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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 9, “the second variables being predicted” should be –the predicted second variables being predicted—to be distinguishable from the (assigned) second variable.
In claim 14, line 2, “the second variables” should be –the predicted second variables-- to be distinguishable from the (assigned) second variable.
In claim 16, line 5, “the same semiconductor component element” should be –a same semiconductor component element—to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 19, line 4, “the semiconductor component element” should be –a semiconductor component element—to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 9, “the second variables being predicted” should be –the predicted second variables being predicted—to be distinguishable from the (assigned) second variable.
In claim 21, line 11, “the second variables being predicted” should be –the predicted second variables being predicted—to be distinguishable from the (assigned) second variable.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations beginning from “providing a machine learning system, which is trained, based on the assignment rule, to assign the first variables to the second variables according to the assignment rule” to the end of the claim. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, no additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the claim recites no additional elements. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 20 and 21 are similarly rejected by analogy to claim 12. Note that the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and computer are invoked to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (only applied to step 2B analysis).
Dependent claims 13-19 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Notes
Claims 12, 20, and 21 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 12, 20, and 21, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature of claim 12 (as the representative): “ascertaining a likelihood matrix of the uncertainties of the assignment rule, wherein the ascertained inaccuracies are grouped into a vector, wherein the vector, transposed, is multiplied by the covariance matrix, inverted, and a result thereof is multiplied by the vector; and normalizing the likelihood matrix,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. The likelihood matrix is essentially an adaptation of a multivariate normal (Gaussian) likelihood function.
Fan et al. ("Fault Diagnosis of Wafer Acceptance Test and Chip Probing Between Front-End-of-Line and Back-End-of-Line Processes" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, VOL. 19, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2022) teaches a method for fault diagnosis of wafer acceptance test (WAT) and chip probing (CP) using machine learning (ML), involving training the ML model using augmented data samples with a log-likelihood form from all training data based on a Bernoulli distribution, and solving a maximum likelihood estimation problem. Fan fails to teach or suggest the above indicated feature as claimed.
Hallquist ("Maximum Likelihood Estimation" PSY 597 Week 4, 2017) teaches a method of maximum likelihood estimation, involving a likelihood function based on a multivariate Mahalanobis distance measure and a multivariate normal distribution.
Fan’s method is based on a Bernoulli distribution, rather than a normal distribution, because the prediction outcome is binary (i.e., good or bad). There is no motivation to use a normal distribution. Hallquist teaches maximizing a likelihood measure based on a normal distribution (i.e., using the multivariate Mahalanobis distance), but provides no motivation to normalize the matrix. Accordingly, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Fan and Hallquist to provide the feature at issue.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang et al. ("Using Wafer Map Features to Better Predict Die-Level Failures in Final Test" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 2015) teaches a method to predict a result of a final test at the die-level before assembly using wafer test items and four derivations concerning wafer map features.
BRINGOLTZ et al. (US 20230023634 A1) teaches a method of Optical Critical Dimension (OCD) metrology, involving training a machine learning model by applying, during the training, target features including reference parameters, and by applying input features including sets of measured scatterometric data and sets of model scatterometric data generated based on an optical model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights