DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 1/7/2025 filling of Application 19/012,374. Claims 1-7 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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: the recited circuitry in claims 1-6.
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 limitation “1-6” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The recited circuitry is not disclosed in the specification and as such it is not clear what corresponding structure executes the recited circuitry. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claim 7 is directed toward An information processing method for setting values in semiconductor processing. As such, Claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The specification does not define what the corresponding structure is to execute the recited circuitry. The recited apparatus claims merely comprises instructions, which makes the system claim software per se. Software per se claims are not one of the four statutory classes of invention and therefore claims 1-6 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) 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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of setting values in semiconductor processing which falls into the abstract idea category of mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
acquire a setting value for each processing step executed by a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to the setting value, and generate information for grouping processing steps executed according to the same setting value;
extract at least one second processing step that has a setting value identical to a setting value of a first processing step and that is executed before the first processing step when the setting value of the first processing step specified from a time when an abnormality occurred is included in the information for grouping;
set the first processing step and the second processing step as an analysis target section; and
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
The instant claims recite mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. For example, the steps of:
acquire a setting value for each processing step executed by a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to the setting value, and generate information for grouping processing steps executed according to the same setting value;
extract at least one second processing step that has a setting value identical to a setting value of a first processing step and that is executed before the first processing step when the setting value of the first processing step specified from a time when an abnormality occurred is included in the information for grouping;
set the first processing step and the second processing step as an analysis target section; and
are mental processes. There is nothing is nothing the claims that preclude these steps from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
The recited circuitry and
display control circuitry configured to display a graph indicating an analysis result of the analysis target section.
However, the circuitry is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further, the display of a graph amounts to insignificant data display which amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the processing circuitry 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.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the display of data is anything other than conventional. The Examiner takes official notice that displaying the result of an analysis is well-known and conventional.
Further Claims 2-5 further limit the mental processes recited in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 2-5 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a computer program product, of method for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 6,7 are also rejected.
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, 2, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaul US 20230022733 A1 in view of US 20210397152 A1.
As per Claim 1 Kaul teaches An information processing apparatus comprising:
grouping information generation circuitry configured to acquire a setting value for each processing step executed by a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to the setting value, and Kaul para. 94 teaches In step 609, the reinforcement learning model outputs proposed manufacturing characteristics for achieving the requested product to one or more systems for production by a manufacturing asset 207. For instance, an MES configures the initial set of rules for the manufacturing characteristics being implemented by the manufacturing asset 207 and DCS stores the asset settings 233 of the equipment being used for production. Examples of manufacturing characteristics can include the material grades, dimensions, the best production route, etc. to achieve the product within the requested quality and specifications while adhering to the constraints, and limitations set forth by the commercial characteristics and accounting for the state of the manufacturing assets 207.
generate information for grouping processing steps executed according to the same setting value; Kaul para. 69 teaches [0069] Embodiments of the training module 213 may train or update reinforcement learning model 215 using historical rules of rules database 237 in conjunction with historical production records 239. Embodiments of rules database 237 may include an existing set of rules for treating incoming production orders with specified quality parameters during the order dressing phase of manufacturing. Moreover, a database comprising historical production records 239 may further be applied by the training module 213 while training or updating the reinforcement learning model 215. Historical production records 239 can include historical information describing previously manufactured products, including data and/or metadata describing the materials used, process parameters and constraints, the order dressing rules applied, conditions of the manufacturing asset(s) 207 used during production, and the measurable quality of the product that was outputted.
data extraction circuitry configured to extract at least one second processing step that has a setting value identical to a setting value of a first processing step and that is executed before the first processing step when the setting value of the first processing step specified from a time when an abnormality occurred is included in the information for grouping; Kaul para. 15 teaches Using the current rules of the rules database, and historical production records database describing previous production settings for successful product production, the reinforcement learning module may output a translation of the set of inputted commercial characteristics into manufacturing characteristics expected to provide a maximum award to the agent of the reinforcement learning model.
Further, Kaul para. 78 teaches in some embodiments, the presence of new components, configurations or other changes to the manufacturing asset 207, including degradation of the manufacturing asset 207 may be deduced by the performance characteristics of the data collected by the monitoring devices 231, 235. Deviations between previously collected performance data and current data sets of performance data can result in an identification of changes to the manufacturing asset 207 and/or the overall health and efficiency of the manufacturing asset 207. For example, changes in performance may indicate the degradation of existing parts, new or replacement parts or components, modified configurations and asset settings 233, software or firmware update, damage, repairs, etc. Embodiments of the digital twin module 221 may analyze the performance changes based on the changes in the performance data collected and reflect the changes to the manufacturing asset 207 as a new digital twin model 223 in some embodiments. In other embodiments, the digital twin module 221 may report the detected changes in performance data to the metrics module 217, along with additional performance or lifecycle insights, and recommendations for compensating for such changes to operating conditions of the manufacturing assets 207, as reflected by the digital twin models 223.
analysis target section setting circuitry configured to set the first processing step and the second processing step as an analysis target section; and Kayl para. 17 teaches moreover, digital twins can also alert operators of the manufacturing systems about faulty or failing parts, settings or configuration adjustments that may modify or impact performance and suggest upgrades or replacement parts that may return the manufacturing system to previous optimal performance and/or improved operational performance.
display control circuitry configured to display an analysis result of the analysis target section.
Kaul para. 80 teaches through the use of the collected datasets, organized, analyzed and/or formatted by the data collection engine 227, the digital twin module 221 may analyze each of the manufacturing assets' 207 performance, identify failing parts, provide resolutions to cure errors or diagnostic codes and recommend optimal actions to improve or optimize performance of the manufacturing asset 207 based on one or more simulations.
Kaul does not teach displaying a graph However, Chen para. 94 teaches [0094] FIG. 5 illustrates such a graph which may be an output of a method according to an embodiment. The graph shows a quality metric Q on the y-axis (where higher values indicate lower quality) and metrology time TM (or other metrology effort metric) on the x-axis. The graph is divided into four quadrants. The bottom-left quadrant is the quadrant of interest where both the quality metric and metrology time specifications are met (i.e., quality and metrology are acceptable). The top-left quadrant relates to a solution space for which the metrology time specification is met, but the quality metric specification is exceeded (i.e., the quality is insufficient). The bottom-right quadrant relates to a solution space for which the quality metric specification is met, but the metrology time specification is exceeded. Both Kaul and Chen are directed to manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kaul to include displaying a graph to assist in optimizing the process for optimal yield (see para. 43).
As per Claim 2 Kaul teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the grouping information generation circuitry add the setting value of the first processing step to the information for grouping when the setting value of the first processing step is not included in the information for grouping. Kaul para. 71 teaches Predictions performed by the reinforcement learning model 215 can be made by considering historical production records 239 of previous manufacturing jobs that may be similar to the current request, as well as adjust predictions in view of the historical production records 239 to compensate for changes in the type or quality of materials being used, changes in the operating conditions of the manufacturing assets 207 including degradation to the manufacturing assets 207 over time. Based on the history of input material grades used, the measured output quality produced, process parameters and machine conditions, the reinforcement learning model 215 can establish a co-relation to the between the historical records and current production requests, then recommend the correct inputs and process parameters during order dressing phase of manufacturing to increase the probability that the output quality of the product being produced by the manufacturing asset(s) 207 is correct on the first pass.
As per Claim 5 Kaul teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: abnormality detection circuitry configured to detect an abnormality in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus using a management value set based on the graph. Kaul para. 78 teaches in some embodiments, the presence of new components, configurations or other changes to the manufacturing asset 207, including degradation of the manufacturing asset 207 may be deduced by the performance characteristics of the data collected by the monitoring devices 231, 235. Deviations between previously collected performance data and current data sets of performance data can result in an identification of changes to the manufacturing asset 207 and/or the overall health and efficiency of the manufacturing asset 207. For example, changes in performance may indicate the degradation of existing parts, new or replacement parts or components, modified configurations and asset settings 233, software or firmware update, damage, repairs, etc. Embodiments of the digital twin module 221 may analyze the performance changes based on the changes in the performance data collected and reflect the changes to the manufacturing asset 207 as a new digital twin model 223 in some embodiments.
Claims 6 and 7 recited similar limitation to those recited in claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights