DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 9, 2025 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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16 recites a computer program product that performs the steps of obtaining a plurality of qualities associated with a parameter of a process, filtering the plurality of qualities to determine contributors associated with and apparatus used in the process, and mapping the contributors to parameters. These steps are a mental process of gathering and analyzing information so as to determine a course of action.
The computer program product of the claim 16 is not practical application of the method because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The application of the mapping result to configure or modify the device manufacturing process and/or outputting a signal representing the result to a tool that configures or modifies the device manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to modify or configure the device manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure or modify is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claim 16 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. The application of the mapping result to configure or modify the device manufacturing process and/or outputting a signal representing the result to a tool that configures or modifies the device manufacturing process is an extra-insignificant solution because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to modify or configure the device manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure or modify is accomplished and using performance parameters to modify or adjust a device manufacturing processes is a well-known method (see examples in the abstract of Hu et al. [US 2018/0173110] and [0044] of Chang et al. [US 2004/0167748]).
Claim 31 recites method that comprises the steps of obtaining a plurality of qualities associated with a parameter of a process, filtering the plurality of qualities to determine contributors associated with and apparatus used in the process, and mapping the contributors to parameters. These steps are a mental process of gathering and analyzing information so as to determine a course of action.
Claim 31 recites a hardware computer system for perform the steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The application of the mapping result to configure or modify the device manufacturing process and/or outputting a signal representing the result to a tool that configures or modifies the device manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to modify or configure the device manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure or modify is accomplished.
Claim 31 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. The application of the mapping result to configure or modify the device manufacturing process and/or outputting a signal representing the result to a tool that configures or modifies the device manufacturing process is an extra-insignificant solution because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to modify or configure the device manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure or modify is accomplished and using performance parameters to modify or adjust a device manufacturing processes is a well-known method.
Claims 17-30 and 32-35 define characteristics of the qualities or the contributor information and describe how the computer system manipulates the obtained information by weighting or filtering. Further manipulation of the information or identifying characteristics of the information fails to add a meaningful limitation that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception and is rejected for the same reasoning provided for claims 16 and 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 16-23 and 25-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. [US 2004/0167748] in view of Hu et al. [US 2018/0173110].
For claims 16 and 31, Zhang teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Fig. 2 and [0040]) having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least:
obtain a plurality of qualities associated with a parameter of a device manufacturing process (metrology data set collected by the data collector 130 associated with exposure of the wafer 28, see [0026]-[0030]);
filter the plurality of qualities to obtain a plurality of contributors to the parameter (filtered data from the data filter 132 used to isolate errors associated with specific apparatus element in the slit direction, see [0031]-[0039] and [0044]) associated with one or more apparatuses used in the device manufacturing process, wherein at least one of the contributors is spatially systematic (scan invariant illumination source and lens vary across the slit direction, see [0016], [0018], and [0039]);
map the plurality of contributors to a performance parameter associated with one or more substrates subject to the device manufacturing process (correlating critical dimension errors of wafer 38 to causal factors such as scan dynamics, illumination uniformity, and lens aberrations, see [0013], [0025], [0028], [0039], and [0044]); and
cause application of a result of the mapping to configure or modify the device manufacturing process and/or output a signal representing, or based on, a result of the mapping to a tool or system for enabling the configuration or modification of the device manufacturing process (system 110 may be used to provide real-time analysis of exposure tool 10 that may be used to monitor and adjust production processes, see [0044]).
Zhang fails to teach the plurality of qualities is obtained from data from a plurality of substrates.
Hu teaches the plurality of qualities is obtained from data from a plurality of substrates (using overlay errors from previous measurements from a single or a plurality of wafers in one lot, see [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use measurement data form a plurality of wafers as taught by Hu in the correlation of contributing process systems as taught by Zhang in order to capture variations in error over time or to generate combination error maps that emphasize error distribution to identify system error trend.
For claims 17, 18, and 32, Zhang teaches wherein the plurality of qualities comprise metrology data or are derived from metrology data (see [0026]-[0030] and Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to filter the plurality of qualities are configured to cause the computer system to remove non-systematic contributors to the metrology data (reduces the data to the slit direction in accordance with the image field errors, and separates errors caused by other factors in order to determine across-slit errors such as errors associated with lens 22 or source 20, see [0039]).
For claim 19, Zhang teaches each contributor out of the plurality of contributors is a systematic contributor to the metrology data (scan variant errors, errors that occur in the scan direction are reduced and may be dealt with separately, see [0025], [0039], and [0044]).
For claims 20 and 33, Zhang teaches each quality out of the plurality of qualities relates to an individual contributor to the parameter (CD errors in X and Y direction relate to different contributors, see [0013], [0025], and [0039]).
For claims 21 and 34, Zhang teaches the performance parameter is the same as the parameter of the device manufacturing process (critical dimension, see [0025], [0039], and [0044]).
For claim 23, Zhang teaches the performance parameter is selected from: overlay, critical dimension (CD) (see [0013], [0025], [0039], and [0044]), edge placement error (EPE), focus, and/or dose.
For claim 25, Zhang teaches the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to determine a control metric based on the mapping of the contributors to the performance parameter, wherein the control metric is configured to be used in a control loop of the device manufacturing process (system 110 may be used to provide real-time analysis of exposure tool 10 that may be used to monitor and adjust production processes in order to reduce critical dimension errors, see [0044]).
For claim 26, Zhang teaches the instructions configured to cause the computer system to filter the plurality of qualities are configured to cause the computer system to filter the plurality of qualities based on a correction potential of an apparatus used in the device manufacturing process (weighted based on data quality increases correction potential, see [0032], weighting iteration stop when correction potential converges, see [0038]).
For claims 22, 27-30, and 35, Zhang fails to teach the instructions configured to cause the computer system to filter the plurality of qualities are further configured to cause the computer system to filter the plurality of qualities based on prior contributor information or prior qualities associated with one or more prior substrates processed by the device manufacturing process, the plurality of qualities is one or more corrections corresponding to a plurality of parameter maps of the device manufacturing process for a lot of substrates processed during the device manufacturing process, each parameter map of the plurality of parameter maps being generated from metrology data and from data of the one or more apparatuses used in the device manufacturing process, wherein the parameter maps each relate to an individual contributor to the device manufacturing process, and the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to determine a consistency characteristic for each parameter map based on a comparison of parameter maps relating to different layers and/or substrates processed during the device manufacturing process, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to determine whether a contributor is systematic based on the consistency characteristic.
Hu teaches the instructions configured to cause the computer system (see Figs. 1 and 2) to filter the plurality of qualities are further configured to cause the computer system to filter the plurality of qualities based on prior contributor information or prior qualities associated with one or more prior substrates processed by the device manufacturing process (reference overlay error from previous measurements used for filtering, see [0018] and [0042] and Fig. 2), the plurality of qualities is one or more corrections corresponding to a plurality of parameter maps of the device manufacturing process for a lot of substrates processed during the device manufacturing process (generated correction maps, see [0018] and Fig. 5), each parameter map of the plurality of parameter maps being generated from metrology data and from data of the one or more apparatuses used in the device manufacturing process (overlay error maps, see [0018]-[0020] Fig. 5), wherein the parameter maps each relate to an individual contributor to the device manufacturing process (reticle effects, see [0035] and [0036]), and the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to determine a consistency characteristic for each parameter map based on a comparison of parameter maps relating to different layers and/or substrates processed during the device manufacturing process (identifying non-systematic noise error in overlay between layers for wafer to wafer inconsistency, see [0037]), wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to determine whether a contributor is systematic based on the consistency characteristic (identifying the consistent characteristics that are systematic and those which are not, see [0035]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overlay error mapping as the qualities for determining contributions to overlay error as taught by Hu in the correlation of contributing process systems as taught by Zhang, because the overlay error allows for determining reticle alignment error between exposures and using that information to separate systematic error and non-systematic error (see [0035]-[0037] of Zhang).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jeong [US 2015/0043803].
For claim 24, Zhang fails to teach the instructions configured to cause the computer system to map the plurality of contributors to the performance parameter are further configured to cause the computer system to weight each contributor out of the plurality of contributors based on its degree of being systematic.
Jeong teaches the instructions configured to cause the computer system to map the plurality of contributors to the performance parameter are further configured to cause the computer system to weight each contributor out of the plurality of contributors based on its degree of being systematic (assign larger weights to the terms with low noise measured images and smaller weights to the terms with noisy measured images, see [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assign different weights based on the contribution of the element as taught by Jeong in the determined contributors as taught by Zhang in order to increase the accuracy and impact of the correction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 7and 8 of the Remarks, regarding claims 16 and 31, that the “cause application” clause of claim 16 and the “applying a result” clause of claim 31 are a specific practical application because it is applying an abstract idea to the configuration or modification of a device manufacturing process or tool/system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A device manufacturing process or tool/system includes every process and tool used in the manufacture of every device. The claims at issue in Diehr contained “specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent” and did not encompass every process and tool that produce a device (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when confined to semiconductor device manufacturing, the claimed abstract idea is only generally linked to a technological environment associated with the manufacture of a semiconductor device because the claims do not limit to any specific process or tool, or how the result of the mapping is implemented or applied.
The Applicant argues on pages 8 and 10 of the Remarks regarding claims 16 and 31, that Hu fails to cure the deficiencies of Zhang by not teaching the obtaining of a plurality of qualities associated with a parameter of a device manufacturing process from data from a plurality of substrates.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hu teaches in [0018] performing analysis to remove noise and generate correction maps based on measurements from a plurality of wafers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al. [US 2015/0067617] teaches generating correction maps for a plurality of wafers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached on 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759