DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are currently pending in application 18/759,446.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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: “circuitry” (acquisition circuitry, inference circuitry, abnormality detection circuitry, abnormality factor search circuitry, and abnormality determination result output circuitry) in claims 1-6 and 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1-6 and 8 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 7 is directed toward a process (method). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-8 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 7 and 8 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of quality control/ data analysis.
Regarding independent claims 1, 7 and 8, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
An abnormality detection method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of sensor values outputted from a plurality of sensors installed in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, while a process is running in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus; [Certain methods of organizing human activity/ Mental Process - Collection of Information / Data Acquisition. Collecting and receiving data without specific, unconventional pre-processing.]
inferring an abnormality degree of the process from the acquired plurality of sensor values, using an abnormality detection model that has learned a correspondence relationship between the plurality of sensor values and the abnormality degree of the process using learning data; and [Mathematical Concepts/ Mental Process - Applying statistical correlation, data classification, or models/ algorithms to map inputs to an output score is considered a mathematical calculation or mental process.]
detecting an abnormality occurring in the process based on the abnormality degree of the process inferred in the inferring; [Certain methods of organizing human activity/ Mental Process - Comparison / Evaluation. Determining whether a value signifies an "abnormal" state is a mental determination/judgment equivalent to comparing data or making a binary decision.]
searching for a univariate abnormality and a correlation abnormality that are candidates of abnormality factors occurring in the process, using a plurality of abnormality factor search methods; and [Certain methods of organizing human activity/ Mathematical Operations/ Mental Process - Sorting, analyzing, and looking for mathematical correlations or variance in data sets are standard data analysis techniques.]
outputting the abnormality in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus detected in the detecting, and the univariate abnormality and correlation abnormality searched in the searching as an abnormality determination result. [Certain methods of organizing human activity/ Mental Process - Reporting or displaying results.]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 7 and 8 are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
Dependent claims 2-6 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1, 7 and 8 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1, 7 and 8.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-8 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “sensor”, a “semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, a “semiconductor manufacturing system”, an “information processing apparatus”, an “acquisition circuitry”, an “inference circuitry”, an “abnormality detection circuitry”, an “abnormality factor search circuitry”, and an “abnormality determination result output circuitry”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The presence of a machine learning algorithm or computer implementations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The machine learning algorithm and computer limitations claimed herein are simply used as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the underlying abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. As claimed, the machine learning algorithm merely processes data to map input data to output score data. Examiner notes that the additional limitations of machine learning and computer processing do not result in computer functionality or technical/technology improvement and hence do not result in a practical application. The machine learning algorithm and the computer limitation simply process the data through inputting and outputting data. Processing data is mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 Fed.Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, Lending Tree, LLLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(non-precedential). Thus, the additional limitations of machine learning algorithm and computer limitations do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (such as physically altering the semiconductor manufacturing tool configuration or adjusting control loops to stop/mitigate the defect in real time). This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2-6 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-8 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “sensor”, a “semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, a “semiconductor manufacturing system”, an “information processing apparatus”, an “acquisition circuitry”, an “inference circuitry”, an “abnormality detection circuitry”, an “abnormality factor search circuitry”, and an “abnormality determination result output circuitry”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)) (generic "outputting as a result" without active equipment control). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-6 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7 and 8 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7 and 8; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-8 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NOZUKI et al. (US 2025/0224718 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 7, and 8, NOZUKI discloses an information processing apparatus (abnormality detection method; semiconductor manufacturing system) (See at least Para 0015-0018) comprising:
an acquisition circuitry configured to acquire a plurality of sensor values output from a plurality of sensors installed in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, while a process is running in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (See at least Para 0031, “The time-series data is obtained by continuous observation of change over time in quantity of state of a single assessment item or a plurality of assessment items. The time-series data may be any of data outputted from the facility and data outputted from a sensor (not shown) provided in the facility. Description in the case of the generator will be given. Assessment items include assessment items relating to operation data such as output, a rotation speed, a voltage, or an armature current of the generator and assessment items relating to measurement data obtained by measurement of a temperature and vibration measured by the sensor attached to a device or a component included in the generator”; and Para 0090);
an inference circuitry configured to infer an abnormality degree of the process from the plurality of sensor values acquired by the acquisition circuitry, using an abnormality detection model that has learned a correspondence relationship between the plurality of sensor values and the abnormality degree of the process using learning data; an abnormality detection circuitry configured to detect an abnormality occurring in the process based on the abnormality degree of the process inferred by the inference circuitry (See at least Para 0015, Para 0077-0080);
an abnormality factor search circuitry configured to search for a univariate abnormality and a correlation abnormality that are candidates of abnormality factors occurring in the process, by using a plurality of abnormality factor search methods (See at least Para 0077-0080, Mahalanobis distance measures both univariate abnormality and correlation abnormality at the same time); and
an abnormality determination result output circuitry configured to output the abnormality in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus detected by the abnormality detection circuitry, and the univariate abnormality and correlation abnormality searched by the abnormality factor search circuitry, as an abnormality determination result (See at least Para 0081).
As per Claim 2, NOZUKI discloses wherein the process is divided into a plurality of sections, the abnormality detection model completes learning a correspondence relationship between the plurality of sensor values and the abnormality degree of the process for each of the plurality of sections, the inference circuitry infers, using the abnormality detection model, an abnormality degree in a section of the process from the plurality of sensor values that is output while the section of the process is running, and the abnormality detection circuitry detects an abnormality occurring in the section of the process based on the abnormality degree inferred in the section of the process (See at least Para 0038 and Para 0047).
As per Claim 3 (2), NOZUKI discloses wherein the abnormality determination result output circuitry displays, for each run of the process, abnormality degrees in the sections of the process, a maximum deviation from an abnormality degree in a normal state, among the abnormality degrees in the sections of the process, and an abnormal section rate of a section in which an abnormality has been detected, among the sections of the process (See at least Para 0038, Para 0133, and Para 0143).
As per Claim 4 (3), NOZUKI discloses wherein the abnormality determination result output circuitry displays, for a run of the process where the abnormality has been detected, the plurality of sensors according to a difference between the sensor value in a normal state and the sensor value of the process where the abnormality has been detected, as a univariate abnormality that is a candidate of an abnormality factor that has occurred in the process (Figs.1-2; Para 0038, Para 0077-0080, Para 0133, and Para 0143).
As per Claim 5 (3), NOZUKI discloses wherein the abnormality determination result output circuitry displays, for a run of the process where the abnormality has been detected, a correlation of the plurality of sensors according to a difference from a correlation of the plurality of sensors in a normal state, as a correlation abnormality that is a candidate of an abnormality factor that has occurred in the process (Figs.1-2; Para 0038, Para 0077-0080, Para 0133, and Para 0143).
As per Claim 6 (2), NOZUKI discloses wherein the abnormality determination result output circuitry displays, among the sections of the process, a section of the process having an abnormal value equal to or greater than a threshold in a visually different manner from a section of the process having an abnormal value less than the threshold (Figs.1-2; Para 0038, Para 0077-0080, Para 0133, and Para 0143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
August 18, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights