DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed 7/02/2024.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are submitted for prosecution on merits.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the 2-steps analysis as follows.
Step I: the claim relates to a process/method category.
Step IIA
Prong One: the recited steps of “identifying” (property data), “causing … principal component analysis”, “causing … processing” (to meet a target) can be viewed as activities that can be performed by a human via mental process or via use of pen/paper. The claim is directed to an Abstract Idea – MPEP 2106.04(a) (1) & (2), specifically a Mathematical Concept and a Mental process.
Particularly, a orthogonal vector based principal component analysis can be viewed as a well-defined mathematical algorithm used for dimensionality reduction and data transformation; which under the Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(I), mathematical relationships, algorithms and formulas are identified as Judicial Exceptions.
The steps of “identifying” and “causing” (orthogonal … component analysis) and causing processing … to meet the target” are acts that can be performed in a human mind or via use of pen and paper. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), as concepts that can be performed in mental realm even if with a computer – fall within this category.
Prong Two:
The claim does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical Application. The “processing of substrates” recited in generic terms is considered extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)
In other words, an application of a PCA with output to “processing substrates” is a field-of-use limitation; as it merely instructs the viewer to apply a mathematical result to a generic manufacturing environment.
There is lack of technical improvement is evidenced by the claim not describing how the PCA improves the physical substrate processing or the functioning of a PCA computer itself; the claim simply states a desired result (to meet something) – MPEP 2106.04(a): a claim that simply recites a result without specific technical “how-to” fails to provide a practical application.
Step II-B:
In search for “additional elements” that when combined with the main elements can add “significantly more” to the Abstract Idea, it is found that:
Identifying target data is a routine of data gathering stage (or pre-solution activity) that does not add any inventive concept
Performing a PCA is the Abstract Idea itself; i.e. using a mathematical representation or relationships.
Processing of substrates amounts to a generic manufacturing step, absent any detail on how substrate is modified.
The combination of the above steps merely depicts the standard scientific method of gathering data, performing statistical analysis, and adjusting a process based on those results: this is a well-understood routine, as well as conventional activity in the fields of materials science.
Claim 1 does not add significantly more to the Abstract Idea of step IIA
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept and therefore is ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 statute.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) is/are directed to Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the 2-steps analysis as follows
Claim 8 is a “medium” category subject matter
Per Step IIA, prong one, claim 8 recites the same step of identifying and causing analysis and processing; which can be viewed as mental activities by a human or activities made via pen and paper. Claim 8 is directed to an Abstract Idea – MPEP 2106.04(a) (1) & (2), specifically that of a Mathematical Concept and a Mental process as set forth above with claim 1.
Per step IIA, prong two, claim 8 recites processing of substrates in generic term, thus lacks any technical improvement as the claim does not describe how the PCA improves the physical substrate processing or the functioning of a PCA computer itself; and in those terms the processing of subtrates is considered extra-solution activity - MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) – or expression of a desired result without showing of the “how-to” - MPEP 2106.04(a); Claim 8 cannot integrate the abstract Idea into a practical application.
Per step IIB,
In combination with Identifying target data being a routine of data gathering stage (or pre-solution activity) that does not add any inventive concept; with Performing a PCA being the Abstract Idea itself; i.e. using a mathematical representation or relationships, the step of Processing of substrates amounts to a generic manufacturing step, absent any detail on how substrate is modified, claim 8 merely depicts a standard scientific method of gathering data, performing statistical analysis, and adjusting a process based on those results: this is a well-understood routine, as well as conventional activity in the fields of materials science. That is, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the Abstract Idea of step IIA.
Claim 15 is a system/apparatus claim
For Step IIA, prong one: claim 15 recites the step of identifying, causing a mathematical analysis and a processing to meet a target, all construed as activities that can be done by a human process or via use of pen/paper as set forth in claim 1.
For step IIA, prong two: claim 15 recites no details on how a PCA can improve a substrate process; nor how a processing of substrate is implemented with an inventive technique. Claim 15 in depicting these concepts in generic terms cannot integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical Application.
Per step IIB, the combined order of steps of identifying target data, the PCA performing, the processing of substrate can be viewed as a standard scientific method of gathering data, performing statistical analysis, and adjusting a process based on those results: this is a well-understood routine, as well as conventional activity in this field of substrate manufacturing. These concepts do not add significantly more to the Abstract Idea of step IIA.
Analysis under step IIB for dependent claims.
Claims 2-3 recites a mathematical analysis using a numerical advanced technique of ML training, where input is based on historical data; there is no details on how the ML learning affects the PCA so to generate a improvement to the field of substrates processing. The ML training recited in generic terms with historical data cannot add significantly more to the Abstract Idea of claim 1.
Claims 4-5 recites selecting of data points for the orthogonal analytic directed at target film and generated updated parameters (to meet a target); but gathering of data and updating data are well-understood routines in the process of observation and analytic that cannot add significantly more to the Abstract Idea of the base claim.
Claims 6-7 recite cause modification of hardware (to meet a target) and to apply a PCA if a property does not meet a target; thus, the modification is construed as post-solution activity and applying a PCA is construed as generic step of analyzing via mathematical deduction or rationalizing, and these claims fail to add significantly more to the abstract Idea of claim 1.
Claims 9-10, 11-12, 13-14 can be additional elements bearing the same step IIB analysis of claims 2-3, 4-5, 6-7 from above.
Claims 16-17, 18-20 as “additional elements” will be referred to with the step IIB analysis of claims 2-3, 4-5, 6-7 from above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al, USPubN: 2018/0309061 (herein Chun) in view of Gotkis et al, USPubN: 2007/0163712(herein Gotkis), Watts et al, USPN: 10,580,827 (herein Watts), and Isobe, USPN: 5,096,298 (herein Isobe)
As per claim 1, Chun discloses a method comprising:
identifying target film property data (para 0008, 0049; film layers - para 0047-0048);
causing, based on the target film property data, component analysis to be performed (opening size, wall slope, bank pitch, taper distance, tension, viscosity, boiling point, deposition techniques, carrier fluid, ink layer thickness, aperture ratio, uniformity, luminance -para 0043; height or thickness - para 0053; para 0112-0113; magnification, number of banks or well rows, x, y pitch distance, corner radius, distance for finding edge, number of pixels for a standard profile, bank parameters, spacing between the pixels - para 0063) to obtain output (Figs 16B-16D; scatter plots, bank display, pattern of banks – para; three rows of … pixels, shaded data points - para 0107-0108; graphed lines and plotted points for … bank – para 0099; para 0106; Fig. 15-16D; bank depth, bank pitch, bank height, slope, opening size … from x-y-z data – para 0111- 0112; para 0055, 0062; Figs 6A-6E); and
causing, based on the output, processing of substrates (para 0112-0113; see Abstract; select a particular luminance – para 0089, 0093; defining the parameters of a bank … height meets the vertical threshold – para 0103; para 0112-0113; para 0069, 0074, 0078-0080; Fig. 9C; para 0115-0116) to meet the target film property data (parameters comprising at least an average thickness -para 0012-0013, 0043; film layer thickness, average thickness – para 0006, 0008; height or thickness -para 0062, 0064; deviation -para 0060; height or thickness ... deviates from - para 0068).
Chun does not explicitly disclose analysis of film substrates properties in terms of
orthonormal vector based principal component analysis (PCA)
Analysis of thin film property using coordinate graphs in accordance to plotted curves that meet criteria is shown in Chun with user following (pixels) heat map based on cross-hair and tracking
their intersections (para 0057-0059) in relation to respective property value being plotted on
the graph (Figs 2, 6, 8) as a interactive means for facilitating correlation between a film
property data with expected pattern of pixels to detect abnormality or misalignment (para 0050).
Inter-relationships between (target) wafer/substrate properties and a (layer) thin film property
achieved per a multi-layer depositing process being observed via graphical plotting of response
curves with measured property data from each deposited thin films, in line with evaluating
intersecting curves and plotted line crossing so to derive insights from data points set and assess
merits of curve responses expressed via coordinate representations of respective property data
pertaining to a target substrate and instance of thin film is shown in Isobe, Gotkis, or Watts.
Gotkis discloses etch and deposition process as a function of thickness of the film, the correct selection thereof to calibrate sensor variable for processing whereby error caused by
thickness can be substantially eliminated (para 0065); e.g. determination of end point in the
semiconductor fabrication process, alleviating unprocessed parts of the wafer being subjected to
eddy current (para 0063), where, similar to Chun, study of deviation graphs here includes thickness axis plotted against distance from a center (Figs. 8), current response versus thickness (Fig. 9), and
signal outputs versus time intervals across a wafer topology (Fig. 10-11), where, according to the
latter, lines perpendicular to current-specific edge response curve (line 210-1, 212-1, Fig. 10)
constitute endpoints (para 0054) at which to optimize energizing scheme (para 0057-0058), recalibrate sensor operative parameters, duty cycles thereof (Fig. 12-13) to eliminate redundant wafer etching.
In applying energy to surface under an etching process, Watts also discloses layers energized (Fig. 5) for film deposition associated a MTJ-based chamber (col. 24, li. 4- 16) in which free layer and reference layer are subjected to ferromagnetic coupling (col. li. 49-57), including embodiment where a free polarized layer curve is plotted against a magnetic polarized curve, using intersection point to determine critical points - where fluctuations inherent to a free layer are overcome (col. 14, li. 30-43) - for providing stabilization to the energy torque applied (col 17 li. 17-23), tuning a magnetic efficiency Merr parameter (col. 18, li. 41-67; Fig. 6); hence, set of points identified as orthogonal to either a magnetic curve or free curve determined as critical points (Fig. 6) by which parameterization by one curve response overcomes internal fluctuation effect by the other curve entails identification of set of data points of the first film property data that are orthogonal to another/reference film property data, which is used to parameterize or optimize film layers energizing.
Similar to applying polarized energy to film layers, Isobe discloses finding of refractive indices (Fig. 8) from learned reflected absorption on thin films per polarized light applied to substrates or target material (col. l li. 45 to col. 2 li. 12) per effect of various P, S monochromatic light/phase change observed in the super-imposed films (col 3 line 40 to col. 4 line 47); where intersection with S-polarized reflection curve and a P-polarized reflection curve for a given phase indicate a reflective index for the thin film (Fig. 7); hence determining a set of points orthogonal to plotted reflection data for a thin film under a energizing property entails orthogonal data points determined between one film data curve and another data curve and used a parameter to improve light emission.
Therefore, performing a orthonormal vector component analysis by which directional behavior observed from patterns of graph representation like (energy, light) plots and curves are analyzed to identify points at which there is correlation or orthogonal interception to prescribe a direction of exploration or design/hardware reconfiguration reminiscent of a graphical plot-based component analysis is recognized.
Therefore, based on use control or reference values in analysis plot (e.g. cross-hair intercept -
para 0057; Fig. 7A) use of heat map pixels (Fig. 2E-2F, para 0121) to assess on separating gap,
deviation, distance between captured image points respective to the control points (reference
wells, control data -para 0053, 0056; reference point - para 0103) as per Chun's in order to find
adjust to process parameters and improve manufacturer process quality, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement such plot/graph-based exploration or study so that findings are related to operations and setting to process substrates in view of meeting the quality criteria attached with a target film data property, the exploration or analytics study aiming a altering a configuration or redesign a substrate processing model via use of plot/curve representation of the energy and light setting respective to their effect over the film and substrate data, the correlation based thereon using a orthonormal vector analytic similar to identification of set of data points of the first film property data that are orthogonal as in Watts, identification of perpendicular to current-specific edge response curve as endpoints at which to optimize energizing scheme as in Gotkis, of orthogonal points set between one film data curve and another data curve (under an energizing scheme) which are being used a parameter to improve light emission as in Isobe; because
use of graph plotting over reflection curves per Chun's film depositing approach whereby a set of points on the film data observed respective to a reference or target film property data – e.g. using orthonormal vector analytic as set forth above - can be tracked via mathematical interpretation, geo-spatial approximation and can represent a specific critical and quantifiable behavior deemed significant for implementing updates to manufacturing parameters, so that a set of points expressing such critical behavior can help the engineer to determine a range of configuration or adjustment to the parameterization of the manufacturing process in term of material depositing, etching energy emission, and wafer pre-disposition whose executed process outcome in turn can be recollected for further improvement;
whereas determination of a critical point from plotting film curves or vectorized magnitude respective to a reference curve on basis of a criteria or observed behavior by which incident reflection data intercept/coincide with target reflection data (as per material depositing or wafer etching) can constitute a indicator to the engineer analyzing plotted data to the effect that a minimal deviation between reference/target data and a given experimentation film responses has been attained, at which point the engineer can derive orthogonal line from the intersecting curves and identify, from the plot axes, a particular material property or manufacturing parameter - e.g. as one or more afforded by orthogonal line behavior associated with said intersecting point criterion - with which to consider adjusted action to the manufacturing process or parameterization thereof;
the evaluation associated with the manufacturing process as set forth above resulting from
identifying orthogonal behavior between incident curve and target reference would not only be
conducive to efficient utilization of energy or fine tuning of its application, reduction to the
scope of configuration or operative selection imposed by diversity and complexity of the material
property to process need to be considered with energizing instance, and but would improve
likelihood in an engineering endeavor in attaining industrial standard, establishing a cost-reduced
model to this manufacturing industry according to which diversity of material to build, and
destabilization effects caused thereby are balanced or met by application of optimal equipment involvement and well-directed energy resources.
As per claim 4, Chun does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the orthonormal vector based PCA to be performed comprises selecting data points that are associated with a first line that is substantially orthogonal to a second line associated with target film property data, the data points being of film property data of first substrates processed based on manufacturing parameters, the output being associated with the data points.
But use of orthonormal vector analysis has been illustrated via different approach by which vectorized magnitudes or plotted curves of energy are studied for certain intersection points or data sets to be identified has been shown in Gotkis, Watts and Isobe, as set forth above in rationale A of claim 1, according to which intersecting points are chosen to set up energizing scheme (Gotkis), to parameterize or optimize film layers energizing (Watts) or to improve parameterization of light emission (Isobe); thus, orthonormal vector analysis leading to selection of points that are associated with a first line observed as substantially orthogonal to a second line associated with target film property data, the selected data points being of film property data of first substrates processed based on manufacturing parameters, the output being associated with the data points (refer to claim 1) would have been obvious in the processing of substrates to meet film property data in Chun, the motivation for applying the technique to select orthogonal interception of studied points or properties of film data as design or reconfiguration points for improving the manufacturing process being including the same benefits set forth with rationale of applying the orthonormal vector analysis in claim 1.
As per claim 5, Chun discloses method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the processing of the substrates comprises generating updated manufacturing parameters (select a particular luminance – para 0089, 0093; defining the parameters of a bank … height meets the vertical threshold – para 0103; para 0112-0113; para 0069, 0074, 0078-0080; Fig. 9C; para 0115-0116; cross-hair is moved – para 0059; para 0077, 0086, 0089; profile, thickness, uniformity … may be assessed for changing process conditions – para 0114), wherein the substrates are to be processed based on the updated manufacturing parameters to meet the target film
property data (refer to claim 1).
As per claim 6, The method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the processing of the substrates comprises causing hardware modification (luminance slider – para 0087-0088; 0093; crosshair change – para 0096; additional circuitry can be formed on the OLED – para 0045; OLED material … a monochromatic display may be implemented as well as any … combination of color components – para 0046; material deposition techniques …and other material deposition processed for forming thin layers – para 0044), wherein the substrates are to be processed subsequent to the hardware modifications (see slider may be adjusted, selected luminance threshold, change the display of heat map – para 0093; para 0095) to meet the target film property data.
As per claim 7, Chun does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the orthonormal vector based PCA is responsive to determining that film property data of first substrates processed based on manufacturing parameters does not meet the target film property data.
But analyzing orthogonal meeting of plot, data point patterns or luminance curves under a orthonormal vector techniques is mostly geared to identify correlation between the patterns, the plots, the data point behavior, where meeting a expected intersection point can serve as target to readjust a parametric configuration associated with a manufacturing process as shown in Gotkis, Watts and Isobe from rationale A; and possibility that a expected intersection behavior fails to realize can also trigger response by the designers in re-arranging the plot lighting scheme, or reconfigure vectorized data to better obtain the orthogonal intersection by the plotted data or curve under observation.
Therefore, based on likelihood that effort spent in meeting a manufacturing target can lead to alternating scenarios of trial and errors, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the orthonormal vector analysis associated improving manufacturing process and substrate processing in Chun so that urge for the designers to resort to orthonormal vector based PCA would also be triggered in response to determining that film property data of first substrates processed based on manufacturing parameters does not meet the target film property data; because
this orthonormal vector analysis can be coordinated with mathematical derivation and formulation of empirical structure which in turn would facilitate the probabilistic patterns computation per effect of calculus by which relevant plotting of curves can be studied or learned in line with dynamics of geometric/space vector algorithms, polynomials and vector behavior in space, such that, in case where a designer is not satisfied with a manufacturing process or substrate run not meeting a target film data, the resort to an orthonormal vector reconfiguration of the plot or curve under observation can be inserted or recalled, as this technique would afford various mathematical or geometric patterns to be redefined, further adjusted, or re-experimented so to increase the chance to attain the convergence of plots or intersection of graphic pattern so endeavored by a design that exploits this orthogonality of plotted data; e.g. to finetune the aim of a manufacturer process designer.
As per claim 8, A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device perform
operations comprising:
identifying target film property data;
causing, based on the target film property data, orthonormal vector based principal component analysis (PCA) to be performed to obtain output; and
causing, based on the output, performance of one or more corrective actions to
cause substrates to meet the target film property data.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 1)
As per claims 11-12, refer to rejection of claims 4-5.
As per claims 13-14, refer to rejection of claims 6-7.
As per claim 15, Chun discloses a system comprising: a memory; and
a processing device, coupled to the memory, to:
identify target film property data;
cause, based on the target film property data, orthonormal vector based
principal component analysis (PCA) to be performed to obtain output; and
cause, based on the output, performance of one or more corrective actions
to cause substrates to meet the target film property data.
(all of which having been addressed in claim 1)
As per claim 19, refer to rejection of claim 5-6 and
As per claim 20, refer to rejection of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (pending resolution of any outstanding rejection) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, the objected to subject matter including:
(claims 2-3) method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the orthonormal vector based PCA to be performed comprises obtaining an inverted solution of a trained machine learning model based on the target film property data, the output being associated with the inverted solution, the trained machine learning model being trained based on data input of historical manufacturing parameters and target output of historical film property data; wherein:
the historical manufacturing parameters are associated with processing historical
substrates; and the historical film property data is associated with the historical substrates
processed based on the historical manufacturing parameters.
Claims 9-10, 16-17 are objected to for the same reasons set forth above for claims 2-3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-3735. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM/Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Chat Do can be reached on (571)272-3721.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3735 ( for non-official correspondence - please consult Examiner before using) or 571-273-8300 ( for official correspondence) or redirected to customer service at 571-272-3609.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
/Tuan A Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
March 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights