DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
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 21-28, 31 and 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21, 34 and 41 recites a method / a non-transitory computer program product comprising computer-readable instructions therein for characterizing a patterning process, comprising the steps of obtaining a plurality of values of stitching errors; determining, using a hardware computer system, a distortion model to the plurality of values to obtain deformation; and physically configuring the patterning process based on the fitted distortion model and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the fitted distortion model to a system for use in configuration of the patterning process. These steps are a mental process of gathering and analyzing information so as to characterize a process and therefore recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Further, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claims 21, 34 and 41 recites a hardware computer system to perform the steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer element do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 21, 34 and 41 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer elements only provide for the implementing of mental process on a computer. Further, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the manufacturing processes is a well-known method.
Dependent claims 22-28, 31 and 35-40 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 21 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 22-28, 31 and 35-40 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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.
Claims 21-28 and 30-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norioka et al. [US 2001/0053243 A1] in view of Menchtchikov et al. [US 2011/0205510 A1].
Regarding claims 21, 34 and 41, Norioka et al. discloses a method (paragraph [0002]) / a non-transitory computer program product comprising computer-readable instructions therein for characterizing a patterning process (paragraph [0048]), the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of values of stitching errors made along one or more boundaries between at least two patterned adjacent fields or sub-fields on a substrate (as shown in Figs. 5-8, paragraphs [0041]), and using a software making use of known feature extraction algorithms for calculations of the deviations (paragraphs [0048]-[0050]), and configuring the patterning process based on the fitted distortion model and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the fitted distortion model to a system for use in configuration of the patterning process (as shown in Fig. 4, see also paragraphs [0048]-[0050]).
Norioka et al. does not explicitly teach fitting, using a hardware computer system, a distortion model to the plurality of values to represent deformation or at least a non-linear distribution of deformation at an interior away from the one or more boundaries of a field or sub-field out of the at least two patterned adjacent fields or sub-fields.
However, Menchtchikov et al. discloses modeling field distortion model parameters, scan/step direction model parameters and position/deformation model parameters for each subset of data related to stitching or overlay error (Abstract and paragraphs [0074]-[0079] and [0106]-[0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a distortion model to obtain a fingerprint representing wafer deformation, as taught by Menchtchikov et al. in the system of Norioka et al. because such a modification provides increases accuracy of the patterning process (paragraph [0119] of Menchtchikov et al.).
Regarding claims 22 and 35, Norioka et al. in view of Menchtchikov et al. discloses wherein the stitching errors are translation errors between first parts of features comprised within a first field or sub-field out of the at least two patterned adjacent fields or sub-fields and second parts of the features comprised within a second field or sub-field out of the at least two adjacent patterned fields or sub-fields (as shown in Figs. 6-8, see also paragraph [0050] of Norioka et al. and paragraphs [0074]-[0079] and [0106] of Menchtchikov et al.).
Regarding claims 23 and 36, Norioka et al. in view of Menchtchikov et al. discloses wherein the distortion model comprises distortion model parameters associated with 2D polynomial base functions or spline functions (paragraphs [0048]-[0050], see also Fig. 7 of Norioka et al. and paragraphs [0008] of Menchtchikov et al.).
Regarding claims 24, 25 and 37, Norioka et al. in view of Menchtchikov et al. discloses wherein the plurality of values of stitching errors include first values of stitching errors made along a first boundary between a first and a second adjacent field or sub-field and second values of stitching errors made along a second boundary between the first field or sub-field and a third adjacent field or sub-field, wherein the orientation of the first and second boundary is different, wherein the fitting of the distortion model is performed at least partially in separate steps, comprising at least a first step of fitting exclusively the distortion model to the first values of stitching errors and a second step of fitting the distortion model exclusively to the second values of stitching errors (as shown in Figs. 6-8, see also paragraph [0050] of Norioka et al. and paragraphs [0074]-[0079] and [0106] of Menchtchikov et al.).
Regarding claims 26-28, 38 and 39, Norioka et al. in view of Menchtchikov et al. discloses wherein the plurality of values of the stitching errors are associated with at least two different types of features and the distortion model is fitted to a subset of the plurality of values associated with one or more stitching error critical types of features, further comprising assigning a weight factor to distortion model parameters associated with the distortion model based on a measure of criticality of the one or more stitching error critical types of feature (paragraphs [0048]-[0050], [0057] of Norioka et al. and paragraphs [0074]-[0079] and [0106] of Menchtchikov et al.).
Regarding claim 30, Norioka et al. in view of Menchtchikov et al. discloses comprising configuring the patterning process based on the distortion model and the configuring comprises configuring a lithographic apparatus using a parameter value associated with the fitted distortion model (as shown in Fig. 4 of Norioka et al. and Figs. 5, 6 and 10 of Menchtchikov et al.).
Regarding claims 31 and 40, Norioka et al. in view of Menchtchikov et al. discloses further comprising: obtaining intra-field and/or inter-field deformation data; and performing one or more selected from: verifying consistency of the plurality of values of the stitching errors with the intra-field and/or inter-field data, combining the fingerprint with the intra-field and/or inter-field data to obtain an augmented fingerprint, and/or de-correct the fingerprint to isolate one or more contributors to the fingerprint (as shown in Figs. 6-8, see also paragraph [0050] of Norioka et al. and paragraphs [0074]-[0079] and [0106] of Menchtchikov et al.).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Norioka et al. in view of Menchtchikov et al. discloses comprising configuring the patterning process based on the distortion model and the configuring comprises manufacturing, designing or modifying a patterning device for use in the patterning process based on the fingerprint or a systematic component isolated from the fingerprint, comprising modifying the patterning device, wherein the modification of the patterning device is based on local exposure of a substrate of the patterning device to laser pulses, wherein the length of the laser pulses are in the femtosecond range and cause local modification of a density of the material of the substrate of the patterning device (as shown in Fig. 4, see also paragraphs [0048]-[0050] of Norioka et al. and Figs. 5, 6 and 10 of Menchtchikov et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “physically configuring, based on the determined distortion model and/or an output thereof, a patterning process that produces patterned substrates and/or providing a physical signal representing, or based on, the determined distortion model and/or an output thereof to a system for use in physical configuration of the patterning process.”, is not an abstract idea, but rather at least recite a specific practical application, see pages 7-8 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applied above, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the manufacturing processes is a well-known method.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the applied references does not teach “determining, using a hardware computer system, a distortion model based on the plurality of values such that the determined distortion model at least describes a distribution of deformation at an interior away from the one or more boundaries of a field or sub-field out of the at least two patterned adjacent fields or sub-fields” see pages 8-11 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this instance, the combines teaching of Norioka et al. and Menchtchikov et al. provides for characterizing a patterning process wherein a distortion model is fitted to the plurality of values of stitching errors to obtain deformation at an interior away from the one or more boundaries of a field or sub-field (paragraphs [0048]-[0050] of Norioka et al. and paragraphs [0106]-[0109] of Menchtchikov et al.).
As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882