DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication received on 10/18/2024. The claims 1-40 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 10, 15, 21, 31, & 37 is/are in independent form.
Election/Restrictions
Election by Phone:
During a telephone conversation with Benjamin A. Kimes (# 50,870) on 07/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1 -20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 21- 40 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1- 20, drawn to generating a first adjusted process parameter by considering first pre-set adjustment value (e.g., safety limits, spec, para .071) and the first direction of adjustment as part of process parameter indication and classified in G05B 19/0428.
II. Claims 21- 40, drawn to providing to the process tool a data collection plan in view of the field provisioned sensor and obtaining from the process tool an indication of performance of the first process operation and classified in G05B 13/04.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as determining performance of the first process operation and is not required in subcombination I. The subcombination I has separate utility such as ensuring that pre-set adjustment value are considered while performing adjustments to the first process parameters. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
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.
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:
In claims 8 & 20:
“an evaluation system”: shown as item 528 of fig. 5 and described in paras. [029] as various machine learning models or algorithms, and para. 0160
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 § 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- 2, 4- 11, 13- 16, & 18- 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1
1. A method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing device, an indication that a first process parameter is to be adjusted, and an associated first direction of adjustment;
obtaining a first pre-set adjustment value associated with the first process parameter;
adjusting the first process parameter to generate a first adjusted process parameter in view of the first pre-set adjustment value and the first direction of adjustment; and
enacting a process operation in view of the first adjusted process parameter.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a process with series of steps, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites limitations shown above with bold emphasis (i.e., “adjusting the first process parameter to generate a first adjusted process parameter in view of the first pre-set adjustment value and the first direction of adjustment; and
enacting a process operation in view of the first adjusted process parameter”). These both of the limitations, as drafted, under BRI cover mere changing of parameter (numerical) values by considering some other values. These both limitations can be considered an abstract idea based exception because they can be practically performed in human’s mind at most with the aid of a pen and paper.
For example, “adjusting the first process parameter to generate a first adjusted process parameter in view of the first pre-set adjustment value and the first direction of adjustment”, as drafted under BRI, cover performing some changes to the “first process parameter” (a numerical value(s)) by considering two other data, namely “first pre-set adjustment value” and “first direction of adjustment”. The direction of adjustment covers increase or decrease in setpoints as stated by applicant’s Spec, para.012: “direction of the adjustment (e.g., to increase or decrease the value of the parameter).”
The limitation of “enacting a process operation in view of the first adjusted process parameter” is very broadly recited and covers every possible “enacting a process operation” in view of “first adjusted process parameter”. This limitation covers mere further changing/observing/analyzing of the “first adjusted process parameter” values in human’s mind. That is, the limitation “enacting a process operation in view of the first adjusted process parameter” does not require specific and particular way of operating a process tool or processing device and hence also can be performed in human’s mind. If claim limitations, under thier broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas in this case for limitations with bold mephasis. Accordingly, the claim 1 clearly recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
obtaining, by a processing device, an indication that a first process parameter is to be adjusted, and an associated first direction of adjustment;
obtaining a first pre-set adjustment value associated with the first process
parameter.
Here, both of these additional elements are recited at very high level of generality using any known processing device to perform general data gathering step using generic processing device. Therefore, these both additional elements are akin to mere adding of pre-solution insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the using of “by a processing device” is akin to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) since it is also recited at high level of generality to perform data gathering task. Accordingly, the individual and combination of additional element(s) fail(s) to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, both of the additional elements amount to no more than adding pre-solution insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and implement an abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, the using of “by a processing device” is akin to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) since it is also recited at high level of generality to perform data gathering task.
Please note that, the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere collection or receipt of data using a processing device is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here by a processing device for “first process parameter” and “first pre-set adjustment value”). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Furthermore, examiner takes an Official notice that the limitations of “obtaining, by a processing device, an indication that a first process parameter is to be adjusted, and an associated first direction of adjustment; obtaining a first pre-set adjustment value associated with the first process parameter” are well-understood, routine, conventional activity by relying on the cited prior arts. See Marik (US 20250369639 A1, paras. [037, 081]); Leeland (US 20100116224 A1, paras. 030, 035); Drees (US 20180046164 A1, Paras. 076) as example—Berkheimer memo. Here, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Even when viewed the claim as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
As to claims 10 & 15, they recite similar claim limitations as the method claim 1 discussed above. However, claims 10 & 15 are directed to “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” and “a system comprising a memory and a processing device” respectively. Therefore, claims 10 & 15 also recite an abstract idea (adjusting the process parameter and enact a process operation steps) based judicial exception but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and recite additional elements (mere optaining an indication and pre-set adjustment value) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1. Accordingly, claims 10 & 15 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4- 7, 13- 14, & 18- 20, these claims depend on claims 1, 10, & 15 respectively and hence recite the same abstract idea and same additional elements of the independent claims as set forth above. These claims also introduce other new limitations that are not required in respective independent claims. However, these new limitations of the dependent claims too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence still abstract. Therefore, these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong 2 and provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim depends on claim 1 and hence still recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of the claim 1. The claim adds the limitation of “the processing device comprises a tool server coupled to a process tool, the tool server comprising a communication node configured to communicate with the process tool to enact the process operation.” However, mere specifying the processing device as a tool server coupled to a process tool to receive/send data can be understood by PHOSITA before filing of this application as nothing more than an “generic off-the-shelf computer”. Accordingly, the newly added limitation of the claim 2 goes nothing beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a network computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This type of the additional element is not an indicative of integration into a practical application and an inventive step- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed the claim as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11 & 16, these claims are not patent eligible for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claims 8- 9, they depend on claim 1 and hence still recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of the claim 1. These claims recite other new limitations which can be additional elements. However, they also under BRI, cover nothing more than a generic and off-the-shelf computer having generic algorithms/learning models. Hence, these limitations are akin to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Even viewing the claims as whole, these claims 8- 9 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1- 4, 6- 13, 15- 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Marik (US 20250369639 A1, Filing Date: 2024-05-31).
Regarding claim 1, Marik teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing device [“the computing device, such as a server running the optimizer 112 may also host the system 116”], an indication [“setpoints are provided by the optimizer 112 based on inputs from sensors”, optimizer “proposed setpoints” to change setpoint either in increased value or in decreased value based on the sensed data] that a first process parameter [operating parameters of the monitored assets like 104s] is to be adjusted [“process of adjusting the setpoints for the operating parameters”], and an associated first direction (increase or decrease setpoint, “for increasing and decreasing the setpoints of the asset 104-1”) of adjustment ([037, 071, 079, 098, 0123, 0165]);
obtaining a first pre-set adjustment value1 [“a range of and operational constraints… new values to which the setpoints are updated are confined within a predefined minimum and maximum thresholds”, “prespecified range of setpoints”] associated with the first process parameter ([037, 081, 0166]);
adjusting [“adjust the current setpoints of the asset 104-1 to bring the setpoints of the asset 104-1 within the first range of the setpoints.”, “system 116 checks the setpoints adjustments provided by the optimizer 112 and keeps the setpoints adjustments within the safe range of setpoints”] the first process parameter to generate a first adjusted process parameter [corrective actions taken to the setpoints selected by the optimizer] in view of [here before providing corrective actions, both the optimizer proposed and the safety level setpoint values are being considered] the first pre-set adjustment value and the first direction of adjustment; and enacting [“override any unsuitable setpoints that may result from faulty readings…the local controller 106, which can then configure the operating parameters of the asset 104-1 within these safe ranges of setpoints”] a process operation in view of the first adjusted process parameter ([082-083, 088, 0107, 0119, 0168]).
Regarding claim 2, Marik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the processing device comprises a tool server [server running optimizer 112 and the system 116] coupled to a process tool [one or more assets 116 of the building 102], the tool server comprising a communication node [network interface of the server to exchange data via the network 114] configured to communicate with the process tool to enact the process operation ([071], fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Marik teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the communication node is further configured to communicate with a user server [local controller 106], wherein the user server is configured to determine that the first process parameter is to be adjusted responsive to obtaining data [local server 106 receiving data from the optimizer and the safety ensuring system 116] in association with the process tool via the communication node (Fig. 1, [037, 083, 095]).
Regarding claim 4, Marik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first process parameter comprises an equipment constant [“setpoint”] associated with a process tool, or a set point [“bring the setpoints of the asset 104-1 within the first range of the setpoints”] associated with the process operation ([082, 0168]).
Regarding claim 6, Marik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first process parameter is of a plurality of process parameters [each of the parameters have different operating safe limits/thresholds], each associated with one of a plurality of pre-set adjustment values ([056, 077]).
Regarding claim 7, Marik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the indication that the first process parameter is to be adjusted is based on data obtained from a field-provisioned sensor [“BMS may consist of sensors that monitor the operating parameters” of the building 102] associated with a process tool ([008, 032]).
Regarding claim 8, Marik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the indication that the first process parameter is to be adjusted is generated by an evaluation system [a server computer having “an algorithm in the optimizer” 112] associated with process equipment [one or more of assets 104s of fig. 1] performing the process operation, and wherein the evaluation system generates the indication that the first process parameter is to be adjusted based at least in part on data obtained from the process equipment (Fig. 1, [039, 075]).
Regarding claim 9, Marik teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the evaluation system comprises one or more of a trained machine learning model, a physics-based model, a heuristic model, or an algorithm [optimizer 112 has an algorithm] ([039]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Marik teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processing device to perform operations comprising: (Figs. 8-9 [0182]);
obtaining an indication [“the temperature setpoint proposed by the optimizer 112”] that a first process parameter is to be adjusted, and an associated first direction of adjustment ([037, 0106, 0139]);
obtaining a first pre-set adjustment value [“safety and operational constraints”, “change limits”] associated with the first process parameter ([037, 0139]);
adjusting [No in S706 and performing step 710] the first process parameter to generate a first adjusted process parameter in view of [“current setpoint of the operating parameter of the asset 104-1 as provided by the optimizer 112, is compared,”] the first pre-set adjustment value and the first direction of adjustment; and enacting [“the corrective action may comprise overriding the optimizer 112 to provide the safe range of setpoints to the local controller 106”] a process operation in view of the first adjusted process parameter (Fig. 7, [095, 0166, 0171]).
Regarding claim 11, Marik teaches the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the processing device comprises a tool server [“server running the optimizer112 may also host the system 116”] coupled to a process tool, the tool server comprising a communication node configured to communicate with the process tool to enact the process operation (Fig. 1 [071]).
Regarding claim 12, Marik teaches the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the communication node is further configured to communicate with a user server [local controller 106], wherein the user server is configured to determine that the first process parameter is to be adjusted responsive to obtaining data in association with the process tool via the communication node (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Marik teaches the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the first process parameter comprises an equipment constant [setpoints] associated with a process tool, or a set point associated with the process operation ([071, 0116-0118], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claims 1 & 10 are incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Marik teaches a system [“the computing device, such as a server running the optimizer112 may also host the system 116”] comprising a memory and a processing device coupled to the memory, wherein the processing device is configured to: (Fig. 1, [071]);
obtain an indication [“the values of the setpoint proposed by the optimizer 112 exceed the predefined high hard limit and low hard limit that may correspond to the unsafe operating condition”] that a first process parameter is to be adjusted, and an associated first direction of adjustment; obtain a first pre-set adjustment value [limit/threshold values] associated with the first process parameter ([037, 0112]);
adjust [override the setpoints adjusted by the optimizer] the first process parameter to generate a first adjusted process parameter in view of the first pre-set adjustment value and the first direction of adjustment; and enact [running of the assets after taking “adjusting the current setpoint” for corrective actions] a process operation in view of the first adjusted process parameter ([012, 083, 0149]).
Regarding claim 16, Marik teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the processing device comprises a tool server coupled to a process tool, the tool server comprising a communication node configured to communicate with the process tool to enact the process operation (Fig. 1 [071]).
Regarding claim 17, Marik teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the communication node is further configured to communicate with a user server [local controller], wherein the user server is configured to determine that the first process parameter is to be adjusted responsive to obtaining data in association with the process tool via the communication node (Fig. 1, [064]).
Regarding claim 18, Marik teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the first process parameter comprises an equipment constant associated with a process tool, or a set point associated with the process operation ([037, 0131]).
Regarding claim 20, Marik teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the indication that the first process parameter is to be adjusted is generated by an evaluation system [“the optimizer 112”] associated with process equipment performing the process operation, and wherein the evaluation system generates the indication that the first process parameter is to be adjusted based at least in part on data obtained from the process equipment ([0145-0147]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 14- 15, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2Trejo et al. (US 20240210916 A1.) in view of Marik et al. (US 20250369639 A1, Filing Date: 2024-05-31).
Regarding claim 1, Trejo teaches a method [method performed by “efficiency module 129” by processing “receive sensor data associated with
substrate processing” of the system controller 128 shown in fig. 1], comprising:([0177, 0180]);
obtaining, by a processing device [system controller 128, wherein the “system controller can output a recommendation for substrate processing”], an indication [“based on predicted environmental resource usage data for multiple process recipes output from a model, one or more modifications to process recipe parameters (e.g., setpoints) of a particular recipe can be determined”] that a first process parameter [parameter of “a process tool 104”] is to be adjusted, and an associated first direction (the setpoints modification can be one of the increase or decrease value) of adjustment ([031, 042, 055, fig. 1);
adjusting the first process parameter [recommendations 284 wherein “the recommendation may indicate a change in recipe setpoints to reduce the resource consumption of the process recipe”] to generate a first adjusted process parameter in view of t
enacting [“send instruction to manufacturing system 302 to perform the optimization directly”] a process operation in view of the first adjusted process parameter ([0103, 0188]).
Trejo teaches a monitoring system with a machine learning system 370 to process collecting sensor data from a process tool 268/302 and providing one or more recommendations 284 that includes adjusted process parameters to the process tool 268 (Fig. 2B & associated texts).
However, Trejo fails to teach while determining adjusted process parameters (as part of its recommendations 284) checking whether such determined adjusted process parameters violate safety constraints or not. Put differently, Trejo fails to teach:
obtaining a first pre-set adjustment value associated with the first process parameter and
its adjusting the first process parameter is also based on in view of the first pre-set adjustment value.
Marik teaches controlling various process parameters of monitored equipment and changing setpoints thereof and ensuring safety of the assets while making setpoint adjustments (Abstract, Fig. 1, [077-078]). Specifically, Marik teaches a system/method comprising:
obtaining, by a processing device [server for optimizer 112 and the system 116], an indication [“setpoint proposed by the optimizer 112 “] that a first process parameter is to be adjusted, and an associated first direction of adjustment; obtaining a first pre-set adjustment value [“range of safety and operational constraints”] associated with the first process parameter; adjusting [“at block 710, the setpoints provided by the optimizer 112 for the operating parameters of the asset 104-1 is adjusted” by “by comparing the setpoints provided by the optimizer 112 with the corresponding prespecified range of setpoints.”] the first process parameter to generate a first adjusted process parameter in view of the first pre-set adjustment value and the first direction of adjustment (Fig. 7, [037, 0168]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Marik and Trejo because they both related to monitoring system changing/adjusting operational parameters based on the monitored sensor data and (2) modified the method/system of Trejo to include missing limitations as in Marik. Doing so would avoid accidental operating of the monitored tools in unsafe setpoints to ensure safe operation and durability of tools of the monitored system of Trejo while implementing the proposed/recommended recipe changes with setpoint adjustments (Marik [014, 040] & Trejo [0187]). Therefore, Trejo in view of Marik teach each limitations of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claims 10 & 15, Trejo in view of Marik teaches/suggests inventions of these claims for the similar reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Trejo in view of Marik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a process recipe comprising the process operation is enacted to process a plurality of substrates, and wherein the indication that the first process parameter is to be adjusted is based on [using the information of processing the old/historical substrates during the training of the “learning model” before the model is made fully trained and using the model to monitor new wafers processing] a first substrate [substrates whose processing data is used for training with “historical process recipes”] of the plurality of substrates, and the process operation is performed in connection with a second substrate [ongoing wafer(s) that is/are under/will be processed using the generated recommendations] of the plurality of substrates (Trejo [071-072, 0197]).
Regarding claims 14 & 19, Trejo in view of Marik teaches/suggests inventions of these claims for the similar reasons as in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Ren et al. (US 20240420025 A1) teaches adjusting parameters as determined by machine learning models including changing setpoints to new setpoints in a manufacturing processing (Abstract, [0151]).
2) Kesteren (US 20050115945 A1) teaches precise amount of an increase or decrease in the backside temperature can be based upon a relationship derived empirically from processing a plurality of wafers at different backside temperature set-point ([077]).
3) Funk et al. (US 20050065630 A1) teaches variables can be static (all sensors of this type have the same value), configurable by instance (each instance of the sensor type can have a unique value), or dynamically configurable by a data collection plan (each time the sensor is activated at run time, it can be given a different value) ([038]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 The spec in para.031, 035 describes “safe” limits as “pre-set adjustment value” as claimed.
2 Publication Date: 2024-06-27 which is before the filing date of the instant application of 10/18/2024. Hence, Trejo qualifies under 102(a)(1) even though is attributed to same assignee.
Prosecution Insights