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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 set forth in the amendment submitted 4/29/2026 form the basis of the present examination.
Response to Arguments
The interpretation of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, set forth to the Non-Final Office action mailed on 1/29/2026 has been withdrawn because of the amendment filed on 4/29/2026. However, the interpretation of claim 1 under35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 5, of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, that “In response, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1 has been amended to recite, inter alia, "an outputter structured to output information identifying up to five feature amounts having higher importance among feature amounts in the decision tree" based on the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph 0049 of the present specification - "The graph generator 38 of the analysis device 16 may automatically set an item corresponding to a feature amount having a relatively high importance in a decision tree of a certain category as an item of condition data to be set in the graph image 80 of the category. For example, the graph generator 38 may set, on the horizontal axis of the graph image 80, an item of condition data whose importance in the decision tree is within a predetermined rank (for example, up to the top 5). As a result, it is possible to automatically provide the graph image 80 capable of efficiently confirming the validity of the influence information 76 derived from the decision tree").
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the above rejections to claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, be withdrawn.”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5, of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered and is partially persuasive. In the amendment filed on 4/29/2026, the limitation, “as an item having a large influence on the test results” is deleted which makes the limitation partially clear. However still the limitation, “information identifying up to five feature amounts having higher importance among feature amounts in the decision tree”. Claim still does not recite how the decision tree is generated, what steps are used and what is a feature amount and how the feature amount is created from first data. It is not clear how the outputter outputs five feature amount and how it is determined that which feature amount has the higher importance. Applicant in the response to the argument section explains that graph generator and graph image does the function of selecting higher importance feature amount from the decision tree. How ever one of an ordinary skill will not understand without the knowledge of the specification that how the decision tree does the function of identifying higher importance feature amount. Claim is rejected in light of the specification however the limitation is not incorporated from the specification to understand the claim language and therefore the amended claim limitation is still not clear. Claims 1-7 still can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 6-7, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 6 of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, that, “Regarding Step 2A - Prong 1, the Examiner asserts that the claim recites an abstract idea involving data collection and analysis. However, it is respectfully submitted that amended claim 1 specifically recites processing identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude. Such information (e.g., jig IDs, operator IDs, or device IDs) lacks inherent mathematical order and cannot be meaningfully processed using conventional numerical or mathematical techniques.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the amended claim is not directed to a mathematical concept or a mental process, as the claimed processing cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper due to the lack of inherent ordering or quantitative relationship among the identification information.”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 6, of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 1/29/2026 have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Claim recites, “a first acquirer structured to acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips, the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude; a second acquirer structured to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process” which describe data gathering of a test result either by a mathematical relation or by looking at the screen of an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer. Claim 1 is now amended and recites, “the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude”. However, the amended limitation makes the data clear that its not a mathematical relationship but it’s a data gathering in the computer screen or from an spectrum analyzer or oscilloscope. Therefore, still the steps recite the abstract idea. Applicant argument “it is respectfully submitted that the amended claim is not directed to a mathematical concept or a mental process, as the claimed processing cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper due to the lack of inherent ordering or quantitative relationship among the identification information” is persuasive that the data gathering is not mathematical relationship but still it’s an abstract idea as explained above.
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 6-7 of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, that, “Regarding Step 2A - Prong 2, even assuming, arguendo, that the claim recites an abstract idea, claim 1 integrates any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Specifically, the claim is directed to a semiconductor test result analysis device that processes data generated in a semiconductor test process and identifies feature amounts that influence test results. The claimed invention applies decision tree analysis to non-numerical identification information associated with a test environment, thereby enabling identification (Remarks-Page 6) of defect factors originating from specific testing conditions (e.g., particular equipment, operators, or test configurations).
This constitutes a specific technical application in the field of semiconductor testing and improves the ability to analyze test results by enabling analysis of data that is inherently difficult to process using conventional numerical approaches.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the claim is not merely directed to an abstract idea, but to a concrete technological application that improves semiconductor test analysis.
Regarding Step 2B, claim 1 further recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claimed invention requires: processing non-numerical identification information as feature amounts in a decision tree; and outputting a limited number of feature amounts (up to five) based on their importance. This combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Conventional data analysis techniques, including those disclosed in the cited prior art, rely on numerical or ordered data. In contrast, the present invention enables analysis of non-numerical, unordered identification data, thereby providing a new and improved capability in semiconductor test analysis.
The claimed configuration, including the specific handling of non-numerical identification information and the selection of influential feature amounts, provides a meaningful technical improvement and constitutes an inventive concept.
Further, it is respectfully submitted that independent claims 6 and 7 have been amended similar to amended independent claim 1.
For at least the reasons set forth above, claims 1-7 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested (Remarks-Page 7)”.
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 6-7, of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 1/29/2026 have been fully considered and is not persuasive. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than just the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, to simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception (1.e., requiring no more than generic computer to perform generic functions including data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible. After getting the result from the outputter, the result is not used for any improvement in the semiconductor test result analysis device. Claim just recites identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively higher importance among feature amounts in the decision tree. However, claim does not recite what’s the purpose of identifying these five feature amounts, where the values are used and why it is important to get these five feature amounts. Claim only recites just displaying the output after doing some program in the computer which can not be the practical applicant or cannot be an improvement of the system. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. (For expedite prosecution examiner suggest to incorporate some practical application as explained in paragraph 37 of the specification of the present application (as filed) to overcome the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more). Claim 1 still can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as set forth below. Similarly, applicant’s argument for independent claims 6 and 7 are also not persuasive because of the same reason as stated above. However, because of the amendment the rejection of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 1/29/2026 has been updated, and maintained as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 7-10, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shirai et al. (Hereinafter, “Shirai”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20020170022 A1 and the rejection of Claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Hereinafter, “Wang”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20080281566 A1 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 8-9 of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection of Claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Hereinafter, “Wang”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20080281566 A1, that, “Regarding the above limitations, it is respectfully not seen where the cited reference discloses or anticipates the claimed structure quoted above. ………".
However, it is noted that Shirai merely discloses that "wafer numbers" in Shirai cited by the Examiner are variables that possess an inherent mathematical order. In other words, Shirai does not disclose or suggest processing identification information that lacks such mathematical order using a decision tree, as set forth in amended claim 1 (Remarks-Page 8).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Shirai does not disclose "a first acquirer structured to acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips, the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude," as claimed in amended claim 1.
The distinction noted above is important and non-trivial for obviousness purposes because it results in significant advantages over conventional devices. For example, by inputting non-numerical data (the aforementioned identification information)-which is inherently difficult to analyze-into a decision tree as feature amounts, it is possible to identify defects originating specifically from the testing environment. This effect is not achievable by the disclosures of Shirai.
Thus, it is respectfully asserted that the cited reference does not disclose all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 6 and 7. Therefore, it is respectfully asserted that independent claims 1, 6 and 7 is allowable (Remarks-Page 9)”.
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 8-9, of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection of Claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shirai et al. (Hereinafter, “Shirai”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20020170022 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 1/29/2026 have been fully considered and is not persuasive. However, applicant has amended the claims and added the limitation in independent claim 1, “the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude……………. an outputter structured to output, information identifying up to five feature amounts having higher importance among feature amounts in the decision tree” which necessitates a new ground of rejection. Therefore, Shirai is reapplied to meet at least the amended limitation of claim 1 as set forth below. Applicant’s argument. “However, it is noted that Shirai merely discloses that "wafer numbers" in Shirai cited by the Examiner are variables that possess an inherent mathematical order. In other words, Shirai does not disclose or suggest processing identification information that lacks such mathematical order using a decision tree, as set forth in amended claim 1” is not persuasive. Shirai discloses, “As one example of the data distribution characteristic amount, an in-lot data distribution characteristic in the yield analysis of the semiconductor data will be explained. FIG. 7 is a table showing information obtained by paying attention to a variation in attribute values of wafers. Here, the independent variable is a wafer number, and the dependent variable is the original data, such as yield, category yield or various measurement values; Paragraph [0085] Line 1-8”. Shirai discloses different characteristics can be extracted either discrete or continuous. Discrete value can be any type of values either number or type of animal or food which is the identification information of the items. Shirai also discloses to determine wafer number which is a kind of identification information of the wafer. Claim does not recite any specific identification information. Amy data that represents identification can be considered as the identification information. Shirai discloses, “The analysis tool group 27 is to perform an analysis with respect to the original data in the original data group 42, the data distribution characteristic extracted by the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21, or the output result of the analysis tool group 27. The analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27 is fed back to the unit 22 which selects a data distribution characteristic amount to be analyzed and the original data group 42. The output of the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21 is also fed back to the original data group 42 (Paragraph [0082] Line 6-15)”. Therefore, Shirai discloses data characteristics which is the wafer number for example is extracted from the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21 and which is analyzed by the analysis tool group 27 perform an analysis with respect to the original data in the original data group 42, the data distribution characteristic extracted by the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive. Shirai still can be applied to meet the amended limitation of claim 1.
Applicant’s argument, “The distinction noted above is important and non-trivial for obviousness purposes because it results in significant advantages over conventional devices. For example, by inputting non-numerical data (the aforementioned identification information)-which is inherently difficult to analyze-into a decision tree as feature amounts, it is possible to identify defects originating specifically from the testing environment. This effect is not achievable by the disclosures of Shirai” is not persuasive. Claim does not recite this limitation. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable.
In response to Applicant’s argument that does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., the distinction noted above is important and non-trivial for obviousness purposes because it results in significant advantages over conventional devices. For example, by inputting non-numerical data (the aforementioned identification information)-which is inherently difficult to analyze-into a decision tree as feature amounts, it is possible to identify defects originating specifically from the testing environment.) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Although the limitation is in the specification however the limitation is not incorporated from the specification to reject the claim. Shirai may disclose the similar structure for different purpose but still Shirai can be applied to reject the claim limitation unless the limitation is recited in the claim.
In response to Applicant's argument that the distinction noted above is important and non-trivial for obviousness purposes because it results in significant advantages over conventional devices. For example, by inputting non-numerical data (the aforementioned identification information)-which is inherently difficult to analyze-into a decision tree as feature amounts, it is possible to identify defects originating specifically from the testing environment., applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although these limitations (the distinction noted above is important and non-trivial for obviousness purposes because it results in significant advantages over conventional devices. For example, by inputting non-numerical data (the aforementioned identification information)-which is inherently difficult to analyze-into a decision tree as feature amounts, it is possible to identify defects originating specifically from the testing environment.) are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below).
Therefore, the Shirai can still be applied to meet the amended limitation as explained above for independent claims 1 and 6-7, as set forth below. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. See the rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s argument regarding dependent claims 2-5 is also not persuasive because of the same reason as stated above.
Therefore Claim(s) 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shirai et al. (Hereinafter, “Shirai”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20020170022 A1, as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 9-10 of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection of Claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Hereinafter, “Wang”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20080281566 A1, that, “As discussed above, it is respectfully asserted that independent claims 1, 6 and 7 define over Shirai.
Further, it is submitted that Wang does not cure the deficiency of Shirai. For example, it is noted that Wang also does not disclose or suggest processing identification information that lacks such mathematical order using a decision tree, as set forth in the amended claims (Remarks-Page 9).
Accordingly, it is respectfully asserted that claims 1, 6 and 7 defines over Shirai and Wang, and dependent claims 2-5 also defines over the cited references due to the dependency from claim 1 (Remarks-Page 10).”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 9-10, of the remarks, filed on 4/29/2026, regarding the rejection of Claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Hereinafter, “Wang”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20080281566 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 1/29/2026 have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Because Wang discloses, “On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit. The yield manager 30 may process the data set, generate a model, apply one or more statistical tools to the model and data set, and generate an output that may indicate, for example, the key factors/parameters that affected the yield of the devices that generated the current data set; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8). Wang discloses a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data which could be the identification information of the items. Claim does not recite any specific identification information. Any data that represents identification can be considered as the identification information. Therefore, the model data set or the data from the machine A, B, C can be considered as the identification information to identify machines A, B, C. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Wang can be reapplied to meet the amended limitation of claim 1. Similar for independent claims 6-7 as the claim recites similar amendment to claim 1.
Therefore Claim(s) 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Hereinafter, “Wang”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20080281566 A1, as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
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 claim 1 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: “first acquirer”, “a second acquirer”, and “a decision tree generator”, “an outputter” in claim 1.
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.
In this application in claim 1 the recited “a first acquirer” coupled with the functional language “to acquire first data”.
In this application in claim 1 the recited the recited “a second acquirer” coupled with the functional language “to acquire second data”.
In this application in claim 1 the recited “a decision tree generator” coupled with the functional language “to generate a decision tree”.
In this application in claim 1 the recited “an outputter” coupled with the functional language “to output as an item”.
All these limitations in claim 1 have no structural meaning and are considered a generic placeholder.
In the present application (PGPUB NO: US 20240393389 A1) discloses:
In Paragraph [0027], “The data processor 20 includes a condition data acquirer 30, a test result acquirer 32, a decision tree generator 34, an estimator 36, a graph generator 38, and an analysis result outputter 40. Functions of the plurality of functional blocks included in the data processor 20 may be implemented in a computer program, and the computer program may be installed in a storage of the analysis device 16. A processor (CPU or the like) of the analysis device 16 may perform the functions of the plurality of functional blocks by reading and executing the computer program in a main memory.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an outputter structured to output, information identifying up to five feature amount having a higher importance in the decision tree.” The meaning of the language “identifying up to five feature amount having a higher importance in the decision tree” is unclear. It is not clear how the higher importance in the decision tree is calculated and which feature amount has the higher importance. It is not clear how the decision tree is created and how the feature amount is calculated from the first data. It is not clear how to determine information of a feature amount having a higher importance in the decision tree. It is not clear how to understand which feature amount has the higher importance and how the higher importance is measured and it is not clear what actually the “higher importance” means. Claim does not recite which information has the relatively high importance in the decision tree. It is not clear which scale or values are used to determine higher importance. Therefore, the limitation is not clear. Clarification is required.
For purposes of the present examination the limitation “identifying up to five feature amount having a higher importance in the decision tree” is construed to mean as the five characteristics determined from the decision tree. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, because of the same reason as stated above.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a semiconductor test result analysis device comprising: …….and, therefore, is an apparatus.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips; …. to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process, which describe data gathering of a test result.
The claim 1 as a whole are directed to a methods comprising abstract ideas involving mathematical algorithms/procedures/relationships/correlations which have been determined by the courts as being directed to abstract ideas. Acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips, the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude; ….to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process; …to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value- which are directed to of data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; comparing new and stored information using rules to identify options, organizing and storing information which have been identified by the courts as extra-solution activity or using the generic functions of a computer and/or software to perform well known functions of a circuit design all of which have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas and are modeled in some forms of mathematical algorithms/procedures/relationships/correlations as is well known in the art of computer-aided analysis.
The claim recites data gathering by looking at the screen of an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer. Namely, acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips; …. to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process is the abstract idea.
Claim recites, “to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value; and to output, as an item having a large influence on the test results, information of a feature amount having a relatively high importance in the decision tree, which indicates mental steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by looking at the screen of an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer. For example, language, “generating” some date and then input in the system in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually inputting the values in the model in a computer.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional element: a first and second acquirer, an outputter. The claim has additional elements, namely a first and second acquirer just for data gathering and then outputter as the mental step and is therefore insignificant data gathering. The claim, as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea to be a practical application. The claim is not specific to any practical application. There is no context given for what is being done with the information of the feature amount.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer, memory and/or one or more processors are generic computer components known in the industry and the steps implemented by the method, computer-readable storage medium, and apparatus are directed to simply appending well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception (i.e., requiring no more than generic computer to perform generic functions including data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; comparing new and stored information using rules to identify options, organizing and storing information; retrieving data from the data storage or outputting data to the storage or to the screen for user interactive input/output).
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, to simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception (1.e., requiring no more than generic computer to perform generic functions including data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 6
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites semiconductor test result analysis method comprising: …….and, therefore, is a method.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips; …. to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process, which describe data gathering of a test result.
The claim 1 as a whole are directed to a methods comprising abstract ideas involving mathematical algorithms/procedures/relationships/correlations which have been determined by the courts as being directed to abstract ideas. Acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips, the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude; ….to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process; …to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value- which are directed to of data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; comparing new and stored information using rules to identify options, organizing and storing information which have been identified by the courts as extra-solution activity or using the generic functions of a computer and/or software to perform well known functions of a circuit design all of which have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas and are modeled in some forms of mathematical algorithms/procedures/relationships/correlations as is well known in the art of computer-aided analysis.
The claim recites data gathering by looking at the screen of an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer. Namely, acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips; …. to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process is the abstract idea.
Claim recites, “to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value; and to output, as an item having a large influence on the test results, information of a feature amount having a relatively high importance in the decision tree, which indicates mental steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by looking at the screen of an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer. For example, language, “generating” some date and then input in the system in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually inputting the values in the model the values by a piece of pen and paper or in a computer.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional element: a computer. The claim, as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea to be a practical application. The claim is not specific to any practical application. There is no context given for what is being done with the information of the feature amount.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer, memory and/or one or more processors are generic computer components known in the industry and the steps implemented by the method, computer-readable storage medium, and apparatus are directed to simply appending well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception (i.e., requiring no more than generic computer to perform generic functions including data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; comparing new and stored information using rules to identify options, organizing and storing information; retrieving data from the data storage or outputting data to the storage or to the screen for user interactive input/output).
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, to simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception (1.e., requiring no more than generic computer to perform generic functions including data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 7
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium encoded with a computer program……..and, therefore, is an apparatus.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips; …. to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process, which describe data gathering of a test result.
The claim 1 as a whole are directed to a methods comprising abstract ideas involving mathematical algorithms/procedures/relationships/correlations which have been determined by the courts as being directed to abstract ideas. Acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips, the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude; ….to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process; …to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value- which are directed to of data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; comparing new and stored information using rules to identify options, organizing and storing information which have been identified by the courts as extra-solution activity or using the generic functions of a computer and/or software to perform well known functions of a circuit design all of which have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas and are modeled in some forms of mathematical algorithms/procedures/relationships/correlations as is well known in the art of computer-aided analysis.
The claim recites data gathering by looking at the screen of an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer. Namely, acquire first data of a plurality of items related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips; …. to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process is the abstract idea.
Claim recites, “to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value; and to output, as an item having a large influence on the test results, information of a feature amount having a relatively high importance in the decision tree, which indicates mental steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by looking at the screen of an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer. For example, language, “generating” some date and then input in the system in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually inputting the values in the model the values by a piece of pen and paper or in a computer.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional element: a computer. The claim has additional elements, namely a computer just for data gathering and then output as the mental step and is therefore insignificant data gathering. The claim, as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea to be a practical application. The claim is not specific to any practical application. There is no context given for what is being done with the information of the feature amount.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer, memory and/or one or more processors are generic computer components known in the industry and the steps implemented by the method, computer-readable storage medium, and apparatus are directed to simply appending well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception (i.e., requiring no more than generic computer to perform generic functions including data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; comparing new and stored information using rules to identify options, organizing and storing information; retrieving data from the data storage or outputting data to the storage or to the screen for user interactive input/output).
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, to simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception (1.e., requiring no more than generic computer to perform generic functions including data gathering, collecting and comparing known information; collecting, displaying, and manipulating data; collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; obtaining and comparing intangible data; organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the recited limitations, considered both individually and as an ordered combination with the claim as a whole, fail to establish to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
For example, claim 2 recites, “wherein the first data includes an item whose value is a discrete value” which is as insignificant data gathering information and therefore is an abstract idea. The claim, as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea to be a practical application. The claim is not specific to any practical application. The claim is ineligible.
For example, claim 3 recites, “wherein the first data includes at least one of (1) a pushing amount of a probe card into each of the semiconductor chips, (2) a jig ID, (3) an ID of an operator in charge of a test, (4) an ID of a semiconductor test device, (5) a lot ID of each of the semiconductor chips, (6) coordinates of each of the semiconductor chips on a wafer, and (7) the number of tests.” which is as insignificant data gathering information and therefore is an abstract idea. The claim, as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea to be a practical application. The claim is not specific to any practical application. The claim is ineligible.
For example, claim 4 recites, “wherein the second data indicates pass/fail for each category determined in advance as the test results, the decision tree generator generates a decision tree for each category, and the outputter outputs information of a feature amount having a relatively high importance in the decision tree for each category” which is which is a mental step for determining in advance as the test results, the decision tree generator generates a decision tree for each category and can be done mentally or in a generic computer component and therefore is an abstract idea. The claim, as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea to be a practical application. The claim is not specific to any practical application. The claim is ineligible.
For example, claim 5 recites, “wherein the outputter outputs information based on accuracy of classification by the decision tree together with the information of a feature amount having a relatively high importance in the decision tree.” which is as insignificant data gathering information and therefore is an abstract idea. The claim, as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea to be a practical application. The claim is not specific to any practical application. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shirai et al. (Hereinafter, “Shirai”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20020170022 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Shirai teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device (A yield analysis of semiconductor data will be explained as an example. Particularly, as in the process data analysis, in the case where reference data for deciding measures for improving the quality and productivity from the analysis result is to be obtained; Paragraph [0002] Line 1-5; FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing one example of the functional configuration of a data analysis apparatus, realized by the computer system having the configuration shown in FIG. 4; Paragraph [0079] Line 1-4) comprising:
a first acquirer [21] (unit 21 as the first acquirer) structured to acquire first data [41] (database 41 including a plurality of original data as the first data) of a plurality of items (This data analysis apparatus has an original data group 42 comprising database 41 including a plurality of original data, as shown in FIG. 5. This database 41 is built in the memory 4 of the computer system shown in FIG. 4; Paragraph [0079] Line 4-8; a characteristic data distribution related to various measurement results and yield of chips in a wafer face and wafers in a lot; Paragraph [0004] Line 9-11) related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips [Step S1 in Figure 9] (The data analysis apparatus comprises a unit 21 which quantitatively evaluates and extracts at least one data distribution characteristic existing in the original data group 42; Paragraph [0080] Line 1-4; As shown in FIG. 9, when this data analysis method is started, at first, data to be analyzed, for example, yield value and various measurement values, is selected and extracted from the original data group 42 (step S1); Paragraph [0095] Line 5-8);
the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude (Various characteristics can be extracted by the structure of the data group to be extracted, but the processing related to which characteristic amount is to be extracted may be incorporated in the program, to suit the object, or a file defining the characteristic amount to be extracted may be prepared, and the file is read; Paragraph [0084] Line 1-6; As one example of the data distribution characteristic amount, an in-lot data distribution characteristic in the yield analysis of the semiconductor data will be explained. FIG. 7 is a table showing information obtained by paying attention to a variation in attribute values of wafers. Here, the independent variable is a wafer number, and the dependent variable is the original data, such as yield, category yield or various measurement values; Paragraph [0085] Line 1-8; Shirai discloses different characteristics can be extracted either discrete or continuous. Discrete value can be any type of values either number or type of animal or food which is the identification information of the items. Shirai also discloses to determine wafer number which is a kind of identification information of the wafer);
a second acquirer [22] (unit 22 as the second acquirer) structured to acquire second data [Data from unit 21 as the second data] indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process [Step S2 in Figure 9] (A unit 22 which selects a characteristic amount to be analyzed, from the extracted at least one data distribution characteristic amount; Paragraph [0080] Line 4-6; Subsequently, processing for extracting at least one data distribution characteristic is performed with respect to the extracted data (step S2); Paragraph [0095] Line 8-11);
a decision tree generator [23+24] (unit 23+24 as the decision tree generator) structured to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value [Step S3, S4] (a unit 23 which performs data mining by means of a regression tree analysis method or the like, by designating the data distribution characteristic amount selected as the object to be analyzed, as the target variable, to thereby extract a rule file 24 of characteristics and regularity latent in the data distribution, and an analysis tool group 27, such as a statistical analysis component 25 and a diagram creation component 26, which analyze the distribution characteristic of the original data, by using the extracted rule file 24; Paragraph [0080] Line 6-15; The above-described unit 23 which extracts the rule file 24 is to perform data mining with respect to the original data in the original data group 42, the data distribution characteristic extracted by the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21, or the analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27; Paragraph [0082] Line 1-6; The data distribution characteristic amount to be analyzed is then selected, and data mining such as the regression tree analysis is performed, designating it as the target variable (step S3). After the regression tree analysis has been completed with respect to all the data distribution characteristics extracted at step S2 (step S4); Paragraph [0096] Line 1-6); and
an outputter [3] in Figure 4 structured to output (a display unit and a printer) (The extracted rule file 24 is stored in the memory 4, and output by the output unit 3, such as a display unit and a printer. Decision making 5 is performed based on the analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27; Paragraph [0081] Line 4-7) information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree (Step [S5+S6]) (The analysis tool group 27 is to perform an analysis with respect to the original data in the original data group 42, the data distribution characteristic extracted by the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21, or the output result of the analysis tool group 27. The analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27 is fed back to the unit 22 which selects a data distribution characteristic amount to be analyzed and the original data group 42. The output of the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21 is also fed back to the original data group 42; Paragraph [0082] Line 6-15; Further, it becomes possible to improve the accuracy (reliability) and the analysis efficiency of the regression tree analysis and perform more detailed analysis, by performing the regression tree analysis again, by applying grouping of explanatory variables having a high independence degree; Paragraph [0173] Line 1-6; the analysis result is output, and the engineer confirms it (step S5). Then, the engineer makes a decision based on the analysis result (step S6); Paragraph [0096] Line 6-9; Sixteen characteristic items defined here will be explained briefly. The characteristic amount of (1) is a mean value of yields and various measurement values of all wafers in the same lot. The characteristic amount of (2) is a standard deviation value such as yields and various measurement values of all wafers in the same lot. The characteristic amount of (3) is a correlation coefficient between the wafer number of wafers in the same lot and the yield and various measurement values, and the way of calculation of this correlation coefficient is determined beforehand according to the object of the analysis and the purpose thereof. The characteristic amount of (4) is a value of the y-axis section at the time of approximating the relation between x and y to a linear equation y=b.multidot.x+a, designating the wafer number of a wafer in the same lot as x, and yield and various measurement value as y; Paragraph [0087] Line 1-16; Paragraph [0088]; therefore, information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree. Claim does not recite which information has the relatively high importance in the decision tree therefore the characteristics disclosed by Shirai can be considered as the higher importance in the decision tree as explained above).
Regarding claim 2, Shirai teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device,
wherein the first data [41] includes an item whose value is a discrete value (The data distribution obtained by using various statistical analysis tools and table creation tools, to express the characteristic amount of the data distribution by a discrete value; Paragraph [0006] Line 1-4; Therefore, in the first embodiment, the variation pattern, such as yield value, with respect to the wafer number is used as the data distribution characteristic to perform analysis, over a plurality of lots. There is shown here an example in which multilateral analysis is performed with respect to a test substitution Nch transistor threshold voltage VT_N2 (hereinafter simply abbreviated as VT_N2), being an important electrical characteristic having a large influence on the property of the product; Paragraph [0097] Line 9-17; first data can be a wafer number which is a discrete value).
Regarding claim 3, Shirai teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device,
Wherein the first data includes at least one of (1) a pushing amount of a probe card into each of the semiconductor chips, (2) a jig ID, (3) an ID of an operator in charge of a test, (4) an ID of a semiconductor test device, (5) a lot ID of each of the semiconductor chips, (6) coordinates of each of the semiconductor chips on a wafer, and (7) the number of tests (Figure 11, 12, 13, 14 shows the number of tests) (FIG. 11 shows a histogram of VT_N2 data obtained from all wafers as a specific example; Paragraph [0028] Line 1-2; FIG. 12 shows a box and whisker chart in which all the VT_N2 data is displayed for each wafer number, as a specific example; Paragraph [0029] Line 1-3; FIG. 13 is a diagram showing the result of performing regression tree analysis, by designating a mean value of VT_N2 in each lot as the target variable, and an apparatus name used in each step as the explanatory variable, as a specific example; Paragraph [0030] Line 1-5; FIG. 14 is a diagram showing an example of a statistic list for evaluation with respect to the result of the regression tree analysis shown in FIG. 13; Paragraph [0031] Line 1-3; As one example of the data distribution characteristic amount, an in-lot data distribution characteristic in the yield analysis of the semiconductor data will be explained. FIG. 7 is a table showing information obtained by paying attention to a variation in attribute values of wafers. Here, the independent variable is a wafer number, and the dependent variable is the original data, such as yield, category yield or various measurement values; Paragraph [0085] Line 1-8).
Regarding claim 4, Shirai teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device,
wherein the second data indicates pass/fail for each category determined in advance as the test results (As a result of performing detailed investigation actually with respect to the PM2 machine, based on the above-described analysis result, it has been found that a temperature distribution difference in the furnace of the PM2 machine is larger than the PM1 machine and the PM3 machine. Further, it has been found that it is due to the deterioration of a thermocouple, and the regular check method has been optimized. From the result of a regression tree analysis performed designating a lot yield as the target variable and the used apparatus name in each step as the explanatory variable, it has not been found that the PM2 machine is a factor causing a decrease in the yield. That is to say, the factor causing a yield decrease, which does not clearly appear in the yield value, is clarified according to the method of the present invention, in which a factor causing a significant difference in the standard deviation or the like of the electrical characteristic value in a lot is analyzed. In the first embodiment, edition of stored data, execution of the regression tree analysis and quantitative evaluation of the result by means of a peculiar method are executed automatically; Paragraph [0111] Line 1-11; From the result of a regression tree analysis performed designating a lot yield as the target variable and the used apparatus name in each step as the explanatory variable, it has not been found that the PM2 machine is a factor causing a decrease in the yield which is the pass or fail of the category of the test results),
the decision tree generator generates a decision tree for each category (Since it has been found that a difference in the used apparatus in ST3 affects the yield independently of other explanatory variables, the regression tree analysis is performed separately, by dividing the wafers into a wafer group by means of the apparatus group in ST3 where the yield is defective (defective wafer group, using S3M2 and S3M3), and a wafer group by means of the apparatus group in ST3 where the yield is excellent (excellent wafer group, using S3M1 and S3M4). The regression tree diagram as the result thereof is shown in FIG. 54 and FIG. 55; Paragraph [0169] Line 1-10), and
the outputter outputs information of a feature amount having a relatively high
importance in the decision tree for each category (FIG. 54 is a regression tree diagram showing the result of the regression tree analysis using the defective wafer group, and constituted by node n1500 to node n1506. FIG. 55 is a regression tree diagram showing the result of the regression tree analysis using the excellent wafer group, and constituted by node n1600 to node n1606; Paragraph [0170] Line 1-6; Paragraph [0171]).
Regarding claim 5, Shirai teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device,
wherein the outputter outputs information based on accuracy of classification by the decision tree together with the information of a feature amount having a relatively high importance in the decision tree (FIG. 54 is a regression tree diagram showing the result of the regression tree analysis using the defective wafer group, and constituted by node n1500 to node n1506. FIG. 55 is a regression tree diagram showing the result of the regression tree analysis using the excellent wafer group, and constituted by node n1600 to node n1606; Paragraph [0170] Line 1-6; Since it has been found that a difference in the used apparatus in ST3 affects the yield independently of other explanatory variables, the regression tree analysis is performed separately, by dividing the wafers into a wafer group by means of the apparatus group in ST3 where the yield is defective (defective wafer group, using S3M2 and S3M3), and a wafer group by means of the apparatus group in ST3 where the yield is excellent (excellent wafer group, using S3M1 and S3M4). The regression tree diagram as the result thereof is shown in FIG. 54 and FIG. 55; Paragraph [0169] Line 1-10; The first branch in the defective wafer group in FIG. 54 is the same with the whole wafer group in FIG. 48. It is presumed that the yield is considerably affected by a wafer extremely defective compared to other wafers, taking into consideration that the defective wafer group in the uppermost layer in the regression tree diagram in FIG. 48 is few, such as n=39, which is one factor making the analysis difficult. In the excellent wafer group in FIG. 55, it is seen that a factor which can be hardly seen due to the defective apparatus in ST3 step has been newly found; Paragraph [0171] Line 1-10).
Regarding claim 6, Shirai teaches a semiconductor test result analysis method (A yield analysis of semiconductor data will be explained as an example. Particularly, as in the process data analysis, in the case where reference data for deciding measures for improving the quality and productivity from the analysis result is to be obtained; Paragraph [0002] Line 1-5; FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing one example of the functional configuration of a data analysis apparatus, realized by the computer system having the configuration shown in FIG. 4; Paragraph [0079] Line 1-4) comprising:
causing a computer (FIG. 4 is a diagram showing one example of a hardware configuration of a computer system used for executing a data analysis method; Paragraph [0078] Line 1-3) to acquire to acquire first data [41] (database 41 including a plurality of original data as the first data) of a plurality of items (This data analysis apparatus has an original data group 42 comprising database 41 including a plurality of original data, as shown in FIG. 5. This database 41 is built in the memory 4 of the computer system shown in FIG. 4; Paragraph [0079] Line 4-8; a characteristic data distribution related to various measurement results and yield of chips in a wafer face and wafers in a lot; Paragraph [0004] Line 9-11) related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips [Step S1 in Figure 9] (The data analysis apparatus comprises a unit 21 which quantitatively evaluates and extracts at least one data distribution characteristic existing in the original data group 42; Paragraph [0080] Line 1-4; As shown in FIG. 9, when this data analysis method is started, at first, data to be analyzed, for example, yield value and various measurement values, is selected and extracted from the original data group 42 (step S1); Paragraph [0095] Line 5-8);
the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude (Various characteristics can be extracted by the structure of the data group to be extracted, but the processing related to which characteristic amount is to be extracted may be incorporated in the program, to suit the object, or a file defining the characteristic amount to be extracted may be prepared, and the file is read; Paragraph [0084] Line 1-6; As one example of the data distribution characteristic amount, an in-lot data distribution characteristic in the yield analysis of the semiconductor data will be explained. FIG. 7 is a table showing information obtained by paying attention to a variation in attribute values of wafers. Here, the independent variable is a wafer number, and the dependent variable is the original data, such as yield, category yield or various measurement values; Paragraph [0085] Line 1-8; Shirai discloses different characteristics can be extracted either discrete or continuous. Discrete value can be any type of values either number or type of animal or food which is the identification information of the items. Shirai also discloses to determine wafer number which is a kind of identification information of the wafer);
causing the computer to acquire second data [Data from unit 21 as the second data] indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process [Step S2 in Figure 9] (A unit 22 which selects a characteristic amount to be analyzed, from the extracted at least one data distribution characteristic amount; Paragraph [0080] Line 4-6; Subsequently, processing for extracting at least one data distribution characteristic is performed with respect to the extracted data (step S2); Paragraph [0095] Line 8-11);
causing the computer to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value [Step S3, S4] (a unit 23 which performs data mining by means of a regression tree analysis method or the like, by designating the data distribution characteristic amount selected as the object to be analyzed, as the target variable, to thereby extract a rule file 24 of characteristics and regularity latent in the data distribution, and an analysis tool group 27, such as a statistical analysis component 25 and a diagram creation component 26, which analyze the distribution characteristic of the original data, by using the extracted rule file 24; Paragraph [0080] Line 6-15; The above-described unit 23 which extracts the rule file 24 is to perform data mining with respect to the original data in the original data group 42, the data distribution characteristic extracted by the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21, or the analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27; Paragraph [0082] Line 1-6; The data distribution characteristic amount to be analyzed is then selected, and data mining such as the regression tree analysis is performed, designating it as the target variable (step S3). After the regression tree analysis has been completed with respect to all the data distribution characteristics extracted at step S2 (step S4); Paragraph [0096] Line 1-6); and
causing the computer to output (a display unit and a printer) (The extracted rule file 24 is stored in the memory 4, and output by the output unit 3, such as a display unit and a printer. Decision making 5 is performed based on the analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27; Paragraph [0081] Line 4-7) information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree (Step [S5+S6]) (The analysis tool group 27 is to perform an analysis with respect to the original data in the original data group 42, the data distribution characteristic extracted by the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21, or the output result of the analysis tool group 27. The analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27 is fed back to the unit 22 which selects a data distribution characteristic amount to be analyzed and the original data group 42. The output of the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21 is also fed back to the original data group 42; Paragraph [0082] Line 6-15; Further, it becomes possible to improve the accuracy (reliability) and the analysis efficiency of the regression tree analysis and perform more detailed analysis, by performing the regression tree analysis again, by applying grouping of explanatory variables having a high independence degree; Paragraph [0173] Line 1-6; the analysis result is output, and the engineer confirms it (step S5). Then, the engineer makes a decision based on the analysis result (step S6); Paragraph [0096] Line 6-9; Sixteen characteristic items defined here will be explained briefly. The characteristic amount of (1) is a mean value of yields and various measurement values of all wafers in the same lot. The characteristic amount of (2) is a standard deviation value such as yields and various measurement values of all wafers in the same lot. The characteristic amount of (3) is a correlation coefficient between the wafer number of wafers in the same lot and the yield and various measurement values, and the way of calculation of this correlation coefficient is determined beforehand according to the object of the analysis and the purpose thereof. The characteristic amount of (4) is a value of the y-axis section at the time of approximating the relation between x and y to a linear equation y=b.multidot.x+a, designating the wafer number of a wafer in the same lot as x, and yield and various measurement value as y; Paragraph [0087] Line 1-16; Paragraph [0088]; therefore, information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree. Claim does not recite which information has the higher importance in the decision tree therefore the characteristics disclosed by Shirai can be considered as the higher importance in the decision tree as explained above).
Regarding claim 7, Shirai teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium encoded with a computer program for causing a computer to realize (a data analysis apparatus, a data analysis method, and computer products; Paragraph [0001] Line 1-2; A yield analysis of semiconductor data will be explained as an example. Particularly, as in the process data analysis, in the case where reference data for deciding measures for improving the quality and productivity from the analysis result is to be obtained; Paragraph [0002] Line 1-5; FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing one example of the functional configuration of a data analysis apparatus, realized by the computer system having the configuration shown in FIG. 4; Paragraph [0079] Line 1-4) comprising:
a function of acquiring first data [41] (database 41 including a plurality of original data as the first data) of a plurality of items (This data analysis apparatus has an original data group 42 comprising database 41 including a plurality of original data, as shown in FIG. 5. This database 41 is built in the memory 4 of the computer system shown in FIG. 4; Paragraph [0079] Line 4-8; a characteristic data distribution related to various measurement results and yield of chips in a wafer face and wafers in a lot; Paragraph [0004] Line 9-11) related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips [Step S1 in Figure 9] (The data analysis apparatus comprises a unit 21 which quantitatively evaluates and extracts at least one data distribution characteristic existing in the original data group 42; Paragraph [0080] Line 1-4; As shown in FIG. 9, when this data analysis method is started, at first, data to be analyzed, for example, yield value and various measurement values, is selected and extracted from the original data group 42 (step S1); Paragraph [0095] Line 5-8);
the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude (Various characteristics can be extracted by the structure of the data group to be extracted, but the processing related to which characteristic amount is to be extracted may be incorporated in the program, to suit the object, or a file defining the characteristic amount to be extracted may be prepared, and the file is read; Paragraph [0084] Line 1-6; As one example of the data distribution characteristic amount, an in-lot data distribution characteristic in the yield analysis of the semiconductor data will be explained. FIG. 7 is a table showing information obtained by paying attention to a variation in attribute values of wafers. Here, the independent variable is a wafer number, and the dependent variable is the original data, such as yield, category yield or various measurement values; Paragraph [0085] Line 1-8; Shirai discloses different characteristics can be extracted either discrete or continuous. Discrete value can be any type of values either number or type of animal or food which is the identification information of the items. Shirai also discloses to determine wafer number which is a kind of identification information of the wafer);
a function of acquiring second data [Data from unit 21 as the second data] indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process [Step S2 in Figure 9] (A unit 22 which selects a characteristic amount to be analyzed, from the extracted at least one data distribution characteristic amount; Paragraph [0080] Line 4-6; Subsequently, processing for extracting at least one data distribution characteristic is performed with respect to the extracted data (step S2); Paragraph [0095] Line 8-11);
a function of generating a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value [Step S3, S4] (a unit 23 which performs data mining by means of a regression tree analysis method or the like, by designating the data distribution characteristic amount selected as the object to be analyzed, as the target variable, to thereby extract a rule file 24 of characteristics and regularity latent in the data distribution, and an analysis tool group 27, such as a statistical analysis component 25 and a diagram creation component 26, which analyze the distribution characteristic of the original data, by using the extracted rule file 24; Paragraph [0080] Line 6-15; The above-described unit 23 which extracts the rule file 24 is to perform data mining with respect to the original data in the original data group 42, the data distribution characteristic extracted by the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21, or the analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27; Paragraph [0082] Line 1-6; The data distribution characteristic amount to be analyzed is then selected, and data mining such as the regression tree analysis is performed, designating it as the target variable (step S3). After the regression tree analysis has been completed with respect to all the data distribution characteristics extracted at step S2 (step S4); Paragraph [0096] Line 1-6); and
a function of outputting [3] in Figure 4 structured to output (a display unit and a printer) (The extracted rule file 24 is stored in the memory 4, and output by the output unit 3, such as a display unit and a printer. Decision making 5 is performed based on the analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27; Paragraph [0081] Line 4-7) information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree (Step [S5+S6]) (The analysis tool group 27 is to perform an analysis with respect to the original data in the original data group 42, the data distribution characteristic extracted by the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21, or the output result of the analysis tool group 27. The analysis result by means of the analysis tool group 27 is fed back to the unit 22 which selects a data distribution characteristic amount to be analyzed and the original data group 42. The output of the data distribution characteristic extraction unit 21 is also fed back to the original data group 42; Paragraph [0082] Line 6-15; Further, it becomes possible to improve the accuracy (reliability) and the analysis efficiency of the regression tree analysis and perform more detailed analysis, by performing the regression tree analysis again, by applying grouping of explanatory variables having a high independence degree; Paragraph [0173] Line 1-6; the analysis result is output, and the engineer confirms it (step S5). Then, the engineer makes a decision based on the analysis result (step S6); Paragraph [0096] Line 6-9; Sixteen characteristic items defined here will be explained briefly. The characteristic amount of (1) is a mean value of yields and various measurement values of all wafers in the same lot. The characteristic amount of (2) is a standard deviation value such as yields and various measurement values of all wafers in the same lot. The characteristic amount of (3) is a correlation coefficient between the wafer number of wafers in the same lot and the yield and various measurement values, and the way of calculation of this correlation coefficient is determined beforehand according to the object of the analysis and the purpose thereof. The characteristic amount of (4) is a value of the y-axis section at the time of approximating the relation between x and y to a linear equation y=b.multidot.x+a, designating the wafer number of a wafer in the same lot as x, and yield and various measurement value as y; Paragraph [0087] Line 1-16; Paragraph [0088]; therefore, information identifying up to five feature amounts having a higher importance in the decision tree. Claim does not recite which information has the higher importance in the decision tree therefore the characteristics disclosed by Shirai can be considered as the higher importance in the decision tree as explained above).
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Hereinafter, “Wang”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20080281566 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device (a system and method for managing a semiconductor manufacturing process and, more particularly, to a system and method for managing yield in a semiconductor fabrication process; Paragraph [0002] Line 1-4; FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a yield management system 10; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-2; FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-2) comprising:
a first acquirer [32] (data processor 32 as the first acquirer) structured to acquire first data of a plurality of items (A yield data set typically has hundreds of different variables. These variables may include both a response variable, Y, and prediction variables, X.sub.1, X.sub.2, . . . , X.sub.m, that may be of a numerical type or a categorical type; Paragraph [0055] Line 5-8) related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips (In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit; Paragraph [0049] Line 3-8; Considered in more detail, as shown in FIG. 2, the data set may be input to a data processor 32 that may optimize and validate the data and remove incomplete data records; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-3);
the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude (On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3)-The values are discrete values); FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit. The yield manager 30 may process the data set, generate a model, apply one or more statistical tools to the model and data set, and generate an output that may indicate, for example, the key factors/parameters that affected the yield of the devices that generated the current data set; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8; Wang discloses a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data which could be the identification information of the items. Claim does not recite any specific identification information. Any data that represents identification can be considered as the identification information. Therefore, the model data set or the data from the machine A, B, C can be considered as the identification information to identify machines A, B, C);
a second acquirer [32] structured to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process (Considered in more detail, as shown in FIG. 2, the data set may be input to a data processor 32 that may optimize and validate the data and remove incomplete data records; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-3);
a decision tree generator (model builder 32 as the decision tree generator) structured to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value (The yield management system 10 in accordance with the various embodiments of the present invention preferably uses a decision-tree-based method to build a yield model. In particular, the method partitions a data set, D, into sub-regions. The decision tree structure may be a hierarchical way to describe a partition of D. It is constructed by successively splitting nodes (as described below), starting with the root node (D), until some stopping criteria are met and the node is declared a terminal node. For each terminal node, a value or a class is assigned to all the cases within the node; Paragraph [0081] Line 1-10; The output from the data processor 32 may be fed into a model builder 34, so that a model of the data set may be automatically generated by the yield manager 30. Once the model builder 34 has generated a model, the user may preferably enter model modifications into the model builder to modify the model based on, for example, past experience with the particular data set; Paragraph [0050] Line 4-10); and
an outputter (tool library 36 as the outputter) structured to output, information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree (Once any user modifications have been incorporated into the model, a final model is output and is preferably made available to a statistical tool library 36. The library 36 may contain one or more different statistical tools that may be used to analyze the final model. The output of the yield manager 30 may be, for example, a listing of one or more factors/parameters that contributed to the yield of the devices that generated the data set being analyzed. As described above, the yield manager 30 is able to simultaneously identify multiple yield factors; Paragraph [0050] Line 10-19; FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8; On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; therefore, information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree. Claim does not recite which information has the relatively high importance in the decision tree therefore the characteristics disclosed by Wang can be considered as the relatively high importance in the decision tree for example: various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device,
wherein the first data includes an item whose value is a discrete value (FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8; On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3)-The values are discrete values).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device,
wherein the first data includes at least one of (1) a pushing amount of a probe card into each of the semiconductor chips, (2) a jig ID, (3) an ID of an operator in charge of a test, (4) an ID of a semiconductor test device, (5) a lot ID of each of the semiconductor chips, (6) coordinates of each of the semiconductor chips on a wafer, and (7) the number of tests (On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit. The yield manager 30 may process the data set, generate a model, apply one or more statistical tools to the model and data set, and generate an output that may indicate, for example, the key factors/parameters that affected the yield of the devices that generated the current data set; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device,
wherein the second data indicates pass/fail for each category determined in advance as the test results (FIG. 5 shows an example of how missing data are preferably treated using data processing disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,229 B1 with the MS value set to 6 and in accordance with data processing employing tiered splitting in accordance with the method of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the original data set 56 contains three prediction variables (P.sub.1, P.sub.2, and P.sub.3) and one response variable (Response) and 13 cases; Paragraph [0062] Line 1-8; With the MS value set to 6, no "bad" columns appear in FIG. 5, because the parameter having the most missing values is P.sub.2, which has only 5 missing values. However, cases 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are "bad" rows; Paragraph [0063] Line 1-4; good or bad as the pass or fail),
the decision tree generator generates a decision tree for each category (The yield management system 10 in accordance with the various embodiments of the present invention preferably uses a decision-tree-based method to build a yield model. In particular, the method partitions a data set, D, into sub-regions. The decision tree structure may be a hierarchical way to describe a partition of D. It is constructed by successively splitting nodes (as described below), starting with the root node (D), until some stopping criteria are met and the node is declared a terminal node. For each terminal node, a value or a class is assigned to all the cases within the node; Paragraph [0081] Line 1-10), and
the outputter outputs information of a feature amount having a relatively high
importance in the decision tree for each category (Once any user modifications have been incorporated into the model, a final model is output and is preferably made available to a statistical tool library 36. The library 36 may contain one or more different statistical tools that may be used to analyze the final model. The output of the yield manager 30 may be, for example, a listing of one or more factors/parameters that contributed to the yield of the devices that generated the data set being analyzed. As described above, the yield manager 30 is able to simultaneously identify multiple yield factors; Paragraph [0050] Line 10-19).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches a semiconductor test result analysis device,
wherein the outputter outputs information based on accuracy of classification by the decision tree together with the information of a feature amount having a relatively high importance in the decision tree (FIG. 14 shows an example of applying a range split rule. In the situation in which the best results are obtained when a parameter is in the middle of its range, the range split rule generates a more accurate model than a traditional decision tree binary split rule of the form X<a. In the example shown in FIG. 14, the split rule for the continuous variable ETEST52 is 0.8789.ltoreq.ETEST52<1.0292 and generates a range split 94. At the same time, by spanning the two extremes of the range of the variable, the range split rule enhances the significance of the variable and makes its impact easier to discern; Paragraph [0096] Line 1-11).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches a semiconductor test result analysis method (a system and method for managing a semiconductor manufacturing process and, more particularly, to a system and method for managing yield in a semiconductor fabrication process; Paragraph [0002] Line 1-4; FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a yield management system 10; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-2; FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-2) comprising:
causing a computer (data processor 32) to acquire first data of a plurality of items (A yield data set typically has hundreds of different variables. These variables may include both a response variable, Y, and prediction variables, X.sub.1, X.sub.2, . . . , X.sub.m, that may be of a numerical type or a categorical type; Paragraph [0055] Line 5-8) related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips (In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit; Paragraph [0049] Line 3-8; Considered in more detail, as shown in FIG. 2, the data set may be input to a data processor 32 that may optimize and validate the data and remove incomplete data records; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-3);
the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude (On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3)-The values are discrete values); FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit. The yield manager 30 may process the data set, generate a model, apply one or more statistical tools to the model and data set, and generate an output that may indicate, for example, the key factors/parameters that affected the yield of the devices that generated the current data set; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8; Wang discloses a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data which could be the identification information of the items. Claim does not recite any specific identification information. Any data that represents identification can be considered as the identification information. Therefore, the model data set or the data from the machine A, B, C can be considered as the identification information to identify machines A, B, C);
causing the computer to acquire second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process (Considered in more detail, as shown in FIG. 2, the data set may be input to a data processor 32 that may optimize and validate the data and remove incomplete data records; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-3);
causing the computer to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value (The yield management system 10 in accordance with the various embodiments of the present invention preferably uses a decision-tree-based method to build a yield model. In particular, the method partitions a data set, D, into sub-regions. The decision tree structure may be a hierarchical way to describe a partition of D. It is constructed by successively splitting nodes (as described below), starting with the root node (D), until some stopping criteria are met and the node is declared a terminal node. For each terminal node, a value or a class is assigned to all the cases within the node; Paragraph [0081] Line 1-10; The output from the data processor 32 may be fed into a model builder 34, so that a model of the data set may be automatically generated by the yield manager 30. Once the model builder 34 has generated a model, the user may preferably enter model modifications into the model builder to modify the model based on, for example, past experience with the particular data set; Paragraph [0050] Line 4-10); and
causing the computer to output information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree (Once any user modifications have been incorporated into the model, a final model is output and is preferably made available to a statistical tool library 36. The library 36 may contain one or more different statistical tools that may be used to analyze the final model. The output of the yield manager 30 may be, for example, a listing of one or more factors/parameters that contributed to the yield of the devices that generated the data set being analyzed. As described above, the yield manager 30 is able to simultaneously identify multiple yield factors; Paragraph [0050] Line 10-19; FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8; On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; therefore, information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree. Claim does not recite which information has the relatively high importance in the decision tree therefore the characteristics disclosed by Wang can be considered as the relatively high importance in the decision tree for example: various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium encoded with a computer program for causing a computer (data processor) to realize (a system and method for managing a semiconductor manufacturing process and, more particularly, to a system and method for managing yield in a semiconductor fabrication process; Paragraph [0002] Line 1-4; FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a yield management system 10; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-2; FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-2)
a function of acquiring first data of a plurality of items (A yield data set typically has hundreds of different variables. These variables may include both a response variable, Y, and prediction variables, X.sub.1, X.sub.2, . . . , X.sub.m, that may be of a numerical type or a categorical type; Paragraph [0055] Line 5-8) related to a test process of a plurality of semiconductor chips (In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit; Paragraph [0049] Line 3-8; Considered in more detail, as shown in FIG. 2, the data set may be input to a data processor 32 that may optimize and validate the data and remove incomplete data records; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-3);
the first data including identification information that is not a numerical value representing an amount or magnitude (On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3)-The values are discrete values); FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit. The yield manager 30 may process the data set, generate a model, apply one or more statistical tools to the model and data set, and generate an output that may indicate, for example, the key factors/parameters that affected the yield of the devices that generated the current data set; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8; Wang discloses a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data which could be the identification information of the items. Claim does not recite any specific identification information. Any data that represents identification can be considered as the identification information. Therefore, the model data set or the data from the machine A, B, C can be considered as the identification information to identify machines A, B, C);
a function of acquiring second data indicating test results of the plurality of semiconductor chips in the test process (Considered in more detail, as shown in FIG. 2, the data set may be input to a data processor 32 that may optimize and validate the data and remove incomplete data records; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-3);
a function of generating a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value (The yield management system 10 in accordance with the various embodiments of the present invention preferably uses a decision-tree-based method to build a yield model. In particular, the method partitions a data set, D, into sub-regions. The decision tree structure may be a hierarchical way to describe a partition of D. It is constructed by successively splitting nodes (as described below), starting with the root node (D), until some stopping criteria are met and the node is declared a terminal node. For each terminal node, a value or a class is assigned to all the cases within the node; Paragraph [0081] Line 1-10; The output from the data processor 32 may be fed into a model builder 34, so that a model of the data set may be automatically generated by the yield manager 30. Once the model builder 34 has generated a model, the user may preferably enter model modifications into the model builder to modify the model based on, for example, past experience with the particular data set; Paragraph [0050] Line 4-10); and
a function of outputting information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree (Once any user modifications have been incorporated into the model, a final model is output and is preferably made available to a statistical tool library 36. The library 36 may contain one or more different statistical tools that may be used to analyze the final model. The output of the yield manager 30 may be, for example, a listing of one or more factors/parameters that contributed to the yield of the devices that generated the data set being analyzed. As described above, the yield manager 30 is able to simultaneously identify multiple yield factors; Paragraph [0050] Line 10-19; FIG. 2 is block diagram illustrating more details of the yield manager 30 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In particular, the yield manager 30 may receive a data set containing various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8; On the other hand, a variable is a categorical type variable if its values are of a set of finite elements not necessarily having any natural ordering. For example, a categorical variable may take values in a set of {MachineA, MachineB, or MachineC} or values of (Lot1, Lot2, or Lot3); Paragraph [0055] Line 11-16; therefore, information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree. Claim does not recite which information has the relatively high importance in the decision tree therefore the characteristics disclosed by Wang can be considered as the relatively high importance in the decision tree for example: various types of semiconductor process data, including continuous/numerical data, such as temperature or pressure, and categorical data, such as the lot number of the particular semiconductor device or integrated circuit).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NISHIMURA et al. (US 20200003832 A1) discloses, “SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCT QUALITY MANAGEMENT SERVER, SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, AND SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCT QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM- [0002] The present invention relates to a semiconductor product quality management server, a semiconductor device, and a semiconductor product quality management system. [0018] FIG. 1 is a diagram schematically showing a configuration example of a semiconductor product quality management system according to a present embodiment. A semiconductor product quality management system 1 according to the present embodiment is an information processing system configured to make a semiconductor device 50 (semiconductor device that has been shipped) mounted in an automobile 5 (final product) execute an additional test. [0020] The semiconductor product quality management server 20 is a server apparatus that manages the quality of the semiconductor device 50 mounted in the final product. The semiconductor product quality management server 20 is a server system configured of, for example, a server device or a virtual server constructed on the cloud computing service. For example, various functions to be described later are realized by executing middleware such as OS (Operating System (not shown)), DBMS (DataBase Management System (not shown)), and the Web server program and software operating thereon by the CPU (Central Processing Unit (not shown)). Also, the semiconductor product quality management server 20 includes a semiconductor manufacturing history information DB 22. [0023] In addition, the semiconductor manufacturing history information DB 22 also stores information of test execution state (test history information). For example, the semiconductor manufacturing history information DB 22 stores the ID of the semiconductor device 50, information indicating an executed test pattern (identification information of test pattern), an execution timing of test (information indicating pre-shipment or post-shipment), and an execution result so as to be associated with each other. Further, the semiconductor manufacturing history information DB 22 stores the ID (identification information) of the semiconductor device 50 and the state of the semiconductor device 50 so as to be associated with each other-[0024] The manufacturing history information stored in the semiconductor manufacturing history information DB 22 is the data that is usually unitarily managed by the semiconductor manufacturer 2 and is used only inside the semiconductor manufacturer without being published to outside. Note that the semiconductor manufacturing history information DB 22 may be unitarily managed by the database server or the like or all or a part of the data thereof (or replica thereof) may be retained in the semiconductor product quality management server 20. However NISHIMURA does not disclose a decision tree generator structured to generate a decision tree with each item of the first data as a feature amount and the second data as a target value; and an outputter structured to output information identifying up to five feature amounts having a relatively high importance in the decision tree.”
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 NASIMA MONSUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights