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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 13 and 21 – 27 are currently pending and considered below.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
generating a statistical model associated with an inter-site backup process;
assigning an auxiliary route to a first wafer lot of a first site by an inter-site backup management apparatus according to the statistical model and conditions of the first site and a second site;
generating historical routing data by processing the first wafer lot according to the auxiliary route; and
updating the statistical model based on the historical routing data by the inter-site backup management apparatus.
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of: generating a statistical model associated with an inter-site backup process; assigning an auxiliary route to a first wafer lot of a first site; generating historical routing data by processing the first wafer lot according to the auxiliary route; and updating the statistical model based on the historical routing data. The generating …, assigning …, and updating … limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by an inter-site backup management apparatus”. That is, other than reciting “by an inter-site backup management apparatus” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by an inter-site backup management apparatus” language, the claim encompasses a user looking at the data and assigning the auxiliary routes and updating historical data for statistical model. The mere nominal recitation of an inter-site backup management apparatus does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the assigning and updating steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user assigning an auxiliary route based on statistical data and updating statistical data with historical data.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “by an inter-site backup management apparatus” that performs the assigning and updating steps. The assigning and updating by an inter-site backup management apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the assigning and updating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The inter-site backup management apparatus is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the inter-site backup management apparatus).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 – 13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 – 13 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 21 – 27 recites same or substantially similar limitations as claims 1 – 13. Therefore claims 21 – 27 are rejected under same rationales.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11 – 13, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickey et al. (Hereinafter Hickey) (US 7620470 B1) in view of Vaughn et al. (Hereinafter Vaughn) (US 2020/0408546 A1).
As per claim 1, Hickey teaches the limitations of: a method, comprising:
generating a statistical model associated with an inter-site backup process (See at least column 7 line 22 – 41; One common technique for tracking and analyzing manufacturing process variation is called statistical process control (SPC). SPC is typically used to gauge the stability of a manufacturing process over time via predetermined, charted SPC data that document historical process performance. The system 300 is capable of performing SPC analysis of the detected variations of in the system 300. When SPC data regarding one or more wafers processed through a given tool 310 or a set of tools 310 indicates a characteristic of the wafers has departed from an acceptable range established for the characteristic, an alarm condition may be signaled. This alarm condition may prompt the process controller 305 to place the processing tool(s) 310 in a shutdown mode or in a low utilization mode. In such a situation, a troubleshooting procedure may be initiated, the object of which is to clear the alarm condition (i.e., solve the problem) and to return the processing tool(s) to full service as quickly as possible. The troubleshooting procedure may include rerouting a wafer, a batch of wafers, and/or one or more lots of wafers, to alternative process paths);
assigning an auxiliary route to a first wafer lot of a first site by an inter-site backup management apparatus according to the statistical model and conditions of the first site and a second site (See at least column 7 line 22 – 41); and
updating the statistical model based on the historical routing data by the inter-site backup management apparatus (See at least column 7 line 22 – 41).
Hickey does not explicitly teach but Vaughn teaches limitation of:
generating historical routing data by processing the first wafer lot according to the auxiliary route.
Vaughn teaches limitation of:
generating historical routing data by processing the first wafer lot according to the auxiliary route (See at least paragraph 130; manager system 110 can apply training data for training of predictive models 7002 and 7004 as described in connection with FIGS. 7A and 7B, based on historical route data, historical weather condition data, and historic traffic condition data associated to a trip and route just completed at block 1124. Such machine learning training performed by manager system 110 can include multiple queries of data repository 108 which can store the predictive models 7002 and 7004 and predictive models 7002 and 7004 once retrained with updated training data can be updated within data repository 108 as indicated by query receive respond and update block 1087 performed by data repository 108).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify creating and selecting auxiliary/alternative routes and perform semiconducting process of wafer according to the route of Hickey, to include generating historical routing data by processing the first wafer lot according to the auxiliary route as taught by Vaughn in order to selecting routes that reduce risk conditions (See at least paragraph 124).
As per claim 11, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh teaches the limitation of:
wherein the auxiliary route includes a transportation method involving an overhead hoist transport (OHT) system or transportation vehicles (Hickey, see at least column 9 line 30 – 49).
As per claim 12, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh teaches the limitation of:
wherein the inter-site backup management apparatus is configured to update MES apparatuses at the first and second sites with information regarding the auxiliary route and its impact on tool loading (Hickey, see at least column 9 line 30 – 49).
As per claim 13, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh teaches the limitation of:
wherein the inter-site backup management apparatus generates a confidence level associated with each auxiliary route based on historical performance data (Vaughn, see at least paragraph 104).
Regarding claims 21 and 25:
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 and 11 - 13 above, respectively.
Claims 2 – 9, 22 – 24 and 26 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickey and Vaughn and in further view of Chen et al. (Hereinafter Chen) (US 2008/0281456 A1).
As per claim 2, the combination of Hickey and Vaugh teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
generating an error value by comparing a predicted cycle time associated with the auxiliary route with an actual cycle time associated with the auxiliary route.
Chen teaches the limitations of:
generating an error value by comparing a predicted cycle time associated with the auxiliary route with an actual cycle time associated with the auxiliary route (See at least paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include generating an error value by comparing a predicted cycle time associated with the auxiliary route with an actual cycle time associated with the auxiliary route as taught by Chen in the system of Hickey, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh and Chen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the updating the statistical model is based on the error value (Hickey, see at least column 7 line 22 – 41, and Chen, see at least paragraph 22 and 27).
As per claim 4, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh and Chen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the updating the statistical model is based on historical conditions data (Hickey, see at least column 7 line 22 – 41).
As per claim 5, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh and Chen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the historical conditions data includes automatic material handling system (AMHS) apparatus loading data, quality time data, weather forecast data, traffic data, or a combination thereof (Chen, see at least paragraph 22 and 27).
As per claim 6, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh and Chen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the error value is generated by training a neural network based on the historical routing data (Hickey, see at least column 7 line 22 – 41, and Chen, see at least paragraph 27).
As per claim 7, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh and Chen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the error value is adjusted based on a weighting factor associated with the priority level of the first wafer lot (Chen, see at least paragraph 27).
As per claim 8, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh and Chen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the historical conditions data includes data related to accumulated moves, target moves, AMHS loading, process quality time, cycle time forecast, product constraints, process constraints, process rework constraints, and tool maintenance schedules (Chen, see at least paragraph 27).
As per claim 9, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh and Chen teaches the limitation of:
wherein the statistical model includes data from a machine learning model trained using historical routing data and historical conditions data (Vaughn, see at least paragraph 130).
As per claim 22, the combination of Hickey, Vaugh and Chen teaches the limitation of:
the first MES apparatus is configured to, in operation, perform product scheduling with respect to the first site; and the second MES apparatus is configured to, in operation, perform product scheduling with respect to the second site (Chen, see at least paragraph 22, 27 and 47).
Regarding claims 23 – 24 and 26 - 27:
Claims 23 – 24 and 26 – 27 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2 – 9 and 22 above, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conboy et al. (US 6308107 B1) discloses realtime decision making system for reduction of time delays in an automated material handling system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights