analogous art of a production system (pgs. 1-2, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of a substrate processing apparatus including a plurality of process modules (pgs. 1-2, par. [0017]; i.e. “The equipment 40 comprises a plurality of loading ports 42, 44, and a plurality of chambers 46, 48.”); and
receiving an input of recipe information indicating a processing for a processing target (pg. 2, par. [0023]; i.e. “Step 54: defining a chamber path for each recipe. Each chamber path records the chambers able to be used to process the wafers when the equipment 40 executes the recipe.”) for the purpose of dispatching wafers for wafer processing according to a recipe (pgs. 1-2, par. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Saito to include the addition of the limitations of a substrate processing apparatus including a plurality of process modules; and receiving an input of recipe information indicating a processing for a processing target to reduce processing time and increase operational efficiency (Chen: pg. 1, par. [0008]).
Saito in view of Chen does not expressly teach storing history information indicating a use state of each of the plurality of process modules;
selecting, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing the processing target based on a selection rule; and
updating, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information .
However Burda, in an analogous art of manufacturing a product (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of storing history information indicating a use state of each of a plurality of process modules (pg. 3, par. [0024] and [0025]; i.e. [0024]: “The architecture illustrated has three basic elements, a manufacturing execution system (MES) 210 including a database 212, a dispatcher 220 to provide near-real-time lot and tool assignments and for maintaining a repository of information concerning availability of tools and resources 222 and tracking of workpieces/items, and a scheduler 230 including a short-term scheduler engine 235.” and [0025]: “Dispatch repository 222 preferably also contains information in regard to the availability of tools and resources including unavailability due to current allocation for a schedule segment as well as whether or not a tool or resource is "down". When a tool or resource has been unavailable but then becomes available, that change in status is recorded in the dispatch repository 222 and detected in substantially real time by a real time monitoring feature 214 of MES 210.”);
selecting, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule (pg. 3, par. [0025]; i.e. “The MES 210 then generates a dispatch request 270 to the dispatcher 220 which can then build a real time dispatch list in accordance with dispatch rule 224 as will now be discussed in connection with the flow chart of FIG. 3 to apply any unallocated tool(s) or resource(s) to work in progress (WIP) for which tools and resources may have been already scheduled in accordance with a previously built schedule segment and dispatches workpieces/items on which operations have not yet begun to the newly available tool(s) or resources(s).”); and
updating, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information (pg. 3, par. [0024] and [0025]; i.e. [0025]: “Dispatch repository 222 preferably also contains information in regard to the availability of tools and resources including unavailability due to current allocation for a schedule segment as well as whether or not a tool or resource is "down". When a tool or resource has been unavailable but then becomes available, that change in status is recorded in the dispatch repository 222 and detected in substantially real time by a real time monitoring feature 214 of MES 210.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Saito in view of Chen to include the addition of the limitations of storing history information indicating a use state of each of a plurality of process modules; selecting, from among currently usable ones of the plurality of process modules, a process module for processing a processing target based on a selection rule; and updating, after execution of the processing, the use state of the selected process module store in the history information to advantageously avoid productivity loss due to schedule latency and enhancing an expedite completion of manufacturing processes. (Burda: abstract and pg. 3, par. [0022]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0143890 A1 (hereinafter Morisawa2).
As per claim 11, Chen in view of Saito in further view of Burda does not expressly teach the controller is further configured to reset the use state stored in the history information to an initial value when cleaning is performed in the process module.
However Morisawa2, in an analogous art of substrate processing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of a controller (pg. 3, par. [0047] and Fig. 2, element 101) is further configured to reset a use state stored in history information to an initial value when cleaning is performed in a process module (pgs. 8-9, par. [0096], [0101], [0112], and [0113]; i.e. [0096]: “The sheet counter 61 increases the sheet counting value with increment of 1 when the film deposition processing module 1 completes the process of one wafer W.” and [0101]: “Therefore, the inside of the chamber is cleaned to prevent the process B from being affected by the process A which had a specific content. In addition, when the inter-process cleaning is carried out in step S17, the sheet count value in the sheet counter 61 of the MC 1a in the film deposition processing module 1 is reset to zero.”) for the purpose of storing information regarding processing modules (pg. 8, par. [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Saito in view of Chen to include the addition of the limitation of a controller is further configured to reset a use state stored in history information to an initial value when cleaning is performed in a process module to advantageously prevent a deterioration of throughput (Morisawa2: pg. 9, par. [0107]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to manufacturing, planning, and scheduling systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0096770 A1 discloses scheduling a release of jobs from a pool of pending jobs, machine information and information about items to be processed are used to determine available machine capacity.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0082579 A1 discloses a computer-implemented method for facilitating plasma processing tool component management across plurality of tools.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0293524 A1 discloses a processing program generation method for generating a processing program for a work machine on the basis of use-results information for a tool attached to a work machine
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0073372 A1 discloses a dispatcher system that that generates a production plan for a manufacturing execution system of a plant.
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 JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, 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 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights