DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections set forth previously.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit” and “prediction unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US Patent 5,950,170) in view of Mizutani et al. (US PGPUB 2014057546).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10-12; Pan teaches; A production control method comprising:
acquiring a first quantity of materials to be treated corresponding to a first process device, wherein the materials to be treated are target materials that have entered the first process device but have not entered a second process device, and the second process device is a process device in a next procedure after the first process device; (Pan; at least Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 45-67; column 3, lines 1-67; column 4, lines 1-26; disclose a system and method for determining a first quantity of materials to be treated in a first processing device (i.e. the method includes determining a capacity and throughput of a first machine) of a plurality of processing devices in a wafter manufacturing production line)
predicting a second quantity of target materials that can be treated by the second process device during a preset process duration corresponding to the first process device based on a current process state of the second process device, wherein the process state comprises a working state and a maintenance state; (Pan; at least Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 45-67; column 3, lines 1-67; column 4, lines 1-26; disclose wherein the system and method further includes predicting a throughput potential (i.e. working state) and capacity that a subsequent machine in the process can handle)
controlling a feeding action to the first process device according to the first quantity and the second quantity. (Pan; at least Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 45-67; column 3, lines 1-67; column 4, lines 1-26; disclose determining an optimal feeding action and control path between the machines in order to maximize throughput and capacity).
Pan appears to be silent on; predicting a second quantity of target materials that can be treated by the second process device during a preset process duration corresponding to the first process device based on a current process state of the second process device, wherein the process state comprises a working state and a maintenance state;
However, Mizutani teaches; predicting a second quantity of target materials that can be treated by the second process device during a preset process duration corresponding to the first process device based on a current process state of the second process device, wherein the process state comprises a working state and a maintenance state; (Mizutani; at least paragraph [0022]; disclose a system and method for scheduling/planning a production process according to a plurality of processing devices, wherein the system includes taking into account maintenance states of processing devices when determining optimal production schedules).
Pan and Mizutani area analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of production planning and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of predicting a machines ability to process a material based on a maintenance status as taught by Mizutani with the disclosed invention of a production planning and control system as taught by Pan in order to help optimize a production throughput process while minimizing energy consumption as taught by Mizutani (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 7; the combination of Pan and Mizutani teach; The method according to claim 1, wherein predicting the second quantity of target materials that are treated by the second process device during the preset process duration corresponding to the first process device based on the current process state of the second process device comprises: when the second process device comprises at least two process chambers, respectively acquiring a current process state of each chamber; determining a third quantity of target materials that are treated by each of the process chambers during the preset process duration corresponding to the first process device according to the process state and a corresponding preset process duration of each of the process chambers; taking a sum of all the third quantities as the second quantity corresponding to the second process device. (Pan; at least Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 45-67; column 3, lines 1-67; column 4, lines 1-26).
Regarding Claim 8; the combination of Pan and Mizutani teach; The method according to claim 1, further comprising: in a condition a quantity of the second process device is at least two, predicting a fourth quantity of target materials that are treated by each second process device during the preset process duration corresponding to the first process device based on the current process state of each second process device, respectively; controlling the feeding action to the first process device according to a sum of all the fourth quantities and the first quantity. (Pan; at least Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 45-67; column 3, lines 1-67; column 4, lines 1-26).
Regarding Claim 9; the combination of Pan and Mizutani teach; The method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the feeding action to the first process device according to the first quantity and the second quantity comprises: when the first quantity is less than or equal to the second quantity, controlling feeding to the first process device; or, when the first quantity is greater than the second quantity, suspending feeding to the first process device. (Pan; at least Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 45-67; column 3, lines 1-67; column 4, lines 1-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 recites: “The method according to claim 1, wherein predicting the second quantity of target materials that can be treated by the second process device during the preset process duration corresponding to the first process device based on the current process state of the second process device comprises:
determining a remaining process duration before maintenance based on a rated duration of a single piece process, a remaining process capacity before maintenance and a processed duration of a current piece corresponding to the second process device, wherein the remaining process capacity before maintenance is a maximum quantity of target materials that the second process device can continue to treat before entering the maintenance state;
determining a remaining duration before ending maintenance according to the rated duration of the single piece process corresponding to the second process device, the remaining process capacity before maintenance, the processed duration of the current piece and a rated duration of maintenance;
predicting the second quantity of target materials that can be treated by the second process device during the preset process duration corresponding to the first process device according to the remaining process capacity before maintenance, the remaining process duration before maintenance, the remaining duration before ending maintenance and the preset process duration.”
The closest prior art of record is Pan et al. (US Patent 5,950,170) in view of Mizutani et al. (US PGPUB 2014057546). Pan discloses a bottleneck prevention system and method for a wafer making process comprising a plurality of production machines. The method includes determining throughput and capacities of the various production devices within the process, and based on these metrics can appropriately provide optimal supply to the production devices to maximize the capacity/throughput of the machines. Mizutani discloses a system and method for eliminating bottlenecks in production lines through the use of forecasting various aspects of the machines, including taking into account downtime due to maintenance that could affect a machines ability to produce a product. However, neither Pan nor Mizutani, alone or in combination teach, “determining a remaining process duration before maintenance based on a rated duration of a single piece process, a remaining process capacity before maintenance and a processed duration of a current piece corresponding to the second process device, wherein the remaining process capacity before maintenance is a maximum quantity of target materials that the second process device can continue to treat before entering the maintenance state;
determining a remaining duration before ending maintenance according to the rated duration of the single piece process corresponding to the second process device, the remaining process capacity before maintenance, the processed duration of the current piece and a rated duration of maintenance;
predicting the second quantity of target materials that can be treated by the second process device during the preset process duration corresponding to the first process device according to the remaining process capacity before maintenance, the remaining process duration before maintenance, the remaining duration before ending maintenance and the preset process duration.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
The reference of pan fails to explicitly teach “real-time state of device”, but in fact discloses using information from a database based on past information rather than real-time data.
The reference of Pan fails to explicitly disclose any reference towards controlling a “feeding” or “loading” action as presented in the claims.
With respect to the first argument, the office understands that the reference Pan does disclose that the current processing state of a device of a past production runs as disclosed in column 1, lines 60-67, but the office is broadly interpreting this as being representative of a processing device’s current production capability (i.e. working state). That is to say, that given its history, it will currently output a given production yield. This information is utilized for assignment of optimal throughput as shown in tables 4-7 of the reference of Pan.
The office understands that the applicant’s intent is to mean that the consideration is based on “real-time” state, however, it is believed the term “current” can reasonably be interpreted as presented above.
However, assuming arguendo that the initial argument is not considered reasonable, and that the term current represents “real-time” analysis, the office argues that the secondary reference of Mizutani discloses this interpretation explicitly as shown in paragraph [0071]. In this section, Mizutani clearly states that the processing device which accounts for maintenance of individual processing devices such that batches can be scheduled to supplemental processing devices, accounts for current operation situations of the various processing devices and can inform the system such that proper scheduling can occur, thus, better representing the interpretation of “real-time”. As such, the office believes the current cited art of reference explicitly discloses the current limitations as presently recited.
With regards to the second argument, the offices interpretation of “feeding action” is interpreted broadly as the assignment process to each machine as disclosed in column 4, lines 24-26. That is, once the assignment/allocation process is determined a schedule is created and thus the feeding to each processing machine is established and controlled.
Assuming arguendo that simple assignment is unreasonable to constitute “controlling a feeding action”, the secondary reference of Mizutani more explicitly discloses this action in paragraphs [0056]-[0057]. In the cited paragraphs, Mizutani discloses the transfer control device that transfers (i.e. “feeds”) the semiconductors between multiple processing devices based on a given transfer plan. In this case, the transfer “plan” is the allocation plan created by Pan, which is then used by the transfer control device to deliver the semiconductors to the appropriate processing devices based on the given operating/maintenance conditions of the varying devices. As such, the office believes the current cited art of reference explicitly discloses the current limitations as presently recited.
In order to further prosecution, the office recommends amending the claims to include currently identified allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Norman (US PGPUB 20160103713): disclose a semiconductor scheduling system and method for scheduling a plurality of semiconductor processing devices based upon capacity and highly constrained tasks.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights