DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on February 10, 2022. Claims 1-20 are under examination. Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims.
Claim 15 is objected to.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible.
Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over David and Ha.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over David, Ha, and Wu.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
35 USC 112(b) rejections: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
35 USC 101 rejections: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments will be addressed in the order presented in the Applicant’s response.
The claims as allegedly applied ala Diehr: The Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite
“cause physical configuration of the manufacturing process of manufacturing a pattern on a substrate based on the model and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the model to a system for use in configuration of the manufacturing process.”
In one sense, a scope of this could be “manufacturing the pattern on a substrate according to the design of the model.” This is a mere “apply it” step similar to the example in MPEP 2106.05(f), “vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Because this is an “apply it” step, under MPEP 2106.05(f), it cannot confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 or at Step 2B.
Another interpretation of the claim feature that is within the scope of the claim feature is indicating that the modeling process is over and the manufacturing process can begin. Providing a notice that an abstract idea has been completed after its completion is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity. Still another interpretation is that the model data is transferred to a manufacturing computer for manufacturing after the abstract idea completes the model, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(d): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price” and MPEP 2106.05(g): “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display.”) Because these other valid claim interpretations are insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC, the claim feature cannot confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
In Diehr, the abstract idea was woven into the claim, integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims at issue tack on a dangling apply it step at the end after the abstract idea has already accomplished the purported inventive features of the claim. Further, in the claim at issue in Diehr, the manufacturing steps are explicitly conducted by automated elements. The independent claims of the instant application do not require automation for any manufacturing step. The claims at issue are not analogous to those in Diehr.
35 USC 103: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments will be addressed in the order presented in the Applicant’s response.
Definition of De-Corrected Overlay Data: The Applicant asserts on Pages 11-12 of the response:
“The Office Action relies on paragraphs [0034], [0039], [0043]-[0045], [0066], [0113] and [0159] and claim 17 of David. However, the cited portions of David do not appear to disclose or teach, for example, de-corrected measured overlay data associated with the current layer of the current substrate. There is no disclosure or teaching of "de-corrected" or de-correction or anything comparable in the cited portions of David. The Office Action in particular relies on paragraph [0045] of David. However, not only does paragraph [0045] of David not say anything about a correction (there is no use of the word "correct" or anything comparable therein), paragraph [0045] of David has no mention of overlay data.
The Office Action argues that "de-corrected overlay data... is merely sensed data sensed on the currently [sic] layer of the substrate." Respectfully, that is an unreasonable and overbroad interpretation. Overlay data is not "merely sensed data." It is overlay data. As noted above, paragraph [0045] of David does not reference overlay data at all. Moreover, "de-corrected" necessarily implicates that there has been, or will be, an overlay correction in forming the structures to which the measured de-corrected overlay relates. In other words, a removal ("de-") of a correction. It doesn't say "pre- correction" as seemingly interpreted in the Office Action. For example, de-corrected measured overlay can be determined by measurement of overlay of structures on a substrate wherein one or more overlay corrections that would otherwise be applied in forming those one or more structures are not applied to arrive at de-corrected measured overlay data. Or, for example, the de-corrected measured overlay can be determined by measurement of overlay of structures on a substrate to which one or more overlay corrections are applied in forming those one or more structures and removing (e.g., adding to or subtracting from the measured overlay) those one or more overlay corrections to arrive at de-corrected measured overlay data. The cited portions of David have no disclosure or teaching regarding anything like this.”
The Applicant attempts to assert a definition of “de-corrected overlay data.” A Google search yielded that “de-corrected overlay data” is not a term of art (See Google Search of Record, backdated to the earliest priority date of the filing). Therefore, the Applicant’s asserted definition would have to come from the specification. However, the Applicant’s specification states in paragraph [0082]:
“For example, Figure 4B illustrates the difference between a predicted de-corrected overlay data PDOD (e.g., a map) and a measured de-corrected overlay data MDOD (an example of a ground truth or a reference map). In the present example, the predicted de-corrected overlay data PDOD is associated with a current layer of the substrate being processed. Such predicted data PDOD is obtained, via executing the model (e.g., CNN in Figure 4A) using the inputs DS1 and DS2, before any corrections are applied to the current layer. Similarly, the measured data MDOD is obtained via a metrology tool before any corrections are applied to the current layer. If the predictions of the model (e.g., CNN in Figure 4A) are accurate, then the difference DIFF should very close to zero, and ideally be zero.”
Contrary to the assertions by the Applicant, if there is an expectation that there will be a correction, then the de-corrected overlay data, whether predicted or measured, as defined in the Applicant’s specification, absolutely is pre-correction data (“before any corrections are applied to the current layer”). For this reason, the measured de-corrected overlay data, as claimed and guided by the specification, includes in its scope measured overlay data measured prior to a correction of some kind. David, Paragraph [0045] states:
“In another example, metrology data can be collected during etch processes. Optical emissions spectra or spectral data from photoluminescence can be utilized as input data. Data transformation or feature engineering can be performed on in-situ spectral data or other sensor data that is collected during a particular process Such as etch, deposition, or CMP. As an example, multiple spectra may be collected in-situ during processing. The spectral set used may be all spectra collected during processing, or a Subset of spectra collected during processing. Statistics such as mean, standard deviation, min, and max may be collected at each wavelength interval of the spectral set over time and used as data inputs. As an alternative example, similar statistics can be collected for a given spectrum, and the time series of those statistics can be used as data inputs. As yet another example, peaks and Valleys in the spectrum can be identified and used as data inputs (applying similar statistical transformation). The spectra may need to be normalized or filtered (e.g., lowpass filter) to reduce process or system noise.”
David collects metrology data prior to correcting the layer by data transformation, feature engineering, normalization, or filtering. Therefore, David teaches the claimed de-corrected overlay data. The art rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites, “the current substrate,” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim 15 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical operation, which are abstract ideas.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “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 courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept […] a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): “Mathematical Relationships. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Claim 15 recites (claim features in italics, paragraph references are to the Applicant’s application specification):
determine, based on (i) the first data set, (ii) the second data set, and (iii) the de- corrected measured overlay data, values of a set of model parameters associated with a model for predicting overlay data associated with the current substrate being patterned such that the model predicts overlay data for the current substrate, wherein the values of the set of model parameters are determined such that a cost function is minimized, the cost function comprising a difference between the predicted overlay data and the de-corrected measured overlay data.
The determine step and associated wherein clause is an element of an evaluation, a mental process, which can be performed in the mind of a person or with a pen and paper. Evaluating a machine learning model using regression is just an evaluation of mathematical operations (feed-forward for numerical output, comparison for cost/loss, backpropagation using regression to adjust numerical weights of the model. ([00206] “Procedure P1503 includes providing the performance data1501 of the portions of the patterned substrate layers as input to a base prediction model to obtain predicted performance data 1503 associated with the portions of a first layer of the substrate. In an embodiment, the model is at least one of: a linear model; or a machine learning model. In an embodiment, the machine learning model can be a neural network. For example the machine learning model can be at least one of: multi- layer perceptron; random forest; adaptive boosting trees; support vector regression; Gaussian process regression; k-nearest neighbors; feed forward; recurrent neural network; long/short term memory; gated recurrent; auto encoder; Markov chain; Hopfield network; Boltzmann machine; deep belief network, or other versions of a neural network. In an embodiment, the machine learning model is an advanced machine learning model including at least one of: a residual neural network (RNN); a convolutional neural network (CNN); or a deep CNN. In an embodiment, the RNN model is formulated to include input associated with patterned substrate layers of a current lot of substrates or patterned substrate layers of a prior of substrates as time axis. RNN has the ability to model correlations between features in time and in frequency domain. It's a way to stack the inputs. For example, in the RNN, a set of filters is convolved with the input that results in multiple output-maps, one per filter. This is followed by the application of an element-wise activation function, such as the 6(-) function. These operations are performed on an input data with two axes, such as a spectrogram (time x frequency).”) Further, determine step and associated wherein clause includes and/or is expressed as mathematical calculations or mathematical relationships, which are mathematical concepts. Evaluating a machine learning model using regression is just an evaluation of mathematical operations (feed-forward of numerical input through the model for numerical output, comparison of the output vs expected numerical amount for numerical cost/loss, and backpropagation using regression to adjust numerical weights of the model based on the cost/loss). ([00206] - as previously quoted) The wherein clause merely qualifies the nature of the numerical parameters used in the determination. Being a mental process and a mathematical concept, the determine step and associated wherein are elements of an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
MPEP 2106.04(d): “[A]fter determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or 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 judicial exception. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth in subsection I below, in accordance with the procedure described below in subsection II.”
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to […] more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.
MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. […] Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: […] vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
The claim 15 additional limitations (in italics):
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least:
The computer program product is a recitation of a general purpose computer with no specific configurations to execute the claimed method. As such, under MPEP 2106.05(f), the computer implementation implements the recited abstract idea on a generic computer, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two.
obtain (i) a first data set associated with one or more prior layers and/or current layer of the current substrate being patterned, (ii) a second data set comprising overlay metrology data associated with one or more prior substrates that were patterned before the current substrate, and (iii) de-corrected measured overlay data associated with the current layer of the current substrate; and
The obtain step merely gathers existing information (first, second, and de-corrected measured overlay data) for evaluation. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Mere Data Gathering, an analogous example is provided: “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” Under MPEP 2106.05(g), receiving data for evaluation is not significant in meaningfully limiting the invention, and the receiving of the data is necessary to the evaluations and mathematical operations of the claim. Under MPEP 2106.05(g), the obtain step adds nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity, so it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two.
The obtain step and wherein clause also describe different types of data, but these different types of data merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., lithography). The obtaining step is analogous to the MPEP 2106.05(h) example, “vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.” Under MPEP 2106.05(h), lining this limitation to a particular field of use is not an additional limitation that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Cause physical configuration of a manufacturing process of manufacturing a pattern on a substrate based on the model and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the model to a system for use in configuration of the manufacturing process.
In one sense, a scope of this could be “manufacturing the pattern on a substrate according to the design of the model.” This is a mere “apply it” step similar to the example in MPEP 2106.05(f), “vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Because this is an “apply it” step, under MPEP 2106.05(f), it cannot confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 or at Step 2B.
Another interpretation of the claim feature that is within the scope of the claim feature is indicating that the modeling process is over and the manufacturing process can begin. Providing a notice that an abstract idea has been completed after its completion is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity. Still another interpretation is that the model data is transferred to a manufacturing computer for manufacturing after the abstract idea completes the model, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(d): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price” and MPEP 2106.05(g): “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display.”) Because these other valid claim interpretations are insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC, the claim feature cannot confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 15 does not include any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 15 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
MPEP 2106.05(I) “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. […] Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.”
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: “[I]mplementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
MPEP 2106.05(g): “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).”
MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. […] Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: […] vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least:
The computer program product is a recitation of a general purpose computer with no specific configurations to execute the claimed method. As such, under MPEP 2106.05(f), the computer implementation implements the recited abstract idea on a generic computer, and does not combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer eligibility at Step 2B.
obtain (i) a first data set associated with one or more prior layers and/or current layer of the current substrate being patterned, (ii) a second data set comprising overlay metrology data associated with one or more prior substrates that were patterned before the current substrate, and (iii) de-corrected measured overlay data associated with the current layer of the current substrate; and
This obtain step is receiving or transmitting data also storing and retrieving information from memory, so it is analogous to the examples cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) representing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Also, as demonstrated with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the obtain step is insignificant extra-solution activity and merely links the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
As discussed the additional limitation of the computer program product, is mere execution on a generic computer, and the additional limitation of the receiving step with the wherein clause is insignificant extra-solution activity, a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, and the data recited merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, none of the additional limitations can provide the abstract idea with significantly more to render the combination of the additional limitations an inventive concept, under MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g), and MPEP 2106.05(h).
physically configuring a manufacturing process of manufacturing a pattern on a substrate based on the model and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the model to a system for use in configuration of the manufacturing process.
In one sense, a scope of this could be “manufacturing the pattern on a substrate according to the design of the model.” This is a mere “apply it” step similar to the example in MPEP 2106.05(f), “vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Because this is an “apply it” step, under MPEP 2106.05(f), it cannot confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 or at Step 2B.
Another interpretation of the claim feature that is within the scope of the claim feature is indicating that the modeling process is over and the manufacturing process can begin. Providing a notice that an abstract idea has been completed after its completion is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity. Still another interpretation is that the model data is transferred to a manufacturing computer for manufacturing after the abstract idea completes the model, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(d): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price” and MPEP 2106.05(g): “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display.”) Because these other valid claim interpretations are insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC, the claim feature cannot confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Therefore, there are no additional limitations in claim 15 that furnish claim 15 with an inventive concept to ensure that claim 15, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the bolded abstract idea.
Claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Claim 1 recites the method performed by the computer program product of claim 15. Therefore, because claim 1’s obtaining and determining steps and wherein clause and the amended physically configuring step are treated in the same way as claim 15’s obtain and determine steps and wherein clause and the amended physically configure step, respectively, under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, Claim 1 is ineligible for at least the same reasons as claim 15.
Claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are also ineligible subject matter for at least the following reasons.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites,
wherein the first data set further comprises:
lithographic apparatus data associated with one or more lithographic apparatuses being used for patterning the one or more prior layers and/or the current layer of the current substrate, and
fabrication context data associated with one or more processing tools that the current substrate was subjected to before the current layer being patterned or will be subjected to after the current layer is patterned.
Claim 2 merely qualifies the parameters used in the model, which is an element of the abstract idea (the model is a mathematical relationship evaluated with mathematical operations- mental process and mathematic concept). Therefore, this merges with the abstract idea. Additionally or alternatively, this also represents an element of the obtaining step, which was demonstrated to be insignificant extra-solution activity and a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. That is, the features of the claim are mere data gathering analogous to the example of insignificant extra-solution activity, “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” under 2106.05(g), and are also analogous to the well-understood, routine, and conventional function examples, “[…] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,” under 2106.05(d). Also, additionally or alternatively, the description of data to be input merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use analogous to the example, “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015),” under MPEP 2106.05(h). Regardless of whether the features of claim 2 are elements of the abstract idea or are directed to an additional limitation that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept under Step 2B, claim 2 fails to provide any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and or combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept under Step 2B. Therefore, claim 2 is directed to the abstract idea without providing significantly more. MPEP 2106.04; MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(g); MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites,
wherein the lithographic apparatus data comprises one or more selected from:
a lithographic apparatus identifier and a lithographic apparatus chuck identifier associated with the one or more lithographic apparatuses;
measurements computed via one or more sensors or a measurement system of the one or more lithographic apparatuses;
one or more key performance indicators associated with the one or more lithographic apparatuses and related to an overlay of the current substrate; and/or
metrology data obtained from one or more alignment sensors, one or more leveling sensors, one or more height sensors, or one or more other sensors attached in the one or more lithographic apparatuses.
Claim 3 merely qualifies the parameters used in the model, which is an element of the abstract idea (the model is a mathematical relationship evaluated with mathematical operations- mental process and mathematic concept). Therefore, this merges with the abstract idea. Additionally or alternatively, this also represents an element of the obtaining step, which was demonstrated to be insignificant extra-solution activity and a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. That is, the features of the claim are mere data gathering analogous to the example of insignificant extra-solution activity, “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” under 2106.05(g), and are also analogous to the well-understood, routine, and conventional function examples, “[…] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,” under 2106.05(d). Also, additionally or alternatively, the description of data to be input merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use analogous to the example, “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015),” under MPEP 2106.05(h). Regardless of whether the features of claim 3 are elements of the abstract idea or are directed to an additional limitation that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept, claim 3 fails to provide any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and or combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept under Step 2B. Therefore, claim 3 is directed to the abstract idea without providing significantly more. MPEP 2106.04; MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(g); MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 3 is ineligible
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites,
wherein the one or more processing tools comprise one or more selected from:
an etch chamber, a chemical mechanical polishing tool, an overlay measurement tool, and/or a critical dimension (CD) metrology tool.
NOTE: Claim 4 recites sources of information that are unrelated to any active element of the claim. For example, the claim includes a situation where all of the data collected is first stored and the method begins after all of the data is acquired and stored. Even if one were to positively recite the measurement of the data with the claimed machines, it would still be insignificant extra-solution activity, a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, and would be merely linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, even if claim 4 were to positively recite measuring using these machines, it would be insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept.
Claim 4 merely qualifies the parameters used in the model, which is an element of the abstract idea (the model is a mathematical relationship evaluated with mathematical operations- mental process and mathematic concept). Therefore, this merges with the abstract idea. Additionally or alternatively, this also represents an element of the obtaining step, which was demonstrated to be insignificant extra-solution activity and a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. That is, the features of the claim are mere data gathering analogous to the example of insignificant extra-solution activity, “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” under 2106.05(g), and are also analogous to the well-understood, routine, and conventional function examples, “[…] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,” under 2106.05(d). Also, additionally or alternatively, the description of data to be input merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use analogous to the example, “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015),” under MPEP 2106.05(h). Regardless of whether the features of claim 4 are elements of the abstract idea or are directed to an additional limitation that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept Step 2B, claim 4 fails to provide any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and or combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept under Step 2B. Therefore, claim 4 is directed to the abstract idea without providing significantly more. MPEP 2106.04; MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(g); MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 4 is ineligible
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites,
wherein the first data set comprises:
overlay metrology data of the one or more prior layers and/or the current layer of a current substrate, the overlay metrology data comprising: (i) measured overlay data obtained after an overlay correction is applied to the one or more prior layers of the current substrate, and/or (ii) de-corrected overlay data obtained before the overlay correction is applied to the one or more prior layers of the current substrate;
alignment metrology data of the one or more prior layers and/or the current layer of the current substrate, the alignment metrology data comprising: (i) alignment sensor data, (ii) a residual map generated via an alignment system model, (iii) a substrate quality map comprising signals of varying strength, the substrate quality map indicative of reliability of the alignment data, and/or (iv) a color2color difference map obtained via projection of a plurality of colored-laser beams on the substrate, each colored-laser beam reflecting from an alignment mark on the one or more prior layers, the respective reflected beam generating a diffraction pattern, the color2color difference map being a difference between a first diffraction pattern and a second diffraction pattern, the first diffraction pattern being associated with a first color of the plurality of colored-laser beams and the second diffraction pattern being associated with a second color of the plurality of colored-laser beams;
leveling metrology data of the one or more prior layers and/or the current layer of the current substrate, the leveling metrology data comprising: (i) a substrate height data, and/or (ii) the substrate height data converted to x and y direction displacements; and/or
fabrication context information of the one or more prior layers and/or the current layer of the current substrate, the context information comprising: (i) a lag time associated with a process of a patterning process, (ii) a chuck identifier on which a current substrate was mounted, (iii) a chamber identifier indicating a chamber in which a process of the patterning process was performed, and/or (iv) a chamber fingerprint characterizing an overlay contribution of one or more processing parameters associated with the chamber.
Claim 5 merely qualifies the parameters used in the model, which is an element of the abstract idea (the model is a mathematical relationship evaluated with mathematical operations- mental process and mathematic concept). Therefore, this merges with the abstract idea. Additionally or alternatively, this also represents an element of the obtaining step, which was demonstrated to be insignificant extra-solution activity and a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. That is, the features of the claim are mere data gathering analogous to the example of insignificant extra-solution activity, “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” under 2106.05(g), and are also analogous to the well-understood, routine, and conventional function examples, “[…] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,” under 2106.05(d). Also, additionally or alternatively, the description of data to be input merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use analogous to the example, “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015),” under MPEP 2106.05(h). Regardless of whether the features of claim 5 are elements of the abstract idea or are directed to an additional limitation that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept, claim 5 fails to provide any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and or combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept under Step 2B. Therefore, claim 5 is directed to the abstract idea without providing significantly more. MPEP 2106.04; MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(g); MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 5 is ineligible
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites,
wherein the first data set further comprises derived data associated with one or more parameters of a patterning process associated with a contribution to overlay, wherein the derived data is derived from the lithographic apparatus data and/or fabrication context information.
Claim 6 merely qualifies the parameters used in the model, which is an element of the abstract idea (the model is a mathematical relationship evaluated with mathematical operations- mental process and mathematic concept). Therefore, this merges with the abstract idea. Additionally or alternatively, this also represents an element of the obtaining step, which was demonstrated to be insignificant extra-solution activity and a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. That is, the features of the claim are mere data gathering analogous to the example of insignificant extra-solution activity, “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” under 2106.05(g), and are also analogous to the well-understood, routine, and conventional function examples, “[…] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,” under 2106.05(d). Also, additionally or alternatively, the description of data to be input merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use analogous to the example, “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015),” under MPEP 2106.05(h). Regardless of whether the features of claim 6 are elements of the abstract idea or are directed to an additional limitation that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept, claim 6 fails to provide any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and or combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept under Step 2B. Therefore, claim 6 is directed to the abstract idea without providing significantly more. MPEP 2106.04; MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(g); MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 6 is ineligible
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites,
wherein the model is configured to predict overlay data at a point-level of the current substrate, where a point is a location associated with an overlay mark formed on the current substrate.
NOTE: The claim does not positively recite the step of displaying or emitting light to gorm an overlay mark.
Claim 7 merely qualifies the parameters used in the model, which is an element of the abstract idea (the model is a mathematical relationship evaluated with mathematical operations- mental process and mathematic concept). Therefore, this merges with the abstract idea. Also, additionally or alternatively, the description of data to be output merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular field o