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 .
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea for the reasons outlined below.
Conducting the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis in accordance with MPEP § 2106 yields the following.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-14 recite a method for determining which of a plurality of liquids pose the highest risk of depositing particle impurities on a surface of a wafer. Claim 15 recites a method for determining which of a plurality of filters are best at filtering impurities out of a liquid. These claims are directed to processes and therefore are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
As to claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A method for determining which of a plurality of liquids pose the highest risk of depositing particle impurities on a surface of a wafer, the method comprising the steps of,
(a) depositing a drop of a first test liquid onto a surface of a first wafer;
(b) performing a spin-dry step which involves spinning the first wafer until said first wafer is dry of said drop of the first test liquid, and wherein particle impurities that were in said drop remain on the surface of the first wafer;
(c) repeating steps (a) and (b) a predefined number of times to increase the number of particle impurities on the surface of the first wafer, wherein the predefined number of times is greater than two;
(d) depositing a drop of a second test liquid onto a surface of a second wafer, wherein the second wafer is the same type as the first wafer;
(e) performing a spin-dry step which involves spinning the second wafer until said second wafer is dry of said drop of the second test liquid, and wherein particle impurities that were in said drop remain on the surface of the second wafer;
(f) repeating steps (d) and (e) said predefined number of times to increase the number of particle impurities on the surface of the second wafer;
(g) obtaining a measurement which is indicative of the number of particle impurities on the first wafer and obtaining a measurement which is indicative of the number of particle impurities on the second wafer;
(h) comparing the measurement which is indicative of the number of particle impurities on the first wafer number and the measurement which is indicative of the number of particle impurities on the second wafer (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite a mental process in accordance with details in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Part III, Sec. A regarding claims that can be performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions); and
(i) determining that the first liquid poses the highest risk of depositing particle impurities on a surface of a wafer if the measurement indicative of the number of particle impurities on the first wafer number is greater than the measurement indicative of the number of particle impurities on the second wafer, or, determining that the second liquid poses the highest risk of depositing particle impurities on a surface of a wafer if the measurement indicative of the number of particle impurities on the second wafer number is greater than the measurement indicative of the number of particle impurities number of particle impurities on the first wafer (the examiner find that the foregoing underlined elements recite a mental process similar to the above limitation for similar reasons thereto).
Step 2A: Prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The elements above that are not underlined in the claim are the additional elements. Regarding steps a) through g), the examiner finds that each of said elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The steps in a) through g) appear to be elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In particular, the depositing of drops of a liquid, spin-drying of wafers, repeating these steps, depositing additional drops, spin drying these additional drops, repeating these steps, and obtaining a measurement indicative of a number of particle impurities appear to all fall within conventional knowledge of the skilled artisan (see, for example, Quarantello US PG-PUB 2004/0181965 A1 ¶ 5 and 39) and therefore are not considered to add any elements considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claims 2-14: None of the claims dependent upon claim 1 appear to add anything beyond limitations that are also drawn to mental processes (claims 2-10) or insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 11-14).
As to claim 15: A similar analysis applies to claim 15 but is simplified for brevity. The limitations recited in claim 15 are largely similar to claim 1 but also recite providing a plurality of filters that filter liquids as they are passed through each of the first and second filters and determining that the second or first filter is better than the other based on a number of particle impurities being higher after filtering. The determination of a filter being better than another is also considered to fall within a mental process and the additionally recited steps of providing a filter is considered to fall within routine, well-understood, and conventional activity (see, for example, Miya US PG-PUB 2008/0052947 A1 ¶ 35) for reasons similar to the analysis presented above regarding claim 1.
References Cited but not Relied Upon
As to references cited but not relied upon: de Larios et al. US Pat 6,488,040 B1 discloses a wafer cleaner and dryer to be used in wafer manufacturing and appears to be pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights