DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to communication filed February 4, 2026. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/4/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 4, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite calculating a plurality of match scores each corresponding to one of a plurality of phases of a chamber matching process, wherein the plurality of match scores are based on one or more criticality weights of each of a plurality of parameter settings and a deviation of the plurality of parameter settings of a respective chamber from a plurality of baseline parameter settings of a reference chamber; and causing, based on the plurality of match scores, improved fabrication of one or more substrates by the one or more chambers, wherein causing the improved fabrication comprises, responsive to a match score of the plurality of match scores failing to satisfy a threshold criterion; selectively maintaining the second subset of parameter settings associated with the second set of criticality weights, wherein selectively maintaining the second subset of parameter settings prevents modification of a second subset of operational parameters of the manufacturing equipment to decrease a number of adjustments to the plurality of parameter settings. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the calculating step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation. For example, a user can make observations and mentally calculate match scores.
Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the step “responsive to a match score of the plurality of match scores failing to satisfy a threshold criterion; selectively maintaining the second subset of parameter settings associated with the second set of criticality weights, wherein selectively maintaining the second subset of parameter settings prevents modification of a second subset of operational parameters of the manufacturing equipment to decrease a number of adjustments to the plurality of parameter settings” is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation. For example a user can mentally determine that a score fails to satisfy a threshold criterion, and responsive to the determination a user can mentally decide to maintain a parameter setting or prevent modification.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “populating a data structure with the plurality of match scores for each of the one or more chambers; and presenting content of the data structure to a user at a client device” are data output recited at a high level of generality and are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The recitation of the calculating, updating and maintaining limitations being performed for each of one or more chambers of a manufacturing system merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (manufacturing system) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
The limitation “selectively updating, by a controller, a first subset of parameter settings associated with a first set of criticality weights, wherein the first set of criticality weights are higher than a second set of criticality weights associated with a second subset of parameter settings, and wherein selectively updating the first subset of parameter settings causes modification of a first subset of operational parameters of manufacturing equipment of the one or more chambers” is recited at a high level of generality and thus represents adding insignificant extra-solution activity or applying the abstract idea. Lastly, the controller and processing device and memory (of claim 9) are recited at a high level of generality. The controller is used as a generic computer component to perform the updating and maintaining such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The processing device and memory are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of populating and presenting data structures and are used to perform an abstract idea, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of “populating a data structure with the plurality of match scores for each of the one or more chambers;” “presenting content of the data structure to a user at a client device;” and “selectively updating…the one or more chambers” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to storing and retrieving information in memory and presenting offers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Further, the selectively updating limitation may represent applying the exception using a generic computer. The recitation of the calculating, updating and maintaining limitations being performed for each of one or more chambers of a manufacturing system merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The recitation of a processing device and memory to perform the limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 17 recite: determining a match score for a first chamber of the one or more chambers for a first phase of the chamber matching process; determining whether the match score of the first chamber for the first phase of the chamber matching process satisfies the threshold criterion; and upon determining that the match score of the first chamber for the first phase of the chamber matching process satisfies the threshold criterion, calculating a match score of the first chamber for a second phase of the chamber matching process. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no additional elements in claims 2 and 17. In claim 10, the additional element of using the processing device to perform determining and calculating is recited at a high level of generality. The processing device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of calculating and are used to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitation of a processing device to perform the limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18 and 19 recite: determining that the match score of the first chamber for the first phase of the chamber matching process does not satisfy the threshold criterion; calculating an updated match score for the first chamber for the first phase of the chamber matching process in view of the updated parameter settings of the first chamber; and determining whether the updated match score of the first chamber for the first phase of the chamber matching process satisfies the threshold criterion. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of updating one or more parameter settings by adjusting the one or more parameter settings of the first chamber to align with a corresponding one or more baseline parameter settings of the plurality of baseline parameter settings of the reference chamber represents adding insignificant extra-solution activity or applying the abstract idea. In claims 11 and 12, the additional element of using the processing device to perform determining and calculating is recited at a high level of generality. The processing device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of calculating and are used to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitation of a processing device to perform the limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element of updating one or more parameter settings by adjusting the one or more parameter settings of the first chamber to align with a corresponding one or more baseline parameter settings of the plurality of baseline parameter settings of the reference chamber amounts to no more than storing and retrieving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 5, 13, and 20 recite assigning the one or more criticality weights to each of the plurality of parameter settings of the one or more chambers; and calculating the deviation of the plurality of parameter settings of the one or more chambers from the plurality of baseline parameter settings of the reference chamber using the one or more criticality weights of each of the plurality of parameter settings of the one or more chambers. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements claims 5, 13, and 20.
Dependent claims 6-8, 14 and 15 recite limitations further describing the data structure that is populated and presented in claims 1 and 9. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As explained above, populating a table, as claimed, and presenting the table with visual indicators, as claimed, are high level of generality and are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of populating a table, as claimed, and presenting the table with visual indicators are recited at a high level of generality. These element amount to storing and retrieving information in memory and presenting offers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible because the amended recitations “causing, based on the plurality of match scores, improved fabrication of one or more substrates”, “selectively updating, by a controller…” and “selectively maintaining, by the controller…” integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner disagrees.
Applicant argues that the above functionalities provide technical benefits such as improved fabrication by reducing unnecessary parameter adjustments to manufacturing equipment, minimizing chamber downtime, and improving consistency across matched chambers. However, it is unclear as to how fabrication of substrates is actually improved. Applicant argues that by selectively modifying operational parameters of higher-criticality settings while preventing modification of lower-criticality settings via the controller, the present disclosure enables physical control over manufacturing equipment of one or more chambers. However, physical control over manufacturing equipment of one or more chambers is not a technical improvement. The step of updating a parameter setting after calculating scores and comparing scores to a threshold would just represent adding extra-solution/post solution activity or merely applying the abstract idea. Further, maintaining a parameter setting to prevent modification is a mental processing because it only involves decision not to change a parameter setting. The language “to decrease a number of adjustments to the plurality of parameter settings” represents an intended use statement. Therefore, the examiner fails to see an improvement to fabrication of substrates.
Further, the specification states that updates to parameter settings can be made “automatically by the controller or manually by operators” (paragraph 25). Therefore, adding the language “by a controller” to the updating and maintaining limitations is just a way of automating/applying a task with a generic computer component that can be performed by a user. Even further, the claims are directed to method; a system comprising a memory and a processing device coupled to the memory, the processing device to perform a set of tasks; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions to perform recited operations. Although the claims recite updating parameter settings that cause modification of operational parameters of manufacturing equipment of one or more chambers, the claims do not positively recite manufacturing equipment of one or more chambers. Instead, the manufacturing equipment of one or more chambers appears to be the environment in which the software instructions are applied.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims are consistent with Example 45 from the 2019 PEG. The examiner disagrees. The facts of the claims of Example 45 of the 2019 PEG are not the same as the facts of the present application. Claim 2 of Example 45 was found eligible because “Limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exceptions (the calculated percentage of the extent of cure) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus. As explained in the specification, because the claimed controller opens the mold and ejects the molded polyurethane at the time when the target percentage of cure is reached, the claimed controller avoids the technical problems associated with undercure and overcure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance.
Claim 3 was found eligible because “while ARCXY thermocouples are known, mere knowledge of this type of thermocouple in the aeronautical industry does not make its use in an injection molding apparatus routine or conventional. Thus, limitation (a) as performed by the controller in conjunction with the ARCXY thermocouple was October 2019 26 Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples not well-known, and this limitation is therefore no longer considered to be insignificant because the ARXCY thermocouple’s better long-term performance and durability would be beneficial in implementing the injection molding apparatus, and its faster response time means that it can measure the temperature more often than other thermocouples. As a result of using this unconventional thermocouple to perform limitation (a), the claim as a whole thus amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (Step 2B: YES).”
Claim 4 was found eligible because “Limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exception (the comparison of the mold temperature with the target temperature) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus… Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that limitation (d), in combination with the other claim limitations, reflects the technical advantages described in the specification. The claim as a whole thus improves upon previous controllers used in this technical field of injection molding. Further, using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the injection molding apparatus in a particular way is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.”
The examiner does not find any similar fact pattern in the present application. The present claims do not use calculated information to actively control manufacturing equipment in a way that avoids a technical problem. The claimed adjusting of parameter settings is not providing any type of useful control that solves a problem. Instead, it is merely using a computer component to perform a manual task of adjusting parameters or simply providing post-solution activity of adjusting parameter settings after mentally determining what the parameter settings should be.
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible under step 2B because the amended claims provide a specific technological improvement in manufacturing system achieved through selective modification and inhibition of operational parameters and closed-loop recalculation based on the physical state of the manufacturing equipment. The examiner disagrees. The claimed limitations do not appear to improve the operation of the system. The step of updating a parameter setting after calculating scores and comparing scores to a threshold would just represents storing or retrieving information in memory, and is well-understood, routine and conventional. It further represents applying the abstract idea with a generic computer component. Further, maintaining a parameter setting is a mental processing because it only involves decision not to change a parameter setting. Therefore, the examiner fails to see an improvement to chamber matching technology and the overall efficiency and reliability of substrate manufacturing systems.
The improvements that Applicant argues are all directed towards chamber matching and fabrication of substrates in a manufacturing system, however the claims do not appear to reflect this. The examiner suggests amending the claims to incorporate language that actually reflects the technology being used in chamber matching and fabrication of substrates in a manufacturing system that actually solves a technical problem or provides some type of improvement in way beyond just generally indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156