DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on June 27, 2024, which is a continuation of PCT/KR2022/020459, filed on December 15, 2022.
Claims 1-14 are pending and presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on June 27, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated June 27, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the model information management module classifies an artificial intelligence model included in the artificial intelligence model information as a model under development or a model of which development is completed and stores the classified model.” in lines 22-24. Claim 5 (and similar for claim 12) recites the limitation “an artificial intelligence model payment module configured to transmit payment request information to a developer terminal of a developer of the called artificial intelligence model and load the called artificial intelligence model from the artificial intelligence model information management unit when receiving payment completion information corresponding to the payment request information from the developer terminal;” in lines 5-9. Appropriate correction is required. Please amend the claim language as suggested in bold.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 13 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an information management unit configured to receive user information and company information from a user terminal and code received information; an artificial intelligence model management unit configured to receive artificial intelligence model information from the user terminal, map the artificial intelligence model information to information coded by the information management unit, and optimize an artificial intelligence model according to the artificial intelligence model information to determine whether at least one of a plurality of preset processes is abnormal; a list generation unit configured to generate a list of artificial intelligence models optimized by the artificial intelligence model management unit and deploy the list to the user terminal; and a response unit configured to receive call information on the artificial intelligence model included in the list and process data on the plurality of preset processes from the user terminal and provide the user terminal with response information generated based on the process data by using an artificial intelligence model corresponding to the call information” in claim 1. “a common information management module configured to receive and store company information including a company name, main business information, factory information, and process information from the user terminal; a user information management module configured to receive and store user information including a user name, a user identification, a user company, a user age, a user gender, a user identification number, a user email, and a user phone number; and a code information management module configured to code and manage pieces of information received by the common information management module and the user information management module.” in claim 2. “wherein the artificial intelligence model management unit further includes a model test module configured to receive test information corresponding to the artificial intelligence model information from the user terminal, perform an accuracy test of the artificial intelligence model based on the test information, transmit artificial intelligence model modification request information to the user terminal when a result value of the accuracy test is less than or equal to a preset value, receive model modification information from the user terminal, and modify the artificial intelligence model by applying the model modification information to the artificial intelligence model.” in claim 3. ”wherein the response unit includes: a call information reception module configured to receive call information of the list and the process data from the user terminal; an artificial intelligence model payment module configured to transmit payment request information to a developer terminal of the called artificial intelligence model and load the called artificial intelligence model from the artificial intelligence model information management unit when receiving payment completion information corresponding to the payment request information from the developer terminal; and a response information generation module configured to input the process data to the artificial intelligence model received from the artificial intelligence model management unit to generate the response information including an abnormality detection result, and provide the response information to the user terminal.” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 5-6 and 8-14 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 5 recites the limitation “an artificial intelligence model payment module configured to transmit payment request information to a developer terminal of the called artificial intelligence model and load the called artificial intelligence model from the artificial intelligence model information management unit when receiving payment completion information corresponding to the payment request information from the developer terminal;” in lines 5-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation “receiving, by the server, artificial intelligence model information from any one of the user terminal and the developer terminal, mapping, by the server, the artificial intelligence model information to information coded in the coding of the received information, and optimizing, by the server, an artificial intelligence model according to the artificial intelligence model information to determine whether at least one of a plurality of preset processes is abnormal;” in lines 7-11. It is unclear to determining what “in the coding” mean. Is this referring to information that was coded during the coding step. For examination purpose the limitation would be interpreted as “…the artificial intelligence model information to information coded in the receiving and coding step, and…”.
Dependent claims 6 and 9-14 does not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons as the base claim.
Claims 1-3 and 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification in paragraph [0017] says “Suffixes "module" and "unit" for the components used in the following description are given or used interchangeably in consideration of ease of writing the specification, and do not have meanings or roles that are distinguished from each other by themselves.”. Paragraph [0068] says “the artificial intelligence integration management system 100 described above may include a communication module, a processor, and a memory. The processor may be configured to perform functions and operations of the information management unit 110, artificial intelligence model management unit 120, list generation unit 130, and the response unit 140 illustrated in FIG. 2.”. These two paragraphs confirm that “unit” and “module” are interchangeable (no specific structures) and that all mentioned units are performed by a single generic processor. For computer-implemented 112(f) limitations under MPEP 2181.II.B, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm (steps, procedure, flowchart) for performing each claimed limitation. A generic processor alone is not sufficient corresponding structure. See Aristocrat Technologies v. IGT, Noah System v. Intuit. The specification describes WHAT each unit/module does functionally (see paragraphs [0025]-[0040]) but never provides a specific algorithm for HOW. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 8-14 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 8 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations:
a) “” – Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be performed by a human mind or using pen and paper, a person is able to read data, optimize data, compare data and perform a mapping to determine abnormal processes, that is data organization/management. b) “” - Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be performed by a human mind or using pen and paper to think or write an action to be performed in those elements.
c) “” - Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be performed by a human mind or using pen and paper, a person can perform mapping procedures with the purpose of data organization or management.
e) “” - Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be performed by a human mind or using pen and paper, a person is able to perform classification steps. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, (i.e., “mapping”, “optimizing”, “determining”, “generating” and “classifying”) can be performed in the human mind though observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 8 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: “deployment system”, “a terminal”, “an information management unit”, “an artificial intelligence model management unit”, “a list generation unit”, “a response unit”, “a model information management module”, “a server”, “a user terminal” and “a developer terminal”. The additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are additional elements in the claim such as:
“receive user information and company information from a user terminal and code received information;” - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) – See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“receive artificial intelligence model information from the user terminal” - 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering).
“deploy the list to the user terminal;” - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (data transmission) – See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“receive call information on the artificial intelligence model included in the list” - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) – See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“process data on the plurality of preset processes from the user terminal and provide the user terminal with response information generated based on the process data by using an artificial intelligence model corresponding to the call information,” - Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (e.g., using a generic AI model) – See MPEP 2106.05(f). This claim limitation completely lacks to describe, what kind of AI model or algorithm is being used, how the model processes the data, what specific transformation occurs, what makes the model’s processing different from any generic AI inference.
“store coded information” - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (storing data) – See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 8 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “deployment system”, “a terminal”, “an information management unit”, “an artificial intelligence model management unit”, “a list generation unit”, “a response unit”, “a model information management module”, “a server”, “a user terminal” and “a developer terminal” are generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, after further evaluation the claim as a whole doesn’t improve any function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 and 8 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. With regards to claim 2 (and similar for claim 9), it recites “wherein the information management unit includes: a common information management module configured to receive and store company information including a company name, main business information, factory information, and process information from the user terminal; a user information management module configured to receive and store user information including a user name, a user identification, a user company, a user age, a user gender, a user identification number, a user email, and a user phone number; and a code information management module configured to code and manage pieces of information received by the common information management module and the user information management module.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, uses mere Instructions to apply an exception - 2106.05(f). Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 3 (and similar for claim 10), it recites “wherein the artificial intelligence model management unit further includes a model test module configured to receive test information corresponding to the artificial intelligence model information from the user terminal, perform an accuracy test of the artificial intelligence model based on the test information, transmit artificial intelligence model modification request information to the user terminal when a result value of the accuracy test is less than or equal to a preset value, receive model modification information from the user terminal, and modify the artificial intelligence model by applying the model modification information to the artificial intelligence model.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 4 (and similar for claim 11), it recites “wherein the artificial intelligence model information includes at least one of the artificial intelligence model, developer information on the artificial intelligence model, model name information, model version information, and model content information.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, performs an insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 5 (and similar for claim 12), it recites “wherein the response unit includes: a call information reception module configured to receive call information of the list and the process data from the user terminal; an artificial intelligence model payment module configured to transmit payment request information to a developer terminal of the called artificial intelligence model and load the called artificial intelligence model from the artificial intelligence model information management unit when receiving payment completion information corresponding to the payment request information from the developer terminal; and a response information generation module configured to input the process data to the artificial intelligence model received from the artificial intelligence model management unit to generate the response information including an abnormality detection result, and provide the response information to the user terminal.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, organizes human activities (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) Examiner notes: The claim does not recite any specific technical improvement and also lacks to mention the technical steps for the AI model. Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 6 (and similar for claim 13), it recites “wherein the call information includes at least one of model selection information, model request terminal information, model request date information, and model request time information on an artificial intelligence model selected from the list, the process data includes line information and parameter information on at least one of the plurality of preset processes, and the response information includes at least one of process state information, abnormality detection processing message information, abnormality detection prediction information, abnormality detection comment information, and an abnormality detection probability value.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, performs an insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, claim 6 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 7 (and similar for claim 14), it recites “wherein classifying the text is based upon a dictionary data structure comprising a mapping from text strings to labels.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, uses mere Instructions to apply an exception - 2106.05(f). Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner Comments
For claims 1-14 no art rejection is made for these claims. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as explained above in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prakash et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0327029) describes a system for the advanced delivery of information. In some embodiments, the system creates a display in response to an alarm. In some embodiments, the information on the display is a function of attribute mapping and/or analysis performed by the system. The system uses one or more of manual links, statistical analysis, correlations, maintenance data, and/or historical data as tools during determination of what to display according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the system uses one or more of these tools in conjunction with one or more of process simulators, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and/or real process feedback in the analysis to determine what to display to a user during an emergency and/or an anomalous event. (see abstract).
David (US Pat. No. 10,430,719) discloses techniques for measuring and/or compensating for process variations in a semiconductor manufacturing process. Machine learning algorithms are used on extensive sets of input data, including upstream data, to organize and pre-process the input data, and to correlate the input data to specific features of interest. The correlations can then be used to make process adjustments. The techniques may be applied to any feature or step of the semiconductor manufacturing process, such as overlay, critical dimension, and yield prediction. (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights